Abortion

[Texan Christian]

Do y'all believe it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?

IMO:

when a woman says "I should decide what to do with my body" I'm like "well... first of all that baby isn't part of your body, it's someone else's body, so yeah..."

what're yalls views on this topic? post below!

Good day and God Bless

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 95 by myth-one.com]

The Bible did not make her do it.

She claimed that she was failing as a mother and believed she had to kill the children to keep them from going to hell. "These were their innocent years. God would take them up."

Are these beliefs a side affect of mental illness and drug abuse?

Yes. Both mental illness and drug abuse could lead to such warped thinking.

Don't most Christians teach that deceased innocent children go immediately to heaven at their death?

No Christians teach we have the right to take another innocent human beings life. So clearly she is not living according to Christian principles.

The woman could have equally claimed she did what she did because of space aliens. Would that mean space aliens were to blame?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 96 by Clownboat]

Clownboat wrote:
You can attempt to argue that an embryo is human, but to no avail since the value of an embryo is not the same value as an actual human life.


Rightreasons wrote:
Thank you for your opinion, but I disagree.

Actually, I don't think you have given this enough thought as I'm sure you actually do agree with me. You have to say this, otherwise you are conceding my argument.

No. I firmly believe the value of an embryo is the same value as a 4 year old, 40 year old, or 100 year old. I also believe your kid has the same value as my kid, but that doesn’t mean I would be directly affected to hear your child died. Perhaps you are trying to place that kind of value on things????

Quote:
Not even close I would argue and that is not even taking into account that almost half of all fertilizations naturally abort (just to put an embryo into perspective).



Quote:
What does that have to do with anything?

Just perspective and for evaluation. Do nearly 50% of 3 year olds die naturally? No, they don't you say, unlike a fertilization event in a human? Hmm... differences then huh?

A greater number of 3 year olds would have died 200 years ago then today from natural causes. Does that mean 3 year olds today have more value than they use to? Sorry, illogical reasoning.

Quote:
Ask any women who knew she was pregnant and experienced a miscarriage if her developing baby had value even though she may only have been pregnant for a matter of weeks.

Why would I do that? Do you think I have argued that a fetus has zero value, because I have not?

You have argued that a fetus has less value because a fetus has a higher risk of death, which doesn’t logically make sense. Some racial groups have a lower life expectancy than others, does that mean they are of less value?

Quote:
It is actually the opposite. To devalue a human life just because he/she can’t speak for him/herself yet is what is the disservice. To take advantage or ignore the most vulnerable among us.

I am not devaluing. Please keep up.
I'm pointing out that there is a value difference. If you don't see it, I can explain it to you if you are willing to participate.

Again, I think you are making the mistake of thinking something has more or less value based on the determination of others. Thank God that’s not how it works. You are not recognizing the inherent value that doesn’t come down to numbers, popularity, financial, or even emotional.

Quote:
Works OK I guess if your attempting to make an emotional argument over a factual one



Quote:
I’d say you have that reversed. I am the one arguing from science, biology, facts.

You're using words like baby and murder instead of making an actual argument.

The science is pretty settled on when life begins. You can use whatever language you like – it doesn’t change the facts.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/arti ... otes2.html

Quote:
You appear to be the one making an emotional appeal – claiming a human being is only a human being when another human being decides or chooses to give that human being value.

Copy/paste where I said this or please retract.

You are arguing a human being in the womb has less value than one outside. How have you come to this conclusion? And if that is your conclusion then you are admitting the value of a human being is not intrinsic but decided or determined by others.

Quote:
Question for you:
If abortion were deemed illegal and when some women were to get them performed anyway, those caught, do they deserve the same penalty as those the have committed murder? (Death penalty in some states)



Quote:
There are many things that are immoral – that doesn’t mean I want to see the death penalty applied or even extreme punishment.

You called it murder! Are you back tracking now?

I want to know if you would hand out the same punishment in this scenario as you would for an actual murderer. Would you?

I already said that isn’t what I would be interested in doing considering I see the woman as often just as much a victim. If a boy had been threatened and abused and ended up committing murder as a result, would you insist the boy get locked up or would you admit there were some other factors at play here?
_________________

The removal of an unwanted blastocyst/fetus is not like murdering a baby.

Why not? Science agrees we are talking about human life. Also, since when does unwanted determine whether one gets to live or die? That’s scary! I would have thought history would have taught us the problem with that worldview.

[Bust Nak]

I firmly believe the value of an embryo is the same value as a 4 year old, 40 year old, or 100 year old. I also believe your kid has the same value as my kid, but that doesn’t mean I would be directly affected to hear your child died.

That's kinda weird, if they are of equal value, why won't the death of either affect you by the same amount?

Again, I think you are making the mistake of thinking something has more or less value based on the determination of others. Thank God that’s not how it works. You are not recognizing the inherent value that doesn’t come down to numbers, popularity, financial, or even emotional.

I would really like to see you have a go at demonstrating the existence of this "inherent value."

