Using logic and reason to oppose abortion...

[questioner4]

Okay, even though I've been questioning my faith for over a year, I am still firmly pro-life - although I believe 'traditional' pro-lifers go about it the wrong way. I believe thast abortion is wrong, because I oppose discrimination on all grounds. I believe it is being discriminatory to deny basic human rights to the smallest humans, simply because they are still dependant on the mother. It really would be nice to hear people oppose abortion on grounds other than the Bible.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Are you a 'non-traditional pro-lifer'? If you are Christian and pro-life, can you think of any non-Biblical reasons to oppose abortion?

[Cathar1950]

I see no reason to agree with everything Paul said and most scholars agree paul did not right that letter but it was a 2nd century forgery.
It would seem the only purpose for man would be to provide seed with that logic and you only need a few of them to do that ..lets say 72 females for every male. Heaven is like that for some people.
I would be tired and doubt I would be one of the males picked but that is besides the point.

[Nirvana-Eld]

Steen I thought you were above this.

Well, there has to be a point in replying, after all. If your post was pointless, then there is no reason to answer it.

Then I will assume that you concede the argument in its entirety. Just because you don't want to reply does not mean it becomes pointless. If it was so pointless then show me my error in the argument so that I may benifit. I kindly asked for a response in my post and you denied it and called it pointless. Thus nothing more can be thought other than you concede my points. End of story.

Oh, I must have hit a nerve.

Why yes you did, by not replying to my post when I requested it and then deeming it pointless. Not very Christian don't you think?

Why the lie? I have no problem when you call something a fact as long as it actually is factual. That I call you on it when you falsely portray emotional ranting as "facts" that doesn't mean that I hate anything; only that I correct your falsehoods.

Show me one place in my restatement and revision where I used emotion as a supporting detail in the least. The FACT is that its not there. I used logic a reason to the best of my ability. And now you dismiss it as emotional rantings. I appreciate your Christ like compassion.

There is a very simply fix: Stop making false claims, stop your falsehoods. Then there wouldn't be anything for me to call you on and you wouldn't get so upset. See how simple it is?

Just because you don't agree with it does not make it false does it? Or are you the almighty God that is omniscient and omnipotent? If that is the case then forgive me.

It already IS living.

By living I mean a conscious human existence taht we call life. AS in the experience. This I hope is understandable. That every time a person uses the word life they aren't always talking about the biological phenomenon, but a universally human experience.

Quote:
Thus wouldn't it be logical that if I am against abortion, that I would like a fetus to have a chance at living per my argument that was actually directed toward you?
Sure that is logical. What is the point?

You just made it for me. Let me back trach for you.

Nirvana-Eld-"I would like that they have an opportunity to live at the very least."

Steen-"AH, that is very telling of your point actually being based on emotional fervor but with no thought to the consequenses of your emotional focus."

Nirvana-Eld-"wouldn't it be logical that if I am against abortion, that I would like a fetus to have a chance at living "

Steen-"Sure that is logical. What is the point?"

The point is that it is logical. If I am anti-abortion then I want the fetus to come to term and be born and to live a life. So in this statement there is none of this "fervor" that you so carelessly throw around slapping it on statements and arguments where it doesn't belong.

And you have this burning desire to see your single goal fulfilled but with no thought towards what the consequences would be. That surely is a sign of emotional fervor rather than logical evaluation and thinking an issue through.

I see the consequences but I would feel that these potenital children aren't unwanted at all. If your single and can't find a wife do I call you unwanted? No I call you single. If a child is an orphan and can't find parents does that make him/her unwanted? not at all. I would feel that using that term is a sign of emotional fervor, trying to insight pity and sadness.

The population of the United States in near 300 million. I would feel that compared to this, 1.2 million is a drop in the bucket if you want to talk about over-population. So I have no fervor as I showed you, and I just looked at the consequences of my position and came to a conclusion.

Please for the sake of you own position look at my revision and restatement and reply to it with the same amount of consideration that I gave you. I would think that it would be the Christian thing to do.

[snappyanswer]

The Christian thing to do, the ONLY Christian thing to do, is oppose abortion.

Pregnancy means birth of a baby.

Hello?

There are things that stop that from happening.

Some are sad and some are heinous.

You know, logically.

Also did anyone know that the Hypocratic oath opposes abortion?

Those Greeks know their logic.

[juliod]

The Christian thing to do, the ONLY Christian thing to do, is oppose abortion.

Then why doesn't it say that in the bible?

Pregnancy means birth of a baby.

Yet in the bible, the penalty for causing a miscarriage is a fine, if the husband chooses to assess one. No penalty if he chooses not to. So a doctor causing a miscarriage (i.e. abortion) with the permission of the husband is unpunished by the bible. Funny, that.

It seems that Jesus and YHWH don't agree with you. But, what would you expect from a coupe of liberals.

DanZ

[Curious]

Correction. Some conservative elemants have made that suggestion. The medical community in no way are adopting that idea.

A conservative element making a suggestion that we change the current system???? That make no sense whatsoever! Conservatives are by definition against change. If you mean right wing then say right wing.

And a single generation optiong for 10+ kids, and the world's bisophere crashes, same result.

As I stated previously, such a decision, if unsustainable, would be culled naturally. You could try for 1000 kids and have no detrimental effect on the environment. Eventually there would be insufficient nutriment to sustain childbirth.

