"Pro-life"

tbeachhead

Active member
Another non-argument. For every Shakespeare there is a Torquemada. For every Martin Luther there is a Hitler (They were actually quite similar in some ways.) The potential of the conceived embryo is no more significant than the potential of the contents of a used condom.
Each villain in history is the measure of the depravity of that generation. That is not an argument in favor of abortion...again murdering indiscriminately for fear of a Torquemada. Watch history and see how that works. Roman society bred a Caligula, and the continued depravity of the culture raised entertainment to the pit of Vespasian's Colosseum
No, it is not more dead that the planet needs, but fewer living. Most people can tell the difference.
Pro-choice doesn't mean that it's my choice. I don't wish death on anybody, and I speak as one who has fought, and killed in battle.[/quote]I get that...Pro-choice is capitulation. It's not you destroying your own offspring. It's also denial...You refuse to admit that the child inside, is of an entirely other DNA, life, blood type than that of the mother. It's not OK precisely because it's not "her own body," but the child that has been entrusted to her...or forced upon her by a criminal unwilling or uncaring to take responsibility for his own savage selfishness.

As a teacher, I know that it isn't about me. My feelings, whatever they may be, are irrelevant. My task is to enable those who have decisions to make, to make them with as much knowledge and as few barriers as possible.
You, as a teacher, are more responsible than any other for the words you choose to convey your ideas. Each word is a seed that bears fruit...that for which you are not absolved. If you mislead another to believe that one is "free" to choose whatever one wants, without consequence your own guilt mingles with the choice they made.

Lol! You have absolutely know idea of the circumstances.
Circumstances are immaterial. Consequences bring fruit.
You just make assumptions about "convenience". I don't act on God's behalf anymore than I act on behalf of Thor, or Shiva, or Big Ears. Your beliefs have no impact whatever on my actions.
That much is clear...that does not absolve you of responsibility. God's existence is not dependent on you believing in Him any more than a chair depends on the faith of the one who sits in it. Not believing in apples might prevent you from enjoying one...but that's not the apple's loss. It's yours.

Evil is an over-used term for things that we would rather not happen. Your example is irrelevant. An interesting story, but no link to abortion.
1616873104824.pngSome might argue otherwise. The interesting thing is...they're actually reversing the devastation. National Geographic is reporting that the North Aral Sea has been restored to where fishing is again permissible...Life can be restored, unless it's human life. That is still evil.
I am an atheist. Bible verses leave me completely unmoved.
You are clearly not illiterate. Stop using that as an excuse for illiteracy. The reason that piece of literature has survived the millennia is that it speaks well to those who claim to be atheist.

That is not why I am pro-choice. I know Christians who are pro-choice and atheists who are anti-abortion. There are probably some of each reading these posts. I am also not Canadian, and have no interest in what Canadians are permitted to listen to (read?) on the radio.
I'm fascinated to watch others respond to the threat a piece of literature poses.

If this is an attempt to persuade me that God exists, that there is life after death, that the unborn foetus is a child with the capacity to listen to reason, then it has failed.
I never need to persuade you of anything. Truth needs no ally. It's the only indelible substance in the universe. Your unbelief doesn't erase or establish it. If you die unconvinced, you'll still have to face the Truth that you so strongly opposed. It's the nature of truth.

Yet you would happily vote for measures that forced those poor to bring unwanted children into the world without any attempt to support them, while all the while offering sanctimonious prayers to the value of life. Do you know the child mortality rate in the US?
Immaterial to the argument. I know the effect of unbridled libido...and those who profit from it.
Indeed it does. So for the heterosexual at least effective sex education, freely available contraception and advice and guidance on abortion, are all vital elements of public health.
I'm glad at least that you agree that you contradicted yourself.

