Pro-choice

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

I'm sorry, how did I make a personal attack? If someone says that their eyes are blue and I refuse to engage in anything they have to say because their eyes are blue doesn't mean I made a personal attack.

What if you seriously told someone you refused to listen to anything one said because the person was Jewish, black, female, gay, or any other inborn quality? I read his post, and he clearly said he neither looks at child porn or engages in sexual acts with kids. So in effect he has a "God given" desire and wisely chooses not to act on it. If God is the "alpha and omega" as you say, how can his inclination be anything but "God given" after all? It's how he acts that matters, and he seems to be doing fine.

[Amadeus]

Having sexual desires for children is completely different than being Jewish, black, etc. It is noble that he is not acting on those desires, however I feel that at his age (16), sexual orientation, and his deep down buring desire to be with children sexually, I can not engage with him on this subject of abortion because he is too young and may be a little messed up to think clearly. I didn't bash him, I'm just not going to take his opinion into any consideration.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Having sexual desires for children is completely different than being Jewish, black, etc. It is noble that he is not acting on those desires, however I feel that at his age (16), sexual orientation, and his deep down buring desire to be with children sexually, I can not engage with him on this subject of abortion because he is too young and may be a little messed up to think clearly. I didn't bash him, I'm just not going to take his opinion into any consideration.

Your loss!

I at least prefer being a little naive and lost (I admit) to outright dishonesty and lack of consideration.

[Amadeus]

Aiden, please document when I was dishonest. Oh and by the way, what does all this have to do with killing unborn babies?

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Aiden, please document when I was dishonest. Oh and by the way, what does all this have to do with killing unborn babies?

Now that you mention it, pedophilia does have nothing to do with abortion...

End of hijack. Amadeus, I don't want to get into a debate that derails the topic, but to answer your question attacking somebody's character in order to invalidate their opinions is dishonest.

[Amadeus]

I wasn't "attacking" your character. I'm just not taking what you have in consideration because of your sexual desires coupled with your age. You have every right to ignore what I have to say because I am a Christian.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Wow, this is pretty out of hand. I can respect the fact that you believe in God, Amadeus. I can even respect your belief that an unborn baby has a soul (heck I feel the same way). It starts to get a little harder to keep up the conversation when you chastise people for making personal attacks and then turn around and attack several people in one post. Your message is getting completely lost in your method. Show a little Christian love and compassion. God is not about condemnation. He loves Angela who I am sure is fully responsible about her reproductive health. He loves Aidan who may be 'lost' as he said, but who is also very thoughtful and mature for his age...it must take a great deal of courage to admit something like that when the reception will obviously be pretty harsh at best. He loves Brutha and BeyondBewildered as well despite the fact that I don't agree with everything they've said . Regardless of what beliefs these people hold, and despite the fact that they need no defense from me, your browbeating is not too Christlike. It's sad that many Christians have to spend their whole lives convincing others that they are not judgemental and mean, but I now see why it's so.

Edit: One might say that they cannot engage with you on this subject, Amadeus, because you are male.

[AidanMatthews216]

{aspiring_to_clarity} is right that this has gotten to be too much about condemnation. Amadeus, I don't condemn you for being a Christian and I think your viewpoints are worth consideration, even respect. I don't think your purpose was to attack or condemn me; whatever your purpose was, how does the source of an opinion matter and not merely the opinion itself? It would take you only a few moments to glance over my posts and consider them but instead you are using that time to write about how confused I am. (For an example, even parrots and chimpanzees say some pretty bright things now and then. )

If you don't want to consider my viewpoint, fine. But how about we all return to the topic at hand and stay there, instead of making any kind of personal judgments?

In case your mind is at least ajar at this point, I'll ask you this: why do you think that God grants some the right to dictate what others can do with their bodies? You said "your body isn't yours," which does make sense in a Christian perspective. But why is it yours any more than the woman's? Since the foetus itself can't voice its interests, doesn't it seem that the fairest balance of power is to give the mother the right over her own body?

[Akashic_Librarian]

*nods*

I have noticed this has turned into more of a religious squabble than an intelligent discussion. I don't want to be a part of it so until we get back to proper discussion I won't comment.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Understood, A_L. If anyone wants to go back a few steps, here's my post outlining my hopefully 'intelligent discussion' of the subject.

