Abortion

[jiminski]

Think of the counter- factual, Nap. What would the world look like if there had never been any abortions?

I reckon a number more of Beethovens, Schroedingers and Shakespeares would have lived.

That little name-drop shows some conjectural possibility! It offers the chance to debate on something which does not just rely upon the existence of a soul; that just reduces the debate to the 'yes it is!' 'no it isn't' level.

Are you saying that it is better for us to sire all children, with no extraneous control, in order that there is a greater possibility for individual magnificence in the sum of humanity!?
hmm i can see it! but if there were no control upon birthrate, would we not use the planets resources to a greater degree, cause mass starvation, the collapse of world economy and the ultimate reduction in our ability to expand in a measured way? (i have it all booked in for a week next Tuesday)

Well if in fact it would prove to be counter-productive for the sum of humanity.. we are left with your Faith argument; I agree that it is tough to get away from!

But your ideals and beliefs are based upon a different time with different needs for humanity. They emanate from a philosophical movement which was, i concede vital to the proliferation and success of humankind. But which can not mete solutions to the demands of the day... particularly under the power hungry shepherding of 'spiritual' leaders! All it can do is tell us our suffering is Gods Will and that we will find comfort in heaven if we don't complain!
the inherent contradiction is that it embraces failure and suffering to the point where it encourages it! A useful trick in different times but now it is little more than Spiritual Sadism!


Its time is somewhat over but due to the selfish need for Christians to hold onto the Spiritual titillation and show blind devotion to an idea (In the same way that you castigate Marxists for) You impose doctrines which are counter to the now corrupted 'essence' of the extraordinary, earth shattering lores of Jesus Christ.

In pursuing this selfishness and blind devotion, you prove that you did not understand the nature of Christ's teachings!

[suggs]

Think of the counter- factual, Nap. What would the world look like if there had never been any abortions?

I reckon a number more of Beethovens, Schroedingers and Shakespeares would have lived.

As might a few more Hitlers, Jack the Rippers and Charles Mansons. Come up with a real argument for once, both of you.

MeDeFe, the point of introducing the counter factual is merely to provoke thought, and explore different avenues of possibilities.
They (by their very nature) can not offer a soltion (since they have not happened) - but a counter factual proposition will often help clarify the terms of the debate.

[Snorri1234]

Are you saying that it is better for us to sire all children, with no extraneous control, in order that there is a greater possibility for individual magnificence in the sum of humanity!?
hmm i can see it! but if there were no control upon birthrate, would we not use the planets resources to a greater degree, cause mass starvation, the collapse of world economy and the ultimate reduction in our ability to expand in a measured way? (i have it all booked in for a week next Tuesday)

Nah, we're just going to kill all jews, muslims, blacks and other people (probably atheists) to create little room. Lebensraum as Hitler put it.

[Timminz]

I'm having one tomorrow.

[oggiss]

let them immature noobs abort!

[PLAYER57832]

Are you saying that it is better for us to sire all children, with no extraneous control, in order that there is a greater possibility for individual magnificence in the sum of humanity!?
hmm i can see it! but if there were no control upon birthrate, would we not use the planets resources to a greater degree, cause mass starvation, the collapse of world economy and the ultimate reduction in our ability to expand in a measured way? (i have it all booked in for a week next Tuesday)

Nah, we're just going to kill all jews, muslims, blacks and other people (probably atheists) to create little room. Lebensraum as Hitler put it.

No, you have it backwards. Christian babies are saved because their parents are. It is only the no-Christians that must be brought to term, so they can have a chance to escape the clutches of their parents, hear the true gospel and be saved.


Except ... this really isn't a laughing matter (then again, what better time TO laugh than "at the gallows")

[tzor]

No, you have it backwards. Christian babies are saved because their parents are.

That is incorrect.

[Snorri1234]

I think bedub1 has showed immense restraint in not naming this topic "killing babies".

[Napoleon Ier]

So...still no real argument from jiminski to substantiate his relativist principle of "murder is justified so long as it's in the womb".

[got tonkaed]

So...still no real argument from jiminski to substantiate his relativist principle of "murder is justified so long as it's in the womb".

I dont think your going to get much of an argument beyond the notion that until its out of the womb its not really a human being as of yet, so its not murder.

Which i mean as far as this debate is going, isnt really that indefensible of a position.

[Napoleon Ier]

So...still no real argument from jiminski to substantiate his relativist principle of "murder is justified so long as it's in the womb".

I dont think your going to get much of an argument beyond the notion that until its out of the womb its not really a human being as of yet, so its not murder.

Which i mean as far as this debate is going, isnt really that indefensible of a position.

No sure, but the person I was arguing with a minute ago triedto justify abortion because it was just on a morally relativist ground, ignoring the issue of personhood.

<mod edit of racial name calling>

[jonesthecurl]

No, you have it backwards. Christian babies are saved because their parents are.

That is incorrect.

Certainly at one point the stance was unless you were baptised, you couldn;t go to heaven.

I have seen a medieval instrument (like a syringe, but with a cross- shape at the delivery end) for baptising babies in the womb in cse they didn't survive the birth and were thus damned.

[Snorri1234]

No, you have it backwards. Christian babies are saved because their parents are.

That is incorrect.

Certainly at one point the stance was unless you were baptised, you couldn;t go to heaven.

I have seen a medieval instrument (like a syringe, but with a cross- shape at the delivery end) for baptising babies in the womb in cse they didn't survive the birth and were thus damned.

How about we spray some holy water into the vagina before we destroy the fetus? Would that help?