It is perverse and abnormal, which is why it so seldom occurs.
Abstinence fails all the time, due to a completely understandable failure of will. Continued voluntary abstinence is both perverse and abnormal.
Wahahahahaha....That's because you believe in what's being pushed as a drug, and calling it "norm". You're dead wrong, and that's why your argument fails. Abstinence is a choice of moral character, which, contrary to your claim, exists in the least. Claim it's not true, and explain why the graffiti goes up on the bathroom wall when a breach has been made to the honor of a young lady.

When honor is taught, abstinence is the only honest choice. Immorality is not normal...it's aberrant.
Morality is not a public anything. Morality is personal and subjective. It might drive a person to seek a particular policy direction, but no-one has a monopoly on morality.
We will disagree. You are wrong, and history itself argues against your stand. No society has ever gone the direction of the USA and survived fifty years beyond that choice.

We can talk again in a decade. The US, without repentance and revival, as England experienced in the days of the Wesley brothers will be going down first. Pride, fulness of bread, abundance of idleness...and there is no care for the poor and the needy. Proud, fat, and they entertain themselves to death. The symptoms of ruin since the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.

There are not three human beings involved. There is one person, and one potential person. That's it.
Again, we disagree. The male is not absolved of his responsibility. Or of the blood guilt.
If you want to discuss the point that I believe that a person becomes a person, then that would probably be better done separately. You can argue as much as you like that the embryo is a person, but that doesn't make it so. Greater minds than ours have thought this through and made a decision.
Your view doesn't matter in the discussion. You did not skip a step. At any moment, the light of this brilliant strand would have been extinguished. Every post proves that surviving gestation through every trimester is essential for brilliance.

No, this is not a "three-way conversation". It is a decision to be made by the single human mind with any say in the matter. There is no conversation, which implies advocacy or persuasion. There is a giving and receiving of information, a decision, then a giving and receiving of support, whatever form that decision takes. The only persuasion I would presume to give a pregnant woman considering an abortion, would be an attempt to persuade her that she should make the choice based on her own needs and wishes, not those of her parents, the putative father or his parents, or society at large. Every person's circumstances are unique, and no one knows them better than the person themselves. If she wishes to consider the "potential" of the life growing inside her, then she will do so. It is not my job to persuade her either way. Neither is it your job, or God's. There is only one life of consequence at stake, hers.
You would not be a good counselor...ignoring as you are the basic facts of a pregnancy. The child you pretend doesn't exist, is in constant communication with its mother...concerning mood, comfort, likes and needs in her breast milk.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
What is it about the fetus that changes over this period of time that makes it more repugnant to destroy it in the third trimester than in the second or the first? It is that is physically looks more like people we know? It is that it is larger? If we applied that criteria to adults we would have less respect for the life of midgets or people with Facial Infused Lipomatosis than we would for full-sized adults with normal faces.

It is risky to base our morality on how we feel. Such a basis has led to all sorts of atrocities in human history, including the holocaust, American slavery, various genocides around the world, as well as lesser forms of oppression.
I left your entire post intact for the sake of fairness/clarity, even though I had the answer to your question by the first question mark.

My discomfort grows based on all the information I have on gestation and how the fetus matures into a baby which can survive the birthing process and live on its own. Some small part of that information is indeed "size", with the larger the entity, the less casually I'm willing to kill it. However, the bulk of the relevant information involves the details of that gestation: the moment when the nervous system is present, the moment when brain waves are detected, the moment when the fetus contains all the exterior features of a human being, the moment the fetus begins to respond to external stimuli, etc. A good chunk of these things take shape in the second trimester.

Prior to that point, the majority of these things are missing; after that point, it's hard to argue that the fetus is anything less than a human being almost ready to come out of the oven.

Prior to birth, humanity exists on a continuum. There are moments when the fetus isn't much more human-being-like than an acorn is like a tree; at others, the fetus is quite obviously a miniature human being.

