Evidence for God from Science

humblesmurph wrote:Edit: Oh, I found it. You'd like to know how I'd react if you slapped my mother. I can't answer that for sure I really don't know. I assume I'd beat you until you died or I got tired, but you may be tougher than the average woman beater.

Yes, you wouldn't be too happy. But what if the 'law of the land' says I was perfectly entitled to smack your mother in the mouth and that you, sir, are not entitled to object?

It's nice to see you getting so emotional about the question.

humblesmurph wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Even if we were inconsistent on a practical level with our pro-life views on the unborn, our inconsistency in no way impacts upon the status of the unborn and who they are.

You say abortion is undoubtedly killing a baby. I am puzzled then as to how can you therefore support or attempt to defend it. Is it simply because a great many Christian people oppose it, and ultimately you see this as an issue of fundamentalism or something other which puts you offside? I'm confused.

I know you're not Christian, but this is not a Christian issue.

I encourage you to have a read of the following website: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

I know your actions in no way affect the facts of the matter. I just wonder why there aren't funerals for miscarried babies and pregnant women with one child always say they have one with one on the way instead of saying they have two children. I wonder why so many parents wait until their children are born before they give them names. I think that people on both sides of the issue are a little desensitized to what is really going on. Atheists and the vast majority of Jews Christians and Muslims look at people who bomb abortion clinics as nuts but it seems to me that they have things in proper perspective. People are walking children into buildings and murdering them. If I saw I woman walking a two year old child to her death I would stop her if I could. I know this isn't a Christian issue per se, they just seem to be making the most noise about it.

Just like when Africans were treated as slaves - Christian's often made the most noise to bring about change.

Re: miscarried babies, I don't know why you think this has no impact on mothers. One in particular I know had two miscarriages, gave them both names, and buried them. Nonetheless I fail to see the relevance. Value and rights should be given in virtue of being human, not what we as a society place on a particular human being whether disabled, old, size, development or what-have-you.

HS wrote:I've given my reasons why I support a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. You just don't like them.

I responded, as did zoegirl, that the unborn is its own living entity. You just dodged questions you didn't feel like answering, and answered with responses that does affect at all what it is that is being killed.

If the unborn in a human being, then I say they ought to be protected like everyone else. A woman does not have the right to kill her born baby. This is therefore not a matter of rights, as I previously explained.

HS wrote:Just to clarify, I don't think that abortion is murder in the same way as you. I thought that was clear, sorry for the confusion. If I thought it was murder in the same way as you, I'd likely be hanging out with the folks bombing the clinics.

That's nice HS.

DannyM wrote:

humblesmurph wrote:Edit: Oh, I found it. You'd like to know how I'd react if you slapped my mother. I can't answer that for sure I really don't know. I assume I'd beat you until you died or I got tired, but you may be tougher than the average woman beater.

Yes, you wouldn't be too happy. But what if the 'law of the land' says I was perfectly entitled to smack your mother in the mouth and that you, sir, are not entitled to object?

It's nice to see you getting so emotional about the question.

Not emotional. Wouldn't require emotion to beat you up. It goes both ways. If you are perfectly entitled to smack my mother, I'm perfectly entitled to beat you like a rented mule.

HS,
You point out some very good things. There is a neglect. There is an apathy that pervades our culture in regards to the act of abortion. I think there are several reasons as to why.

I think your question is basically, 'If aboriton is murder, then what are you doing about it?' This is a question that leaves many running their finger along their collar in discomfort, searching for an answer. Including myself. I know that for many if not most, our actions do not meet our convictions.

So why is there apathy? Well for one, abortion has been permitted to hide behind the guise of a medical procedure. I heard the testimony of one doctor who performed thousands of abortions. He thought of the fetus as little more than a blob of goo. Until he sonogramed an abortion to record for medical research. What he saw horrified him, and resulted in an instant change, and his conversion to a pro-life advocate. Keep in mind this was after he had performed thousands of abortions.
2nd- Many people who are pro-life are not directly affected by abortion. They are wrapped up in their own lives, going through their own struggles, just trying to make it day to day. Many if not most have never been in that situation, and don't know anyone who has been.
3rd- Sacrifice. It requires something of us to actually step out and make a difference. It could cost us time, reputation, etc. And many are simply not willing to take that step.