Aside from the bickering, this has been a really interesting discussion. I would enjoy hearing from some others on the subject.

[Amadeus]

Let me just clear up a few things for you aspiring.
1. This subject is about abortion, so sometimes there is no easy way to tell people that they should put others (babies) before themselves when they are headstrong about preserving self and be for self.
2. I am not the one who called anybody a "right winged nut", now am I? Tell me what names I have called anybody? How come you don't criticize negative comments from the other side? Hmmm???
3. Who is browbeating? I'm the one trying to stay on topic.
4. We don't know each other personally so I am not judging anyone personally I am trying to address the topic at hand.
5. Don't compare me or anyone else to Christ. None of us would meaure even close to his knee caps. Don't compare Christ or the Bible to his followers. Compare the Bible to the Bible. Anaylse the "word" and not his people. People are human and will never measure up to Him.
6. Analyze what I am saying ONLY to what I am saying. If any of you met me on the street I would buy you lunch and tell you how beautiful a person you were because you are a child of God. If Aiden were to come in my church and I knew what he thought sexually I would clear a seat for him on the first row and worship with him. I would "try" not to judge him because I think unholy thoughts every day.

To answer Aiden's question about how come God gives some people (government) the right to tell what others can do with their bodies, I think he judges whole communites (countries, towns, families, couples) based on their following of the Word. If a country allowed it's citizens to be unlawful (kill, steal, etc.) there would be a huge consequence to this disobedience (spiritually and secularly).
Your argument that a woman should have a right over her own body because the child can't speak for him or herself is wrong. The government has to step in to protect the innocent and weak (especially children). A lot of mentally handicap and disabled children and adults can't speak for themselves, so do we let their parents do what ever they want with them? During WW2 the Nazis murdered retarded people because they were not "perfect". This slippery slow is going on in China as we speak where you can only have one child. Many couples want boys so the girls are aborted, dissapear, or sold into slavery. The Chinese government turns a blind eye to this. Do you think that it is right for the Chinese government to do what it is doing so it's citizens can participate in "planned parenthood" and be "pro choice" in order to have a boy. If the mother can take ultrasounds to find out the sex of the baby, would it be ok with you if she aborted 5 baby girls to get her boy?

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

To answer Aiden's question about how come God gives some people (government) the right to tell what others can do with their bodies, I think he judges whole communites (countries, towns, families, couples) based on their following of the Word. If a country allowed it's citizens to be unlawful (kill, steal, etc.) there would be a huge consequence to this disobedience (spiritually and secularly).
Your argument that a woman should have a right over her own body because the child can't speak for him or herself is wrong. The government has to step in to protect the innocent and weak (especially children).

Thanks for replying, Amadeus. You're right that part of the governments job is protecting the weak and innocent. But for one thing it is not clear at what point foetuses become human beings in anything but genotype. Or rather, it's clear to some people, but those people can't enforce their judgments on others. Since religion under a secular government is the province of personal choice, and religion not science claims that the issue is so clear, abortion is about a woman's right to her body. If you don't believe this, fine. Don't perform abortions. The bottom line is that what you are doing is force and you'll be met with force. That's freedom for you.

This slippery slow is going on in China as we speak where you can only have one child. Many couples want boys so the girls are aborted, dissapear, or sold into slavery. The Chinese government turns a blind eye to this. Do you think that it is right for the Chinese government to do what it is doing so it's citizens can participate in "planned parenthood" and be "pro choice" in order to have a boy. If the mother can take ultrasounds to find out the sex of the baby, would it be ok with you if she aborted 5 baby girls to get her boy?

You call that "pro-choice?" Fewer abortions would be performed in China if the government gave people full reproductive rights. Similarly in other countries where abortion is legal making it illegal may only make the situation worse by bringing in a bunch of illegal abortions that are as frequent and more dangerous than those performed legally. If you want to stop abortions, remove the need for them; force will only superficially remove the problem.

Unholy thoughts aside, what say you?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

I decided to delete my post because it did not add anything constructive to the discussion at hand.