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

RightReason wrote:


I firmly believe the value of an embryo is the same value as a 4 year old, 40 year old, or 100 year old. I also believe your kid has the same value as my kid, but that doesn’t mean I would be directly affected to hear your child died.

That's kinda weird, if they are of equal value, why won't the death of either affect you by the same amount?

What’s weird about it? I am not personally invested in your child. Like I said, however, it isn’t about feelings or emotions or how I am affected – it is about facts/truth. And the truth is your child has just as much value as my child, whether I knew your child or not.

Again, I think you are making the mistake of thinking something has more or less value based on the determination of others. Thank God that’s not how it works. You are not recognizing the inherent value that doesn’t come down to numbers, popularity, financial, or even emotional.

I would really like to see you have a go at demonstrating the existence of this "inherent value."

Well, for one thing it is what all men via reason, observation, and acknowledgment of this world can know. It is also the assumption we all live by. As human beings, we know we all come with certain inalienable rights simply by being human. They aren’t something given to us by others or dependent upon the opinion of others. And we live accordingly on a daily basis. In fact, we even fight against times we see violations of this and rightly so.

If human beings do not have inherent value then was the Holocaust ok? How about sending the elderly to drift off into the sea when they become too much of a burden? What’s wrong with slavery?

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to post 95 by myth-one.com]

The Bible did not make her do it.

She claimed that she was failing as a mother and believed she had to kill the children to keep them from going to hell. "These were their innocent years. God would take them up."

Are these beliefs a side affect of mental illness and drug abuse?

Yes. Both mental illness and drug abuse could lead to such warped thinking.

So mentally ill atheist drug users might believe that children who die in their innocent years go to live with God in Heaven for all eternity.

Don't most Christians teach that deceased innocent children go immediately to heaven at their death?

No Christians teach we have the right to take another innocent human beings life.

That's true in regards to the acts of murder.

So clearly she is not living according to Christian principles.

That's not totally true. Her "Christian principles" that the dead children are now in heaven with God for all eternity were quickly confirmed by every Christian with a pulpit.

Here's how the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association put it:

"The Bible teaches that you are an immortal soul. Your soul is eternal and will live forever. In other words, the real you -- the part of you that thinks, feels, dreams, aspires; the ego, the personality-- will never die. The Bible teaches that your soul will live forever in one of two places -- heaven or hell. If you are not a Christian and you have never been born again, then the Bible teaches that your soul goes immediately to a place Jesus called hades, where you will await the judgment of God. The moment a Christian dies, he goes immediately into the presence of Christ. There his soul awaits the resurrection, when the soul and body will be rejoined.

The scriptural doctrine of hell is an awesome one which must be taken very seriously. At the same time, the good news of the gospel is that Jesus Christ, through His triumph over death, has conquered hell. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

When I asked them where the five murdered children are, they responded that they did not know where the children's remains were, then continued to state:

"What is more important, however, is where the souls of these children are. God, in His mercy and love, watches over little children who are taken by death, and they go to be with Him in heaven."

Every Christian I asked stated that the children were in a better place. That is, she succeeded!

The woman could have equally claimed she did what she did because of space aliens. Would that mean space aliens were to blame?

But she did not claim that. She stated that she killed them in their innocent years to send them to Heaven eternally and avoid even the possibility of their spending eternity in hellfire.

Thousands of revered pastors then quickly announced that she had succeeded!

[Bust Nak]

What’s weird about it? I am not personally invested in your child.

That much is fine, but doesn't "not personally invested in my child" necessitate that you place less value in my child than your own?

Like I said, however, it isn’t about feelings or emotions or how I am affected – it is about facts/truth. And the truth is your child has just as much value as my child, whether I knew your child or not.

And that's the bit that makes zero sense.

Well, for one thing it is what all men via reason, observation, and acknowledgment of this world can know.

Well, I know otherwise - there is no such thing as inherite value, now what?

It is also the assumption we all live by. As human beings, we know we all come with certain inalienable rights simply by being human.

False by counter-example: I am a human being that does not know this, I know the very opposite. Rights are something given to us by others and is entirely dependent upon the opinion of people. Even the mightly US Declaration of Independence made no attempt at demonstrating inalientable rights - it just assert so.

If human beings do not have inherent value then was the Holocaust ok? How about sending the elderly to drift off into the sea when they become too much of a burden?

No, these are not okay bcauuse human beings have extrinsic value.

What’s wrong with slavery?

It violate the man-given rights of those held in slavery.

[jgh7]

What’s weird about it? I am not personally invested in your child.

That much is fine, but doesn't "not personally invested in my child" necessitate that you place less value in my child than your own?

Like I said, however, it isn’t about feelings or emotions or how I am affected – it is about facts/truth. And the truth is your child has just as much value as my child, whether I knew your child or not.

And that's the bit that makes zero sense.

Well, for one thing it is what all men via reason, observation, and acknowledgment of this world can know.

Well, I know otherwise - there is no such thing as inherite value, now what?