If you are curious about what we do in regards to abortion, there are several action groups that work within legal means. They also have experienced success and have actually resulted in the closing of many clinics, and giving women the support to carry through with their pregnancy. 40 days for life is a group that is very active right now, and seeing results.
As tragic as abortion is, it is also permsissable within the law. Even though laws have been passed in states attmepting to outlaw partial brith abortion, active liberal courts have thwarted many efforts to end it. There is nothing more blatantly wrong than partial brith abortion, yet opponents are met with the harshest resistance all they way up to our current president. PBA is obviously murder, yet we are dealing with a spiritual blindness in this country.

Although I desperately want to see abortion outlawed, what I want even more is for the demand for it to stop. I've devoted the last 10 years of my life to working with children and youth, training them to make God honoring decisions with their lives. As you have well pointed out. Outlawing abortion will not end the demand for it. In the end it is not a legal problem. It is a heart problem. The fact that there are so many in the position of unwanted pregnancy. And the fact that so many see so little value in the life of the unborn.

Kurieuo wrote:

humblesmurph wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Even if we were inconsistent on a practical level with our pro-life views on the unborn, our inconsistency in no way impacts upon the status of the unborn and who they are.

You say abortion is undoubtedly killing a baby. I am puzzled then as to how can you therefore support or attempt to defend it. Is it simply because a great many Christian people oppose it, and ultimately you see this as an issue of fundamentalism or something other which puts you offside? I'm confused.

I know you're not Christian, but this is not a Christian issue.

I encourage you to have a read of the following website: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

I know your actions in no way affect the facts of the matter. I just wonder why there aren't funerals for miscarried babies and pregnant women with one child always say they have one with one on the way instead of saying they have two children. I wonder why so many parents wait until their children are born before they give them names. I think that people on both sides of the issue are a little desensitized to what is really going on. Atheists and the vast majority of Jews Christians and Muslims look at people who bomb abortion clinics as nuts but it seems to me that they have things in proper perspective. People are walking children into buildings and murdering them. If I saw I woman walking a two year old child to her death I would stop her if I could. I know this isn't a Christian issue per se, they just seem to be making the most noise about it.

Just like when Africans were treated as slaves - Christian's often made the most noise to bring about change.

Re: miscarried babies, I don't know why you think this has no impact on mothers. One in particular I know had two miscarriages, gave them both names, and buried them. Nonetheless I fail to see the relevance. Value and rights should be given in virtue of being human, not what we as a society place on a particular human being whether disabled, old, size, development or what-have-you.

HS wrote:I've given my reasons why I support a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. You just don't like them.

I responded, as did zoegirl, that the unborn is its own living entity. You just dodged questions you didn't feel like answering, and answered with responses that does affect at all what it is that is being killed.

If the unborn in a human being, then I say they ought to be protected like everyone else. A woman does not have the right to kill her born baby. This is therefore not a matter of rights, as I previously explained.

HS wrote:Just to clarify, I don't think that abortion is murder in the same way as you. I thought that was clear, sorry for the confusion. If I thought it was murder in the same way as you, I'd likely be hanging out with the folks bombing the clinics.

That's nice HS.

There's two sides to it. The aborting woman is deciding to no longer use her body to support the child. She is the only one who can support the child. Once she makes the choice not to use her body to support the child, the child is necessarily doomed. With a real child, once the woman decides she no longer wants to support her child, adoption is an option.

Hypothetically, If I had some strange disease that only allowed me to live if I was continually attached to you for nine months by a feeding tube, would you feel obligated to walk around for nine months with me following you around draining you of your nutrients?

When Africans were treated as slaves in the US, Christians were the ones who owned the slaves. That's not to suggest that slavery was a Christian thing, there was lots of slavery on the continent of Africa before Christianity had a stronghold there, I just don't see what Christians decrying slavery has to do with this particular discussion. It seems people weren't against slavery because they were Christian.

BTW, thank you for correcting me regarding my understanding of how miscarried infants are treated. I didn't know that people named them and had funerals for them.

jlay wrote:If you are curious about what we do in regards to abortion, there are several action groups that work within legal means. They also have experienced success and have actually resulted in the closing of many clinics, and giving women the support to carry through with their pregnancy. 40 days for life is a group that is very active right now, and seeing results.
As tragic as abortion is, it is also permsissable within the law. Even though laws have been passed in states attmepting to outlaw partial brith abortion, active liberal courts have thwarted many efforts to end it. There is nothing more blatantly wrong than partial brith abortion, yet opponents are met with the harshest resistance all they way up to our current president. PBA is obviously murder, yet we are dealing with a spiritual blindness in this country.