[BeyondBewildered]

Amadeus, the strech mark comments are really uncalled for and insulting. Women are not as stupid as you would like to believe. We don't need to see a sonogram to know what an abortion or a fetus is. Very, very few women make decide to abort based on such superficial reasons. It seems you have an idea of what abortion is in your head; a stupid slut who "spreads her legs," and kills her baby to avoid stretch marks. You simply refuse to see any other viewpoint. Does making the right choice really count in the eyes of your god if it isn't a choice?

I don't need someone to "force" me to have sex to think that I have a right to have sex and an abortion. I'm married, not relgious, and neither my husband or I desire to have children in the foreseeable future. I don't want to carry a baby and give it away. I don't find that moral. To me, it is more responsible to timely terminate a pregnancy than thrust yet another child into an absolutely horrible public child care system, or hand it over to a religious family.

Although some surveys report 90% of America is Christian, the official census number is 76.5. There are also 13% of us who are completely nonreligious. What about our rights? Why aren't our views important? Abortions being legal does not put your soul in jeopardy. You don't even have a uterus; you'll never be put in a position to abort or not abort. You want to impose your view upon others. You want the government to force everyone to do what you feel is right. That is the slippery slope Amadeus. Giving the misinformed religious masses control over other people's body and morality.

No one has addressed my concern about what birth control options are available to me if we define human life as starting at conception. By that definintion, I and many other women have probably had dozens of abortions by using birth control. It seems that pro lifers don't quite realize that when they start using that logic, they are really arguing to get rid of most forms of birth control and essentially all reproductive rights. Well beyond getting the many men all female pro choicers obviously sleep with to finally use condoms. You really fail to realize the public health hazard that carrying every pregnancy to term would create.

[Akashic_Librarian]

I agree with BeyondBewildered. Frankly it is abhhorant that people think religion should have any bearing on Law in this day and age. And as BeyondBewildered so rightly put, what about the Non-religious, or Humanists out there? We have rights too you know. We want choice thats not centered around (in my opinion) a fictional Diety. We want one thats centered around choice, freedom and logic.

[Matthew Shea]

Originally Posted by BeyondBewildered

No one has addressed my concern about what birth control options are available to me if we define human life as starting at conception. By that definintion, I and many other women have probably had dozens of abortions by using birth control. It seems that pro lifers don't quite realize that when they start using that logic, they are really arguing to get rid of most forms of birth control and essentially all reproductive rights. Well beyond getting the many men all female pro choicers obviously sleep with to finally use condoms. You really fail to realize the public health hazard that carrying every pregnancy to term would create.

There is only one form of "birth control" that I'm aware of that could possibly be considered as prompting an abortion by any stretch of the imagination. That form is what most people call the "morning after pill" or "RU486." Everything else is designed to prevent fertilization from happening in the first place. No fertilization means you can't have an abortion.

So if you're pro-life, simply avoid the morning after pill and you'll be fine.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

There is only one form of "birth control" that I'm aware of that could possibly be considered as prompting an abortion by any stretch of the imagination. That form is what most people call the "morning after pill" or "RU486." Everything else is designed to prevent fertilization from happening in the first place. No fertilization means you can't have an abortion.

I believe what BeyondBewildered is referring to is what she'd said below. Personally I'm pro-choice in all aspects of life, with an inclination to minimize harm whenever possible. To me birth control is a lesser evil than a normal abortion and thus preferable, though using a condom or getting a vasectomy to me would be better than people needing to take pills for years on end that alter their hormonal makeup. My personal choice as I somewhat addressed above is to emphasize behaviors other than intercourse, to use a condom and practice ejaculation control (taoist technique) when having intercourse, and if somehow I actually did get someone pregnant, it wouldn't be so bad as I would be a very active and happy father, and only seek involvement with people I could conceivably have a happy life with. No random drunken hookups with perfect strangers (at least not to the point of intercourse ). Everyone's life is different, and I expect each person will do what he/she sees as best for the individual situation.

Originally Posted by BeyondBewildered

With all forms of hormonal birth control and IUDs, there is a chance, a very large chance actually, that conception will occur; the egg will be fertilized, cells will start to divide and an embryo with a complete set of human DNA will exist until it is unable to implant in the uterine lining and is shed with the woman's monthy cycle.
[...]
So when people go on about DNA making a thing human, they are really calling for the recall of ALL forms of birth control except barrier methods like condoms and diaphragms. Women without children are not suitable candidtates for diaphragms, so there would be no form of birth control that the woman would be in control of. Essentially, you are saying that I should have no right to have sex unless I want to pump out babies non stop until I drop dead. That's the way it used to be, and it still is that way for many, many women. I'd like to keep my reproductive rights, thank you very much.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

2. I am not the one who called anybody a "right winged nut", now am I? Tell me what names I have called anybody?

You opened that argument yourself. If you make a personal argument, I can respond to your personal argument.