None of these things are "feelings"; none of them are based on how I feel about the fetus.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Each villain in history is the measure of the depravity of that generation. That is not an argument in favor of abortion...
Of course it isn't. Neither is it an argument against abortion, which is my point.
I get that...Pro-choice is capitulation. It's not you destroying your own offspring. It's also denial...You refuse to admit that the child inside, is of an entirely other DNA, life, blood type than that of the mother. It's not OK precisely because it's not "her own body," but the child that has been entrusted to her...or forced upon her by a criminal unwilling or uncaring to take responsibility for his own savage selfishness.
Rubbish. Firstly, there is no child yet, just a potential child, and yes there is a difference. Secondly, refusing to interfere in another's decision is neither capitulation nor denial. If I came round and arbitrarily chose the colour of your curtains and carpets you would be outraged, and we are discussing a much more important decision than that. It is solely the woman's. She may take the opinions of others, including the putative father, if she wishes. Nevertheless, no one is as affected by the decision more than she, so it is hers entirely.

You, as a teacher, are more responsible than any other for the words you choose to convey your ideas. Each word is a seed that bears fruit...that for which you are not absolved. If you mislead another to believe that one is "free" to choose whatever one wants, without consequence your own guilt mingles with the choice they made.
As a teacher my responsibility is to teach how to think, not what to think.

Circumstances are immaterial. Consequences bring fruit.
Consequences flow from either choice. They flow from the initial circumstances, which are therefore not immaterial.

That much is clear...that does not absolve you of responsibility. God's existence is not dependent on you believing in Him any more than a chair depends on the faith of the one who sits in it. Not believing in apples might prevent you from enjoying one...but that's not the apple's loss. It's yours.
I know that from your perspective, this sounds worthy and honest. From mine it is both silly and incredibly rude. I'm not telling you how to live your life, however circumspectly. Neither am I threatening you with dire consequences. I am not an idiot. I know what your religion describes. I don't need you to thrust it at me like a desperate doorstep salesperson. I have already rejected it.

You are clearly not illiterate. Stop using that as an excuse for illiteracy. The reason that piece of literature has survived the millennia is that it speaks well to those who claim to be atheist.
On the contrary. It provides a comforting sense of smug superiority to those who are not atheists.
I never need to persuade you of anything. Truth needs no ally. It's the only indelible substance in the universe. Your unbelief doesn't erase or establish it. If you die unconvinced, you'll still have to face the Truth that you so strongly opposed. It's the nature of truth.
Don't reify a simple concept. Truth is just a short word meaning in accordance with reality. It applies to very little of what you say and certainly not to anything happening after death.
Wahahahahaha....That's because you believe in what's being pushed as a drug, and calling it "norm". You're dead wrong, and that's why your argument fails. Abstinence is a choice of moral character, which, contrary to your claim, exists in the least. Claim it's not true, and explain why the graffiti goes up on the bathroom wall when a breach has been made to the honor of a young lady.
Sexual activity is an entirely natural evolved behaviour which in humans has been developed to aid pair-bonding through mutual bonding. Sex is not a drug. It need be neither dirty nor degrading, though the Christian attitude to it does a lot to create that impression. Abstinence is a choice. It is an odd choice, neither pure nor impure. No one is soiled by having sex. The problems are caused by a lack of respect. That too can be addressed in the class room. Indeed sex education should spend rather more on respect and making choices than it does on plumbing.
When honor is taught, abstinence is the only honest choice. Immorality is not normal...it's aberrant.
Utterly wrong. Teach respect and self-respect. That removes the peer pressure to have sex before one is ready. Sex is not dishonourable or immoral. Lack of respect is.

We will disagree. You are wrong, and history itself argues against your stand. No society has ever gone the direction of the USA and survived fifty years beyond that choice.[/] It is over fifty years since the UK passed the Abortion Act 1967, which effectively ended abortion as a controversy, providing safe, free abortions to any woman who wants one. We still appear to be here.