Extreme overpopulation results in a complete loss of resources.

Not naturally in higher lifeforms. While what you say is true in bacteria in petri-dishes, it is not true in the real world where the average mammal takes significantly longer than 40 minutes to reproduce (sexually, not asexually).

They have no "function," they are not brood mares.

Of course thay have a function. There is not a single organism that exists without a function.

[ENIGMA]

Also did anyone know that the Hypocratic oath opposes abortion?

Hardly a decade ago, conventional heart surgery would have been opposed by the hypocratic oath. A broken collarbone and at least a few injured ribs were the price of getting access to the heart, and that doesn't even include the part where the heart valve gets fixed or replaced.

First, do no harm, my arse.

[ENIGMA]

And a single generation optiong for 10+ kids, and the world's bisophere crashes, same result.

As I stated previously, such a decision, if unsustainable, would be culled naturally. You could try for 1000 kids and have no detrimental effect on the environment. Eventually there would be insufficient nutriment to sustain childbirth.

At that point there would also be insufficient resources to sustain the current population. There would be a massive population crash as a result from starvation and disease that would result from a lack of resources as well as from overcrowding. Genocide would quite likely be seen as a more humane option since it is better to die a quick death than a slow and painful one, and as a more pragmatic option since dead people don't use resources. Many societies would likely collapse lowering the ability to organize to secure/generate more resources, worsening the problem.

The ancient city of Rome collapsed from a massive ancient metropolis of 1.2 million to a mere encampment of 12,000 over the course of a half-century with the collapse of the Roman Empire and subsequent raids and pillagings.

[Curious]

And a single generation optiong for 10+ kids, and the world's bisophere crashes, same result.

As I stated previously, such a decision, if unsustainable, would be culled naturally. You could try for 1000 kids and have no detrimental effect on the environment. Eventually there would be insufficient nutriment to sustain childbirth.

At that point there would also be insufficient resources to sustain the current population. There would be a massive population crash as a result from starvation and disease that would result from a lack of resources as well as from overcrowding. Genocide would quite likely be seen as a more humane option since it is better to die a quick death than a slow and painful one, and as a more pragmatic option since dead people don't use resources. Many societies would likely collapse lowering the ability to organize to secure/generate more resources, worsening the problem.

The ancient city of Rome collapsed from a massive ancient metropolis of 1.2 million to a mere encampment of 12,000 over the course of a half-century with the collapse of the Roman Empire and subsequent raids and pillagings.

A very good example of how nature can be every bit as inhumane as humanity. It does show though that Steen's argument was fallacious concerning human population growth.

[Curious]

Yes, but just because they take that risk doesn't mean that if they get lung cancer, we can all just laugh and deny them treatment. A woman who does not want to get pregnant, yet birth control fails, has a choice what to do with the resultant pregnancy, just like the smoker has a choice what to do with his lung cancer.

Cancer is not a biological imperative, pregnancy is. Let's use logic and reason as the post asks. Give a logical, reasoned argument to allow abortion. There is none.

How is it bogus? A single generation that opts for mass termination would end the species forever.

Do you have any idea how silly that sounds? Honestly?

Of course I realise how silly it sounds. We have the ability to destroy our species. Do you realise how beyond silly it sounds???

Err..why exactly is it their right?

Women have a right to control their own bodies. Why is this in question?

Oh right. Sorry, I didn't realise. then I will have my BP of 110/70 and heart rate at 54 and I wont age at all. I would also like 34DD breasts and a 22 inch waist. I would also like an ass to die for. Thank you, I didn't realise it was up to me!!!

Boy, you have very little respect for women, don't you?

Really? Some women don't want to murder children. That's like saying those who oppose the murder of Jews have no respect for men. Just because some women are beasts doesn't mean all women are. You show that it is you who do not respect women enough to believe they might have independent choice.All women don't want the same thing. Some women are bad, as some men are bad. I have never met such a case of stereotyping. You believe that all women want abortion.... You are so out of touch with reality it is unbelievable.

[steen]

Correction. Some conservative elemants have made that suggestion. The medical community in no way are adopting that idea.

A conservative element making a suggestion that we change the current system???? That make no sense whatsoever! Conservatives are by definition against change. If you mean right wing then say right wing.

Conservative as in the current political movement labeling itself as such. yes, they are also rightwing, but they certainly claim the label "conservatives."

And a single generation optiong for 10+ kids, and the world's bisophere crashes, same result.

As I stated previously, such a decision, if unsustainable, would be culled naturally. You could try for 1000 kids and have no detrimental effect on the environment. Eventually there would be insufficient nutriment to sustain childbirth.

Extreme overpopulation results in a complete loss of resources.

Not naturally in higher lifeforms. While what you say is true in bacteria in petri-dishes, it is not true in the real world where the average mammal takes significantly longer than 40 minutes to reproduce (sexually, not asexually).

You seem to have failed many of the lessons that biology have taught. Example: Earlirer in last century, the Grand canyon held about 40,000 deer. Hunters decided to kill off the cougar to increase numbers and it rose to 100,000, then crashed and afterwards, the environment could only sustain 10,000 deer, not 40,000

They have no "function," they are not brood mares.

Of course thay have a function. There is not a single organism that exists without a function.

Nonsense. "Function" is a subjective value-judgement. There is no inherent "function" of anybody.