Thank you jlay. I think I understand now. I've heard obeying the laws of the land is a part of Christianity. This seems to be what you are reinforcing here. My sincere fear was that at some point Christians would get fed up with the ineptitude of man made law with regards to moral issues and take matters into their own hands by any means necessary.

edit: I reread your post after you edited it. I'm glad you take what I believe to be the more affective approach to the problem. Whether we all agree on the particulars, I think everybody agrees that less abortions is definitely a good thing.

humblesmurph wrote:There's two sides to it. The aborting woman is deciding to no longer use her body to support the child. She is the only one who can support the child. Once she makes the choice not to use her body to support the child, the child is necessarily doomed. With a real child, once the woman decides she no longer wants to support her child, adoption is an option.

And yet, the mother's desire does not change the nature of the child in both. The child is still who they are.

HS wrote:Hypothetically, If I had some strange disease that only allowed me to live if I was continually attached to you for nine months by a feeding tube, would you feel obligated to walk around for nine months with me following you around draining you of your nutrients?

However, the unborn child is not some strange disease, or a parasite living off their mother as you mentioned earlier. A mother's womb is the baby's natural environment. The mother's body is designed for reproduction. The baby does not harm the mother. The child growing inside the woman's womb is not trespassing, or infringing upon her freedom or right. The baby developing in the mother's womb belongs there, in all probability due to the mother's choice to have sex.

Furthermore, it might be justified to withhold life-giving treatment from a person who would otherwise die. Abortion however is not just a woman withholding "life support" from a child. It is actively taking another human being's life through poisoning or dismemberment. A more accurate picture with abortion would be to crush the child or cut him into pieces before unplugging him.

What if the mother's life in endangered? (a thought that may have occurred to you while reading my response just made)

Let's say complications arose where both the mother's and baby's life is definitely going to be lost unless intervention happens. A moral dilemma occurs where one life may need to be taken in order to save the other.

To give a personal example here, my wife told me if she was in a situation where complications occurred, then she would give up her life for our baby (we have two children now and thankfully no complications, although the second birth was scary). I initially thought "no". As while I believe both lives are equal, I know my wife more and she is more important to me and others, and so quite naturally I wanted her to live more. But then she said she would have had much guilt, and has lived many years... so I would have ultimately obliged her wishes. Knowing my children now though, I can't even fathom being able to choose between the two. A moral dilemma indeed. What I do want to stress here is that choosing the mother's life over the child's or vice-versa is a moral dilemma which in no way invalidates the inherent and equal value of either human life.

HS wrote:When Africans were treated as slaves in the US, Christians were the ones who owned the slaves. That's not to suggest that slavery was a Christian thing, there was lots of slavery on the continent of Africa before Christianity had a stronghold there, I just don't see what Christians decrying slavery has to do with this particular discussion. It seems people weren't against slavery because they were Christian.

No doubt many Christians supported slavery (against their African brothers who often became Christian). Such just got sucked into the lie of black persons not being valuable or "persons" along with their fuller society of the day. The personal gain in being able to legally take advantage of someone else was sadly too much for many to give up. Kind of like how abortion provides a lot of personal gain in allowing one to "plan" their own "parenthood" (Planned Parenthood ring a note?) without giving up the freedom and pleasures of irresponsible and non-committed sex.

It was the Christian ideology however with a love for Christ and an understanding we are all created equal under God, believed by many Christians (e.g., William Wilberforce), that lead to the abolishment African slave trade in England. I have no doubt the situation is probably the same in the US without having researched it extensively.

HS wrote:BTW, thank you for correcting me regarding my understanding of how miscarried infants are treated. I didn't know that people named them and had funerals for them.

Thanks for giving a little. I paint broad strokes too sometimes even when trying my best to not generalise.

Kurieuo wrote:

humblesmurph wrote:There's two sides to it. The aborting woman is deciding to no longer use her body to support the child. She is the only one who can support the child. Once she makes the choice not to use her body to support the child, the child is necessarily doomed. With a real child, once the woman decides she no longer wants to support her child, adoption is an option.