We can talk again in a decade. The US, without repentance and revival, as England experienced in the days of the Wesley brothers will be going down first. Pride, fulness of bread, abundance of idleness...and there is no care for the poor and the needy. Proud, fat, and they entertain themselves to death. The symptoms of ruin since the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.
This puffed up grandiosity cuts no ice. Abortion is, or should be a relatively minor public health issue. Providing an adequate service does not threaten the nation. I know all about the Wesley brothers. There are seven generations of Methodist preachers in my family, all those still living are in the US. They would not agree with you.
Again, we disagree. The male is not absolved of his responsibility. Or of the blood guilt.
Having sex is not a matter of guilt unless trust has been broken. The male has an input, but it is neither final nor binding. His body is not on the line. Pregnancy is not a partnership of equals.
You would not be a good counselor...ignoring as you are the basic facts of a pregnancy. The child you pretend doesn't exist, is in constant communication with its mother...concerning mood, comfort, likes and needs in her breast milk.
On the contrary, I am an excellent counsellor, and I have the notes of appreciation to prove it. You mistake biochemistry for communication. The foetus has certain biochemical needs. They are provided via the umbilical cord and the placenta. Breast milk does not come into the picture until after birth, when we have an entirely different scenario.
 

tbeachhead

Active member
Of course it isn't. Neither is it an argument against abortion, which is my point.
Rubbish. Firstly, there is no child yet, just a potential child, and yes there is a difference.
...potential child as YOU were once. This is getting redundant. There IS a difference, precisely because no one who posts here ever skipped the "potential child" stage. Your view HAS to deny the biological processes of life itself. What you were in your mother's womb is what you HAD to be, to be enabled to write your response here. You did not skip a single "optional" stage of life, because there is none. When you eliminate a stage, you eliminate that life. Period. Simple as that. Arguing that "it doesn't matter" is all you have left, and frankly, nonsense...because you matter as much.
Secondly, refusing to interfere in another's decision is neither capitulation nor denial. If I came round and arbitrarily chose the colour of your curtains and carpets you would be outraged, and we are discussing a much more important decision than that. It is solely the woman's. She may take the opinions of others, including the putative father, if she wishes. Nevertheless, no one is as affected by the decision more than she, so it is hers entirely.
And this is ghoulish...We're not talking curtains. If you were encouraging the woman to hold a gun to her child's head, or the doctor to snuff the life out of the infant on the operating table, you'd have a much closer analogy.

As a teacher my responsibility is to teach how to think, not what to think.
You are in denial...You would not avoid imparting your amorality...It's contagious and you know it. We're a product of what we've been fed.

Consequences flow from either choice. They flow from the initial circumstances, which are therefore not immaterial.
We agree. There is a price with every choice...your choice is free. The price is not yours to choose.

I know that from your perspective, this sounds worthy and honest. From mine it is both silly and incredibly rude. I'm not telling you how to live your life, however circumspectly. Neither am I threatening you with dire consequences. I am not an idiot. I know what your religion describes. I don't need you to thrust it at me like a desperate doorstep salesperson. I have already rejected it.
Frankly, your response doesn't move me either way. What I told you is true. God's existence is not a matter of choice. The closer we come to "reprogramming" DNA, the more we are confronted with an undeniable truth: There is no program without a programmer. No program as complex as the human genome could possibly have "evolved" by random interaction of bits and bytes.

You're stuck with God, whether or not you believe in Him...and unbelief cannot erase existence. I'm not trying to be rude or condescending. This is pure logic.
On the contrary. It provides a comforting sense of smug superiority to those who are not atheists.
Please forgive me. That isn't even close to my intention. I've appreciated this dialog, and intend only to juxtapose my views with yours. Your posts inspire a response from me, because I do not think like you do, and there are few around me that are as cogent as you seem to be. Do not be surprised that we disagree so strenuously. That should not be anything but challenging and entertaining.


