Abortion - there is only one question that matters

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: daryllyn
/quote]
I would suggest that a condition for having an abortion is that the woman must consent to being permanently sterilized.

"I would suggest that a condition for having an abortion is that the woman must consent to being permanently sterilized."

Communist China would suit you just fine...and even they don't do sh!t like that

edit on 10-2-2017 by JD163 because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: tanstaafl
I would like to try to change the nature of the abortion argument into one that seeks common ground, and where the one, single question - the only question that really matters - [B]can be discussed rationally, without the emotional baggage that people who have been engaged in this debate for any length of time usually bring to the table.[/B] If I reach just one person, that would be more than good enough for me.

As far as discussing this rationally without emotional baggage I'd say you failed in epic proportions my friend.

Until you can be honest about what you're doing with those here and yourself I don't think anyone need bother answering you.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Spruk
a reply to: bender151

See what I mean? The only question that matters is, where does that life begin? Because once it crosses that line, it ceases to be a question of choice.

"The only question that matters is, where does that life begin?"

Roe vs Wade

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I'll go with the Jews. First unaided breath, just like it says in Genesis. That seems like a good dividing line.

I thought the Jews believed that the soul entered the body after 40 days?? Meaning 40 days after birth.

I'm sure they still consider it alive though obviously. Or maybe they just don't consider a person as having a soul until then. Something like that. Maybe someone else can clear up what I'm saying.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

Life has neither beginning, nor ending.

That, according to Jesus.

According to Buddha, all is illusion, never-ending samsara, the wheel turning constantly, cause and effect at play.

You could say life starts when a man looks at a woman with desire, but that's just the start of the process for the opportunity for life to take form in the flesh.

You could argue that life starts when a man and woman actually lay together and copulate.

For this reason the Catholic Church forbids the use of contraceptives. Since that "prevents" the life from taking form in the flesh.

Or, you could argue that life begins when the sperm swims upstream and attaches itself to an egg. Some people define human life to start at conception. But, all that's happening for sure, is a bunch of biochemical reactions taking place really rapidly.

When does the soul enter the body? That's what some people think is the true start of "human life."

Nobody knows the answer to this question. Some say there's no soul (Buddhism), other's say it happens at the baby's first breath of "air" when it's born. Some think it happens somewhere between conception and birth. Who knows?

Traditionally, life begins when the baby is born and takes it's first grasp of air, and cries out "bahhhh".

That we know for sure is "human life."

Prior to that, it's all theory.

Science has made lots of advancement, and can watch the fetus growing in the womb with ultrasound, heart beating, etc..but the fetus is not breathing, so the critical "breath of life" according to the Book of Genesis, hasn't entered the featus yet.

It is possible to stimulate a pre-mature birth, and force the fetus out, continue the development in the lab, and thus prove that the kid need not go to full term, to have a successful human life. But, then, the fetus has still been forced to "take it's first breath". So, again, that's "human life."

What if you kill the fetus before it takes that first breath of air? Was it ever alive? Did the soul ever enter the body? How would we know?

Science doesn't even have a concept of "soul".

According to science, life is just a bunch of biochemical reactions, following the laws of physics and chemistry, creating the illusion of life, no different from a computer program running an Artificial Intelligence routine.

What is life?

You should have got way more stars for this post.

originally posted by: seasonal

Wow, this really isn't all that complicated.

Sperm meets egg. Baby is developing.

Wow, it really isn't that simple.

Why not just say "When a mommy and daddy love each other, they do a special dance and a baby is born." That's about as accurate as what you just said as far as the complete process.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: tanstaafl
Again, I'm sorry for your loss--I just can't imagine, and when I go home, I'll hug my 13-year-old and 3-year-old a little tighter tonight.

Thank you very much, and please do! I have a really hard time not spoiling my daughter, but one thing is for sure, she will always know that I love her, and that everything I do is for that one reason.

a reply to: tanstaafl

"Abortion - there is only one question that matters"

That question being why Trumps mother did not have one?

On a more serious note, it's obviously a Woman's choice, taking it away or judging people for that choice is just wrong.

originally posted by: JD163
Subjective as in, what is acceptable for someone, may not be for another, and nobody has the right to impose their standard of morality on another,...we should all just go by what the laws says....

And if the law says that abortion is murder, then many people will say it is imposing someone else's morality on them.

Incidentally, to say that 'nobody has the right to impose their standard of morality on another' is precisely the moral code that Jeffrey Dahmer and other serial killers live by, so whether you know it or not, you are defacto supporting their right to not have our morality (that says killing others, maybe even eating them, is ok, as long as it isn't against their internal moral code) 'imposed on them'.

All laws that prohibit certain acts or activities are the imposition of a moral code.

The question is, which moral code do we go by, as a society.

In this country, it started out, and remained for a long time, the christian moral code.

originally posted by: JD163
Killing your kid who is already born is murder, an abortion is legal and not considered homicide under the law,...big difference.

Thank you for your point of view. Just to clarify, you would be fine with laws allowing women to murder their children XX days after they were born, as long as the law allowed it. No reason to be ageist either - why not include all people over 80, obviously they have outlived their usefulness and are or will soon become a drain on the resources of the state.

Fyi, murder was a punishable crime long before any written law declared it so.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: tanstaafl
I would like to try to change the nature of the abortion argument into one that seeks common ground, and where the one, single question - the only question that really matters - [B]can be discussed rationally, without the emotional baggage that people who have been engaged in this debate for any length of time usually bring to the table.[/B] If I reach just one person, that would be more than good enough for me.

As far as discussing this rationally without emotional baggage I'd say you failed in epic proportions my friend.

Until you can be honest about what you're doing with those here and yourself I don't think anyone need bother answering you.