It is also the assumption we all live by. As human beings, we know we all come with certain inalienable rights simply by being human.

False by counter-example: I am a human being that does not know this, I know the very opposite. Rights are something given to us by others and is entirely dependent upon the opinion of people. Even the mightly US Declaration of Independence made no attempt at demonstrating inalientable rights - it just assert so.

If human beings do not have inherent value then was the Holocaust ok? How about sending the elderly to drift off into the sea when they become too much of a burden?

No, these are not okay bcauuse human beings have extrinsic value.

What’s wrong with slavery?

It violate the man-given rights of those held in slavery.

What do you mean by extrinsic value? And according to your system of moral relativism, how is slavery wrong in a society if the majority and/or those in power have the opinion that it is right? What do you mean by man-given rights in this case? Obviously they were not being given by many men since those in power were holding slaves.

[Bust Nak]

What do you mean by extrinsic value?

Value assigned by an evaluator.

And according to your system of moral relativism, how is slavery wrong in a society if the majority and/or those in power have the opinion that it is right?

It is wrong because I have the opinion that it is wrong.

What do you mean by man-given rights in this case?

Rights given by us.

Obviously they were not being given by many men since those in power were holding slaves.

Yes, were, but this is no longer the case.

[RightReason]

[Replying to myth-one.com]

So mentally ill atheist drug users might believe that children who die in their innocent years go to live with God in Heaven for all eternity.

If the atheist is mentally ill or on drugs he could logically believe anything his mental illness or drug use cause him to.

So clearly she is not living according to Christian principles.

That's not totally true. Her "Christian principles" that the dead children are now in heaven with God for all eternity were quickly confirmed by every Christian with a pulpit.

Again, it would not be following Christian principles to take the life of your children because you believe they will go to heaven. THAT is not a Christian principle. Also, I can only speak for my Church, but my Church admits she does not know what happens to children when they die. Were they baptized? Had they reached the age of reason? If they had not had their life cut short would they have gone on to believe in God? Only God knows this. So, again, not only was the woman who would do such a thing not following Christian principles, she may also have been quite ignorant in what Christian principles are. Clearly mental illness or drugs could have prevented her from following Christ’s teachings.

Here's how the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association put it:

"The Bible teaches that you are an immortal soul. Your soul is eternal and will live forever. In other words, the real you -- the part of you that thinks, feels, dreams, aspires; the ego, the personality-- will never die. The Bible teaches that your soul will live forever in one of two places -- heaven or hell. If you are not a Christian and you have never been born again, then the Bible teaches that your soul goes immediately to a place Jesus called hades, where you will await the judgment of God. The moment a Christian dies, he goes immediately into the presence of Christ. There his soul awaits the resurrection, when the soul and body will be rejoined.

I am Christian and do not believe what Billy Graham is saying here. I’d say his theology is off.

The scriptural doctrine of hell is an awesome one which must be taken very seriously. At the same time, the good news of the gospel is that Jesus Christ, through His triumph over death, has conquered hell. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

He got this right.

Every Christian I asked stated that the children were in a better place. That is, she succeeded!

You didn’t ask me. I would say, no one knows that. I would also never say she succeeded. She failed on many levels.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 105 by Bust Nak]

RightReason wrote:


What’s weird about it? I am not personally invested in your child.

That much is fine, but doesn't "not personally invested in my child" necessitate that you place less value in my child than your own?

Not at all. It means I’m human and haven’t had the opportunity to get to know your child. This doesn’t mean I think your child has no value. On the contrary! I’m showing it isn’t about my opinion or feelings or what I think about your kid. Your child’s value is not dependent on me. Praise be to God.

Quote:
Like I said, however, it isn’t about feelings or emotions or how I am affected – it is about facts/truth. And the truth is your child has just as much value as my child, whether I knew your child or not.

And that's the bit that makes zero sense.

I’m sorry you can’t understand that. You can’t honestly a person’s value is dependent on another. Didn’t this lead to slavery and genocide?

Quote:
Well, for one thing it is what all men via reason, observation, and acknowledgment of this world can know.

Well, I know otherwise - there is no such thing as inherite value, now what?

Riiiiiiight. So, the only reason I have value is if you give it to me? The only reason slavery should not be permitted is because of the current popular vote? So, if the majority said it should be ok to hold African American’s as slaves, then that makes it right? So, African American’s only have value because we have granted them value?

Quote:
It is also the assumption we all live by. As human beings, we know we all come with certain inalienable rights simply by being human.

False by counter-example: I am a human being that does not know this, I know the very opposite. Rights are something given to us by others and is entirely dependent upon the opinion of people.

YIKES! Can’t believe someone actually believes this!

(slavery)It is wrong because I have the opinion that it is wrong.

So, it’s ok if someone else believes otherwise? You can’t admit the wrongness of slavery is not an opinion? That the black person’s value is only what someone else thinks it should be?

This thread is a perfect example of what happens when we draw a poor argument out to its logical conclusion. The ridiculousness of it is made evident.