And yet, the mother's desire does not change the nature of the child in both. The child is still who they are.

HS wrote:Hypothetically, If I had some strange disease that only allowed me to live if I was continually attached to you for nine months by a feeding tube, would you feel obligated to walk around for nine months with me following you around draining you of your nutrients?

The unborn child is not some strange disease or as you mentioned earlier, a parasite living off their mother. A mother's womb is the baby's natural environment.

The child growing inside the woman's womb is not trespassing, or infringing upon her freedom or right. The baby developing in the mother's womb belongs there.

Furthermore, it might be justified to withhold life-giving treatment from a person who would otherwise die. Abortion however is not just a woman withholding "life support" from a child. It is actively taking another human being's life through poisoning or dismemberment. A more accurate picture with abortion would be to crush the child or cut him into pieces before unplugging him.

HS wrote:When Africans were treated as slaves in the US, Christians were the ones who owned the slaves. That's not to suggest that slavery was a Christian thing, there was lots of slavery on the continent of Africa before Christianity had a stronghold there, I just don't see what Christians decrying slavery has to do with this particular discussion. It seems people weren't against slavery because they were Christian.

No doubt many Christians supported it, but they just bought into the lie as non-Christians for personal gain.

It were Christians with a love for Christ and an understanding we are all created equal under God (William Wilberforce), leading to the abolishment African slave trade in England. I have no doubt the situation is the same in the US, with abolishment being lead by Christian ideologies.

HS wrote:BTW, thank you for correcting me regarding my understanding of how miscarried infants are treated. I didn't know that people named them and had funerals for them.

Thanks for giving a little. I paint broad strokes too sometimes even when trying my best to not generalise.

We have vigorously discussed the personhood of a fetus, but it seems that you are unwilling to consider the rights of the woman. Before a woman gets pregnant I hope we can agree that a woman has more or less the right to do what she wants with her body. We have a difference of opinion about her rights once one of her eggs is fertilized. Let's deal with that difference of opinion and move on.

We disagree about what abortion ultimately is. I say it is a mother choosing to not have her body be used by a fetus. Once a young fetus leaves the womb, it's dead. Would you really feel any differently about abortion if the process was different? If the doctor left the fetus intact and simply removed it from the mother the result is still a dead fetus.

If you are unwilling to admit that outlawing abortion is forcing women to make their bodies available for a fetus I have no choice but to conclude that you are simply lying to yourself. This is an incontrovertible fact. Just as the separate identity of a fetus is an incontrovertible fact.

If on the other hand you are making the argument that the fetuses right to life is more important than a woman's freedom to do what she wants with her body, I can perfectly understand that sentiment. I just can't agree with it.

The woman had the womb first. I need a stronger argument to strip her of her rights to her body than "the fetus belongs there", especially considering pregnancies cause by rape. I hope you can understand my difficulty in telling impregnated rape victim that she must allow the fetus to grow inside her because "it belongs there"? Why does it belong there? Was she supposed to get raped?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't think that abortion is legal because of some liberal plot. I think that it is legal because of the concerns that I raise here. I hope you don't think that the Supreme Court judges who voted in favor of a woman's right to choose are just evil jerks who want to kill babies. I hope you don't think that of me either.

I don't want women to have abortions. I think that education, and contraception are the keys to this, not the law.

hs, just a quick question about your position. You concede that there is a moral problem to abortions, that given the choice, the morally correct decision is to carry the pregnancy out to the end (not in all cases, i'm talking about your standard pregnancy). However, on the legal side of things you disagree that abortion should be outlawed, and that the choice should be allowed.

Is this about right?

Echoside wrote:hs, just a quick question about your position. You concede that there is a moral problem to abortions, that given the choice, the morally correct decision is to carry the pregnancy out to the end (not in all cases, i'm talking about your standard pregnancy). However, on the legal side of things you disagree that abortion should be outlawed, and that the choice should be allowed.

Is this about right?

yes, that is about right.

At some point, we as humans cannot view ourselves as independent entities to do what we wish. That is the huge problem with too much focus on the individual as an independent entity. It doesn't matter what a mother's feelings are, or a father's feelings are, or to be honest, a basic human's feelings are...there are just some things you do because it is right. Call it an obligation, call it the right thing, call it duty..