Don't reify a simple concept. Truth is just a short word meaning in accordance with reality. It applies to very little of what you say and certainly not to anything happening after death.
Unless God actually spoke and the world was created, as the evidence shows. I learned a new word. Truth is concrete...and verifiable. "Jesus rose from the dead." Concrete. Verifiable.
Sexual activity is an entirely natural evolved behaviour which in humans has been developed to aid pair-bonding through mutual bonding. Sex is not a drug. It need be neither dirty nor degrading, though the Christian attitude to it does a lot to create that impression. Abstinence is a choice. It is an odd choice, neither pure nor impure. No one is soiled by having sex. The problems are caused by a lack of respect. That too can be addressed in the class room. Indeed sex education should spend rather more on respect and making choices than it does on plumbing.
I can agree with that...
Utterly wrong. Teach respect and self-respect. That removes the peer pressure to have sex before one is ready. Sex is not dishonourable or immoral. Lack of respect is.
I totally agree. This is one of the main points I'd make. You do not have to believe in God to understand this: This is the concept of honor...I'd teach beside you without difficulty, and we could keep each other at bay. Avoiding the unwanted pregnancy during the formative years is essential to the development of the person.
This puffed up grandiosity cuts no ice. Abortion is, or should be a relatively minor public health issue. Providing an adequate service does not threaten the nation. I know all about the Wesley brothers. There are seven generations of Methodist preachers in my family, all those still living are in the US. They would not agree with you.
Agreeing with me is not the issue, though, is it? I don't argue so that you agree...I argue because your assertions raise issues, and I want your view on those issues...as you are so good to provide them.

Having sex is not a matter of guilt unless trust has been broken.
Totally depends on the context, doesn't it?
The male has an input, but it is neither final nor binding. His body is not on the line.
Which makes him all the more responsibility, as he is actually risking the life of the woman and her offspring with his self-centered, unbridled urges.
Pregnancy is not a partnership of equals.
Not once he's taken advantage of her...you're right.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
...potential child as YOU were once. This is getting redundant. There IS a difference, precisely because no one who posts here ever skipped the "potential child" stage. Your view HAS to deny the biological processes of life itself. What you were in your mother's womb is what you HAD to be, to be enabled to write your response here. You did not skip a single "optional" stage of life, because there is none. When you eliminate a stage, you eliminate that life. Period. Simple as that. Arguing that "it doesn't matter" is all you have left, and frankly, nonsense...because you matter as much.
Your life began before conception. Before your mother was born. A girl has all her oocytes before she is born. The ontological discussion is the biology and other elements from even before conception. They just want to ignore stages of development.
 

tbeachhead

Active member
Your life began before conception. Before your mother was born. A girl has all her oocytes before she is born. The ontological discussion is the biology and other elements from even before conception. They just want to ignore stages of development.
Thank you. This is truth.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
...potential child as YOU were once. This is getting redundant. There IS a difference, precisely because no one who posts here ever skipped the "potential child" stage. Your view HAS to deny the biological processes of life itself. What you were in your mother's womb is what you HAD to be, to be enabled to write your response here. You did not skip a single "optional" stage of life, because there is none. When you eliminate a stage, you eliminate that life. Period. Simple as that. Arguing that "it doesn't matter" is all you have left, and frankly, nonsense...because you matter as much.
You have made this point several times, so my response is clearly not getting through. At birth a baby girl has approximately a million eggs already in her ovaries. By puberty around 300,000 are left. Of these 300-400 will actually mature and be available for fertilisation. We are not sure how many eggs are fertilised and fail to implant, but estimates are as high as 25%. There is then a proportion that are lost to spontaneous abortion, otherwise known as miscarriage. Some women have a very high proportion of these. The average woman will carry around two pregnancies to term. So, from a potential 1, 000, 000, 2 actually achieve the potential. Your hair is on fire over the much less than 1 on average that is lost to planned abortion. Don't you see this as an over-reaction? I do.
And this is ghoulish...We're not talking curtains. If you were encouraging the woman to hold a gun to her child's head, or the doctor to snuff the life out of the infant on the operating table, you'd have a much closer analogy.
No. Firstly, there is no encouraging. There is enabling, which is not the same. Secondly it is not snuffing out the life of a child. It is preventing a child from developing. Just like all the 999,998 on average other eggs from the same woman that don't develop into a child. If this discussion is to continue, we should really tackle the nub of the argument, the status of the foetus as it develops in the womb. From the perception of that status, all other aspects of abortion flow.