5. Don't compare me or anyone else to Christ. None of us would meaure even close to his knee caps. Don't compare Christ or the Bible to his followers. Compare the Bible to the Bible. Anaylse the "word" and not his people. People are human and will never measure up to Him.

The idea that abortion is wrong isn't in the bible. The bible doesn't define whether a unborn child counts as human life.
It is a greek idea with was adopted by christanity around 400 AD.

You said, "Making your arguments based on the bible makes you a right winged nut." Calling me a right winged nut shows that you have little respect for others views. You try to win an argument by name-calling. 90 percent of Americans call themselves Christians. So are we all right wing nuts?
You said, "95% may have some religion but they don't believe in the God of the bible." No Brutha, wrong again. 90 percent of Americans are Christians and believe in the Bible. The US was founded by Christians.

I know that the US unfortunatly didn't had an period of Enlightment. But still your argument lacks logical congruency.
If A (exactly 90 percent of Americans belief in the bible) is true than B (exactly 95 percent of Americans belief in the bible) can't be true as well.
But then who believes in logic, you obviously believe in God instead.

A quick google search revealed that 3/4 of Americans answer in surveys that they have a christian religion.
That still doesn't mean that all of those would want a society that isn't based on human made law but on human made interpretations of the bible.

During WW2 the Nazis murdered retarded people because they were not "perfect".

Godwin's law: You lost your argument.

[Amadeus]

No one has addressed the issue of how the World was created. Our science states that there is always a beginning in the end. How could the World be created when there is nothing to begin with to create it in the first place? So obviously there has to be something that created that goes against our science. Again, don't attempt to mention the Big Bang because something had to create the energy in the first place. Our science has been successfully refuted millions of times. Scientist use to believe the world was flat.
You can not refute one thing in the Bible. You can not tell me one Law or scripture that does not apply to our lives today.
The Kingdom is just as real to me as what we see tangibly.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

No one has addressed the issue of how the World was created.

What?!? What does that have to do with abortion or euthanasia? What happened to staying on topic, Mr. Let's Stay on Topic?

Originally Posted by Amadeus

You can not refute one thing in the Bible. You can not tell me one Law or scripture that does not apply to our lives today.

But since you bring it up, how about:

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)

If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)

If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)

Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

....just to name a few!

[Amadeus]

Angela all the versus you mentioned are in the Old Testament with the old law. When Jesus came he brought the human factor to God and died for our sins. God doesn't have to wipe us out or kill us intentionally. Jesus paid the price. Back in the Roman days they use to sacrifice animals to satisfy God. Jesus (the son of God) became the ultimate sacrifice.

You can not deny the truth in the Bible. God said about the Jewish people, "I will curse those who curse you and bless those who bless you". You can't deny that the Jewish people (only 14 million the World) are the most gifted and blessed people on the planet. You can not deny that Israel has supernatural powers and that the whole world focuses on this country the size of Vermont. This is all in the Bible.

The Bible also mentions that we should hate our mothers and our fathers if we are to follow Christ. He doesn't mean actually hate, he means that you should love Jesus so much that it is hate in comparison.

If liberals are so "one with nature" by not wanting to harm the environment and mimic nature then why are there no other animals that kill their baby inside the womb. They may kill it when it gets outside if it is sick. So be one with nature and leave the little babies alone.

We can argue the Bible all day long. I have valid points and you have valid points. However, if you love your mother so much after she passes away and God forbide that a fire destroyed all your pictures. Everyone that knew here was dead, would you doubt that you knew her? I think Christians think this way about God and Jesus. We know him. We talk to him. He is there.

(Oh and I forgot, what created the energy that created the World in the "beginning" if there was no energy to begin thwarting all the laws of science and helping to prove that there is a God. This is not diverting because the whole idea of not having an abortion is because we believe that babies have souls before it comes out of the womb. )