[Napoleon Ier]

No, you have it backwards. Christian babies are saved because their parents are.

That is incorrect.

Certainly at one point the stance was unless you were baptised, you couldn;t go to heaven.

I have seen a medieval instrument (like a syringe, but with a cross- shape at the delivery end) for baptising babies in the womb in cse they didn't survive the birth and were thus damned.

How about we spray some holy water into the vagina before we destroy the fetus? Would that help?

Hmm...yes, when I do installmy nationalist libertarian utopia, my secret police would certainly make your death quick and painless.

[PLAYER57832]

No, you have it backwards. Christian babies are saved because their parents are.

That is incorrect.

Certainly at one point the stance was unless you were baptised, you couldn;t go to heaven.

I have seen a medieval instrument (like a syringe, but with a cross- shape at the delivery end) for baptising babies in the womb in cse they didn't survive the birth and were thus damned.

sorry, a lame attempt at gallows humor.

[jiminski]

Hmm...yes, when I do installmy nationalist libertarian utopia, my secret police would certainly make your death quick and painless.

be sure not to talk to him before the execution then Nappy!

So one of my many points is: uncontrolled population increase is the opposite of good.
And that abortion, although absolutely the last resort and not to be performed beyond the legal foetal age, must retain legality due to superior practical and moral reasoning (as already outlined.)

And your argument is: Every sperm is sacred.
you did put a lot of effort into it though.. i respect that!

[suggs]

Classic clip Jim, thanks

[Neoteny]

So...still no real argument from jiminski to substantiate his relativist principle of "murder is justified so long as it's in the womb".

It's not murder if we are doing it solely for the purpose of harming the spiritual health of America.

Atheists are only number nine, guys. We aren't succeeding as well as we should be. We've already joined forces with evolution and universities, perhaps its time to join up with the gays and the ACLU as well?

[MeDeFe]

So...still no real argument from jiminski to substantiate his relativist principle of "murder is justified so long as it's in the womb".

It's not murder if we are doing it solely for the purpose of harming the spiritual health of America.

Atheists are only number nine, guys. We aren't succeeding as well as we should be. We've already joined forces with evolution and universities, perhaps its time to join up with the gays and the ACLU as well?

We're right on par with cults and false religions. But I guess joining forces with them to harm the spiritual health of the general populace wouldn't work.

[PLAYER57832]

No, you have it backwards. Christian babies are saved because their parents are.

That is incorrect.

On a serious note ... this is a difference between Roman Catholic belief and some Protestant belief. In general, Catholics tend to put more emphasis on the actual physical (holy water, blessings, etc.). Protestants, even the "works oriented" branches (Calvin et al), put more emphasis on the belief, the ephemeral. At the extreme, they sometimes even see the Catholic view as sometimes akin to idolatry.

Many of the more "fundamentalist" churches, in particular, do not believe that physical water baptism is necessary for a child to be "saved". There are some variations on this. Some say they are encompassed by the grace bestowed upon the parents (more or less) and some believe that young infants, (and to some extent other children) have not the propensity for real sin, having no knowledge yet of good and evil.. and therefore still remain within God's grace, that it is only as we get older that we choose to sin and fall away from God. The Amish, interestingly, believe that it is only once one is Baptized that one is really obligated to fully honor what they see as God's convenant. BUT... I am not discussing my personal beliefs, just the diversity of ideas.

My church believes that the baptism of water confirms the baptism of the holy spirit, wich is the true baptism. The baptism of infants is as much a covenant between God and the parents to raise the child for Christ as a covenant between the child and God. Teh child then confirms that commitement during confirmation. (loosely, an over simplistic explanation).

But, this is getting rather off topic, I think

[Napoleon Ier]

Gallows humour, PLAYER172379379?

I'm sorry, who's advocating democide at a rate of several million a year worldwide?

[suggs]

btw I'm too lazy to look it up, what does "ne pas subir" mean?
No surrender?

[Napoleon Ier]

btw I'm too lazy to look it up, what does "ne pas subir" mean?
No surrender?

"Don't submit." No, it wasn't that he'd had some unpleasant sexual experiences that way, but that "le Roi Jean", as his troops called him, was a traditional manly man, and his philosophy, which is admirable, was that you should never allow yourself to be perceived weak by acting like a pathetic, constantly apologetic weed, and being subjugated to others.

[suggs]

Good call!
*rolls over, flip flops and licks Naps feet*

[PLAYER57832]

Gallows humour, PLAYER172379379?

I'm sorry, who's advocating democide at a rate of several million a year worldwide?

No, I am suggesting that LAWS are not the best way to limit abortions. I don't "advocate" abortions at all, except when medically necessary or adviseable. AND, I think the individuals, along with their doctor and clergy are much, much better at deciding what is "medically necessary" than congress or you or I sitting here, without all the information about the case.

When you make abortion illegal, you don't eliminate then. Particularly when you also limit education and access to birth control methods. You drive them underground, where you often end up losing BOTH the life of the mother AND the child ... not to mention any children that mother might have in the future.

ALSO, you need to look a bit more into how pregnancy, birth control and abortion are all historically used by MEN to control women before you so blithely dismiss this as women "just deciding" to have an abortion.

Again, I do NOT agree with abortions (except for medical reasons), BUT I DO advocate education rather than legislation.

And, if one thing has been made absolutely clear by your many posts, it is how very badly we need REAL, mandatory, sex/abstinance education (the goal is to teach responsibility but through real information, not lies and not religious lessons to which only some subscribe). YOU have obviously NOT had it!