You are in denial...You would not avoid imparting your amorality...It's contagious and you know it. We're a product of what we've been fed.
Unlikely though it may seem, I was once employed for a year to teach Religious Education and sex ed at a Catholic High School in South Wales. I did so scrupulously, following the syllabus and never expressed my personal opinion on either God or abortion. I was able to do this because the syllabus itself is completely fair and balance, giving air time for all points of view and crucially, rewarding the student for being able to describe and defend their personal views, rather than for the views that were held. Teaching how to construct a balanced argument and a reasoned conclusion is satisfying, whatever the conclusion reached might be.

We agree. There is a price with every choice...your choice is free. The price is not yours to choose.
It is not my choice to make or price to pay. Making sure that the price is understood, for each choice, and cutting away some of the spurious advertising, is the best I can do.

Frankly, your response doesn't move me either way. What I told you is true. God's existence is not a matter of choice. The closer we come to "reprogramming" DNA, the more we are confronted with an undeniable truth: There is no program without a programmer. No program as complex as the human genome could possibly have "evolved" by random interaction of bits and bytes.
This is straying into another area entirely. I don't agree. Neither do I agree that my opinion on God has any bearing on my opinion on abortion.

You're stuck with God, whether or not you believe in Him...and unbelief cannot erase existence. I'm not trying to be rude or condescending. This is pure logic.
Despite being "stuck with God" l manage to live my life satisfactorily without bothering about Him. Or all the other deities, from Apollon to Zeus, from Allah to Shiva which other believers are or were convinced I am stuck with. The hosts of potential deities swarm around me like midges, but being illusory, they don't actually bite.
Please forgive me. That isn't even close to my intention. I've appreciated this dialog, and intend only to juxtapose my views with yours. Your posts inspire a response from me, because I do not think like you do, and there are few around me that are as cogent as you seem to be. Do not be surprised that we disagree so strenuously. That should not be anything but challenging and entertaining.
I have no problem with strenuous debate that doesn't descend into name-calling or farce. All to common here unfortunately.

Unless God actually spoke and the world was created, as the evidence shows. I learned a new word. Truth is concrete...and verifiable. "Jesus rose from the dead." Concrete. Verifiable.
I can agree with that...
We clearly disagree on the nature of evidence, verification and concrete.
I totally agree. This is one of the main points I'd make. You do not have to believe in God to understand this: This is the concept of honor...I'd teach beside you without difficulty, and we could keep each other at bay. Avoiding the unwanted pregnancy during the formative years is essential to the development of the person.
Not just the unwanted pregnancy. Avoiding disease and avoiding stigma for being unlike one's peers is also important.
Totally depends on the context, doesn't it?
Of course. In general, sexual activity which exploits or harms another person, physically or mentally, is morally wrong in my view. All consensual activity between adults in private is fine, irrespective of the number or gender of the participants.
Which makes him all the more responsibility, as he is actually risking the life of the woman and her offspring with his self-centered, unbridled urges. Not once he's taken advantage of her...you're right.
I am wary of the "taking advantage of her" form of language. It immediately puts the woman in a position of subordination. I try to empower the woman as much as possible, to give her the self-confidence to say no, and to deal with unwanted consequences should she say yes.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
How can anyone who's pushed back on news of the pandemic's effects here in the US claim to be "pro-life"?
Vague accusation. What news? Be specific.

What effects? Be specific.

This Chiner Fru virus came from a lab in Wuhan which was funded using American financial aid. The chinese atheists lied saying it came from wet market.

Fao Chi Min lied from the get go.
 
Top