Abortion

[Isaac]

When a woman terminates a pregnancy they will refer to it as a fetus. But if the same woman dies in a car accident on the way to get the abortion, she died with her unborn baby.

I think it's ridiculous when people pretend to not think it's a baby.

Well let's see here -- You're giving it a name in your family, you're buying baby clothes for it, you're prepping a crib and nursery, and you're calling it a baby. I'm pretty sure it really is a baby! It's not like they're confused, wondering if it's a table, lamp or chair.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I think it's ridiculous when people pretend to not think it's a baby.

Well let's see here -- You're giving it a name in your family, you're buying baby clothes for it, you're prepping a crib and nursery, and you're calling it a baby. I'm pretty sure it really is a baby! It's not like they're confused, wondering if it's a table, lamp or chair.

You miss the point, Isaac. Personally, I would agree with you - but I know that religions exist that would not, and it is a dangerous precedent to discount another person's religion without certainty of cause. My previously stated feelings about Muslims are also conflicted because I have had many Muslim friends whom I know to be good and reasonable people. Then there are the members of Hamas and of the Wahabbi sect. When religion enters the picture, you are dealing with something that probably has been a part of a person's life since their earliest childhood memories. When a moral dilemma hits THAT situation, you have a massive cognitive dissonance to manage and there will be anger on both sides. That's why I won't make a categorical condemnation.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Thank you for the kind opinion, Tony. I enjoy your little snippets that you post as well. Some of your chose clips are truly magnificent examples of irony - and not always of the subtle kind.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

There is science to pick the dividing point.

No there is not... not if the person in question is adhering to a religious answer. THAT is the problem in a nutshell. For those who are atheist or not strongly adherent to religious dogma, science holds AN answer - but not THE answer. The devout followers of one of the relevant religions hold their beliefs ABOVE science and THAT is the source of the problem. It is their right to do so since we do not discriminate against any creeds and any religions - equally. My personal beliefs in abortion don't matter. It is my personal beliefs on religious and philosophical freedom that drive this discussion. Where do you draw the line? Doesn't matter if the person on the other side doesn't acknowledge the validity of that line.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If my religion says I can kill my child, will society allow it? No.

If you are a member of the Church of Christ, Scientist, and if your child has a treatable but potentially fatal disease, yes you can kill your child by refusing treatment on religious grounds. Does society allow it? YES. If someone wants to commit suicide (indirectly) by refusing treatment, will society allow it? YES. My paternal grandmother, who WAS a Christian Science member, actually DID that. DON'T tell me that society won't allow it. They DID allow it.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The examples are apples and oranges.

Your response is an example of avoidance.

Abortion is KNOWINGLY taking the life of another.

Unless your religion says that the other isn't a person yet.

There is no middle ground that you keep trying to find.

I was never looking for a middle ground because to you it is always and only about the fetus or baby. But there IS a third party, the pregnant woman, and it is HER rights that become somewhat of a problem in this discussion.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

Your response is an example of avoidance.



Unless your religion says that the other isn't a person yet.



I was never looking for a middle ground because to you it is always and only about the fetus or baby. But there IS a third party, the pregnant woman, and it is HER rights that become somewhat of a problem in this discussion.

Right to terminate a life? When does that right end? Before or after a fetus can survive outside the womb? Medical science is making a fetus more viable earlier in the pregnancy. If a woman, who is 22 weeks or more pregnant, loses that child as a result of an attack or negligence, is that an abortion or a homicide? Is she or her surviving family entitled to justice or compensation? I've known women who miscarried in this time period, or later, and they had named the child and had a burial service, they didn't toss the unborn into the garbage. My husband's five month old nephew who passed before we got married was mourned the same as my brother's daughter who died in her mother's womb at 8.5 months.

 

[Jon]

Is it morally right to murder the unborn? I am talking the child that could have been had you procreated. Not only have you deprived it of its fetus stage, you have deprived it of any life at all. It is an argument I use against Vegans. Don't kill animals for food because it truncates their life. But eating no meat means there is no meat industry and so you have truncated all their lives, especially the unborn.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

My position remains simple.

1. Religions exist that do not declare that a fetus is a person before birth.
2. The USA and many other nations allow freedom of religion. Even to extremes in some cases.
3. Therefore even though I am personally against abortion, I don't have the right to interfere with someone acting according to their religious beliefs regarding that intimately personal situation of unwanted pregnancy. I consider this a very narrow zone of no interference.

4. This lack of rights and lack of condemnation does not extend to those who would act with violence to others, for example: The Oct. 7th Hamas attacks; the Saudi doctor who drove his truck into a crowd in Germany.

 

[ColinEssex]

I supported her in her time of need knowing how painful this decision was to her. You might ask, why wasn't she using birth control? The answer is the Catholic church forbade birth control at that time and so she obeyed the tenants of her faith.