Thank you for your non-participation.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: JD163
Killing your kid who is already born is murder, an abortion is legal and not considered homicide under the law,...big difference.

Thank you for your point of view. Just to clarify, you would be fine with laws allowing women to murder their children XX days after they were born, as long as the law allowed it. No reason to be ageist either - why not include all people over 80, obviously they have outlived their usefulness and are or will soon become a drain on the resources of the state.

Fyi, murder was a punishable crime long before any written law declared it so.

No, wtf? because I'm ok with abortion, that means I'm ok with murdering anyone? Thats a BS, thats your strawman not mine,....Until such nonsensical laws are being discuss,...thats totally immaterial to this discussion

Whatever was the case eons ago is irrelevant,... its the here and now that matters

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Spruk
a reply to: bender151

See what I mean? The only question that matters is, where does that life begin? Because once it crosses that line, it ceases to be a question of choice.

"The only question that matters is, where does that life begin?"

Roe vs Wade

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

And so logic dictates that in such a situation, they should have erred on the side of caution, and declared that life begins at conception.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I suppose I'd feel more inclined to participate if it wasn't such a loaded discussion with a massively biased and slanted starting point.

That doesn't mean your personal and very emotionally rich experience is invalid or anything. Your story is quite interesting and easy to identify with and powerful. But that sets up the conversation in a way that serves a different purpose than one of rational non-biased exchange of information.

Emotions have a much stronger control over us than reason and rationality and will almost always win.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: JD163
Subjective as in, what is acceptable for someone, may not be for another, and nobody has the right to impose their standard of morality on another,...we should all just go by what the laws says....

And if the law says that abortion is murder, then many people will say it is imposing someone else's morality on them.

Incidentally, to say that 'nobody has the right to impose their standard of morality on another' is precisely the moral code that Jeffrey Dahmer and other serial killers live by, so whether you know it or not, you are defacto supporting their right to not have our morality (that says killing others, maybe even eating them, is ok, as long as it isn't against their internal moral code).

All laws that prohibit certain acts or activities are the imposition of a moral code.

The question is, which moral code do we go by, as a society.

In this country, it started out, and remained for a long time, the christian moral code.

Morality is subjective, everyone is free to have their own standard, and nobody have to care about yours or mine,...its the law that we abide by

And serials killers can have whatever opinions they like,...it does not matter, the law will deal with them,...in fact I have more reasons to be afraid of ppl like you who what to impose your standards on others.

The constitution is not the ten commandments, iirc it says something about the separation of church and state...

You don't have to like what others do, but as long as it is legal,...I suggest we all mind our own business and leave ppl alone

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Spruk
a reply to: bender151

See what I mean? The only question that matters is, where does that life begin? Because once it crosses that line, it ceases to be a question of choice.

"The only question that matters is, where does that life begin?"

Roe vs Wade

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

And so logic dictates that in such a situation, they should have erred on the side of caution, and declared that life begins at conception.

Logic dictates that we abide by the law, experts on the issue can't agree, but you oh enlighten one knows better then the supreme court...

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Science has made lots of advancement, and can watch the fetus growing in the womb with ultrasound, heart beating, etc..but the fetus is not breathing, so the critical "breath of life" according to the Book of Genesis, hasn't entered the featus yet.

I've seen numerous references to this, but have not found anything in the Bible to back it up. Care to provide a citation?

The only thing I've found are references to when God breathed life into Adam, but that is not talking about when life begins for babies conceived under normal circumstances, so is not relevant to this discussion.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

The question is, which moral code do we go by, as a society.

In this country, it started out, and remained for a long time, the christian moral code.

Yes, well as we all know the Christian Moral Code hasn't always been the same nor has it always worked out well even when it could be agreed upon which rules should apply.

Christian Morals, aside from the most basic one's which most all societies have always been able to figure out on their own, change all the time from Person to Person to a greater or lesser degree.

Or are you saying that we should go back to the days of witch burning and death for idol worship???

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Science has made lots of advancement, and can watch the fetus growing in the womb with ultrasound, heart beating, etc..but the fetus is not breathing, so the critical "breath of life" according to the Book of Genesis, hasn't entered the featus yet.

I've seen numerous references to this, but have not found anything in the Bible to back it up. Care to provide a citation?

The only thing I've found are references to when God breathed life into Adam, but that is not talking about when life begins for babies conceived under normal circumstances, so is not relevant to this discussion.

You do understand that the bible is only relevant to christians rite? Its your right to believe in it,....and its my right to laugh at it

originally posted by: JD163
Morality is subjective, everyone is free to have their own standard, and nobody have to care about yours or mine,...its the law that we abide by

The illogic of this comment is overwhelming.

As I said, ALL laws (that govern personal behavior) are the imposition of a moral code. The only question, then, is whose/which one. The way this is determined is through the society in general, through - you guessed it - the imposition of laws governing behavior.

And serials killers can have whatever opinions they like,...it does not matter, the law will deal with them,...in fact I have more reasons to be afraid of ppl like you who what to impose your standards on others.

And do you not see that you are just as guilty of imposing your moral code (or lack thereof) on others by demanding that women and doctors be allowed to murder unborn children?

Both of our positions are imposing a moral code, again, it is just a question of which one.

The constitution is not the ten commandments, iirc it says something about the separation of church and state...

Nope, not once does it mention this. The only mention, that was relied on to create this false idea, was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson...

You don't have to like what others do,

Nor do you, so why are you so hell bent on imposing your moral code on others?

but as long as it is legal,

Right - you say this now, while abortion is legal, but you would be changing your tune pretty quick if it was outlawed.

You only respect the law if it aligns with your own moral code (or lack thereof).