More fool her then. Just shows how stupid people are regarding religion.
Col

 

[Isaac]

A part of me almost hates to point this out because I think that I will be jumped on for saying this but it's the truth. The idea of killing your kids because they are inconvenient doesn't stop when they are born, and women are disproportionately represented among those who kill their children by drowning or strangling or whatever the case may be. You won't hear liberals say that too often but I've noticed this is definitely the case

 

[ColinEssex]

Let us not forget that my friend was r*ped by her legal husband who she was in the process of divorcing. So, stop with your judgment Colin. SHE was an unwilling party to the event.

Oh come on dear, don't get out of your pram. I'm not referring to the 'event' as you call it, I'm referring to the idiocy of following the fairy story religion and the demands of a religion led mostly by paedophiles (as we have seen dozens of times).
If people follow hypocritical religion or religious ramblings by perverts blindly, then that's their own look out. Don't come crying to me when it goes t*ts up.
Col

 

[Isaac]

My position remains simple.

1. Religions exist that do not declare that a fetus is a person before birth.
2. The USA and many other nations allow freedom of religion. Even to extremes in some cases.
3. Therefore even though I am personally against abortion, I don't have the right to interfere with someone acting according to their religious beliefs regarding that intimately personal situation of unwanted pregnancy. I consider this a very narrow zone of no interference.

4. This lack of rights and lack of condemnation does not extend to those who would act with violence to others, for example: The Oct. 7th Hamas attacks; the Saudi doctor who drove his truck into a crowd in Germany.

The problem is your rules no longer work if extended to other situations.
You say you have no right to interfere in abortion because people have their own religious views, but what if those religious views included killing a 5 year old - would you still have no right to intervene?
The reason that you are not allowed to kill a 5 year old is because enough people can agree on their MORAL values about that topic.
Thus, all of our rules and laws are still based on a moral valueset, whether you wish it were or not

 

[Isaac]

Oh come on dear, don't get out of your pram. I'm not referring to the 'event' as you call it, I'm referring to the idiocy of following the fairy story religion and the demands of a religion led mostly by paedophiles (as we have seen dozens of times).
If people follow hypocritical religion or religious ramblings by perverts blindly, then that's their own look out. Don't come crying to me when it goes t*ts up.
Col

Those religious organizations you so despise are the main avenue that people receive charity and help who are in desperate situations, outside the government. I am glad they are there, because I want desperate people to be able to find help.

 

[pbaldy]

The problem is your rules no longer work if extended to other situations.
You say you have no right to interfere in abortion because people have their own religious views, but what if those religious views included killing a 5 year old - would you still have no right to intervene?
The reason that you are not allowed to kill a 5 year old is because enough people can agree on their MORAL values about that topic.
Thus, all of our rules and laws are still based on a moral valueset, whether you wish it were or not

I was going to say something similar. Are we going to allow the application of Sharia law in the US, since it's their religious belief? Stoning, whacking off hands, and so on? I hope not. If you want to live under that law, move to a country that practices it.

 

[ColinEssex]

Those religious organizations you so despise are the main avenue that people receive charity and help who are in desperate situations, outside the government. I am glad they are there, because I want desperate people to be able to find help.

Hmm, if you say so. I think at this juncture it would be prudent for me to hold my tongue and allow you to enjoy the next few days without arguing with me. Have a very happy Christmas. May your god go with you.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You say you have no right to interfere in abortion because people have their own religious views, but what if those religious views included killing a 5 year old - would you still have no right to intervene?

In the USA, explicitly yes, since the U.S. Constitution clearly asserts that people who have all of the civil rights associated with "the people" must include natural-born citizens. I.e. you become a citizen at birth. Therefore, LEGALLY there is a right to due process and various other protections. This is the most common basis for those who would challenge the religious views of Christian Scientists when they deny treatment to a child.

Understand that in other countries, particularly those with a strongly religious orientation, that right is not always available. In some Islamic countries, decapitation is the fate of homosexuals, people found guilty of apostasy, people who are Christian, ... a laundry list.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Fetuses in the USA are now petitioning Joe Biden for a pardon.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

Fetuses in the USA are now petitioning Joe Biden for a pardon.

The innocent won't get a pardon.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You keep making this a religious discussion. I keep trying to make it secular.

But that's exactly the point. If it were truly secular, there would be no issue at all. But my point is that you cannot separate a religious viewpoint out of this mess because the laws of the USA allow freedom of religion and from that direction of argument, any secular laws have to be weighed against imposing a direction contrary to some religious. It IS NOT PURELY SECULAR or we would have stopped this discussion long ago.

It's the world we live in. Religion plays a part. Different religions say different things about it. Argue all you like or stop arguing. Doesn't matter. The problem is at least partially religious. You know I am not strongly religious - but I recognize the rights of others to espouse and follow the tenets of their religion. Therein lies the central issue.