At the most foundational level, it doesn't matter how a mother feels about her child, she cannot simply dispose of it. A father should not abandon his child. A human should not pass by someone who has been mugged and not help. We KNOW that we should do things because humans are humans and each deserve care and concern.

Now we know that there are some issues where it doesn't matter at all what the person's feelings are in the matter, they should do something not because of some motherly, fatherly, or humane, "feeling" but rather because it is right. We don't care, after all, what a murderer was "Feeling" (although nowadays the "Rage" excuse has been cropping up more and more) but we care simply because he ended someone's life.

We don't ultimately care what a mother was feeling when she neglects or abuses her children or when a father beats his child....they have a duty to their children not to do that. Of course we care because we can offer help, but in the end, justice needs to be served in these cases. We don't let them off the hook simply because the children were an annoyance or cramping their style!!

So obviously is MANY cases of an individual's rights we understand that they cannot get away with certain actions when considering OTHER INDIVIDUALS. This is not a new idea or certainly a novel way to think about actions but somehow the abortion dilemma receives an exemption simply because she is carrying that baby for nine months....nine months.


The ONLY question, ONLY QUESTION, then that deserves to be answered is whether this is a UNIQUE HUMAN LIFE.

IF it is, then abortion is very simply, the end of a life. It CANNOT matter one bit whether she must care for it for a measly nine months. In the vast majority of cases, the sex was voluntary (what a crock of an argument that she should have control of her body...she has plenty of control over her body....before she has sex...but somehow we are willing to excuse the fact that she willingly gave up control to have unprotected sex....for a measly couple of hours or less than that, for a momentary pleasure, she is willing to execute another person's life...for convenience).

In the cases of neglect, abuse, and other familial problems, we reserve the most scorn and condemnation...how dare that mother beat her child! How dare that father neglect his children! And yet in many of these cases the parents involved would declare that the child was inconveniencing them. And we are willing to declare them the most selfish parents.

But somehow, the woman who commits the ultimate selfish act escapes?? What a world we have become when a measly nine months of inconvenience becomes the reason we allow her to be selfish.

I don't want women to have abortions. I think that education, and contraception are the keys to this, not the law.

That just doesn't hold up. We live in the most educated period of human history. Contraception is cheap and available. Yet abortion have never been higher.

We have vigorously discussed the personhood of a fetus, but it seems that you are unwilling to consider the rights of the woman. Before a woman gets pregnant I hope we can agree that a woman has more or less the right to do what she wants with her body.

You mean like the right to not have sex?

If you are unwilling to admit that outlawing abortion is forcing women to make their bodies available for a fetus I have no choice but to conclude that you are simply lying to yourself.

What? Some of your statements are strange, some distrubing. Just who is forcing women to get pregant?

I read the replies. The only question I see is "who is forcing the woman to have sex". I'll assume you are only referring to pregnancies caused by consensual sex because in cases of rape, the immediate answer to that question is obvious. In the broader sense, zoegirl and you are arguing that the state should force a woman to fulfill a particular obligation with her body, to wit, taking a fertilized egg to term. That is the forcing I am talking about.

I'm thankful that far wiser people than us have debated this issue and the vast majority have ultimately come to more reasonable conclusions than you have. They realize that a woman is more than an incubator for a baby. Abortion is legal in every developed Western nation. Over 95% of all nations allow abortions.

I was just trying to get you to see that pro-choicers aren't just lazy folks who haven't considered the intricacies of the situation. I wanted you to understand that we are not just heartless murderers. You are unwilling to acknowledge that. You are entitled to your opinion regarding the legality of a woman's right to choose. While I appreciate your passion regarding this issue, and your points are not without some merit, you simply aren't being reasonable. I can do nothing to change that. I'm thankful that you all seem like law abiding citizens. Whether you agree or not, I'm convinced that you would never unlawfully infringe on a woman's right to choose. That's all I can really ask.

humblesmurph wrote:I don't want women to have abortions. I think that education, and contraception are the keys to this, not the law.

Amen, brother!

I'm glad to see that someone understands that the problem is not solved by law. Make abortion as illegal as you want, the problem still exists...and to no less a degree. The fight for ending abortion is not in law...I wish everyone all up in arms about it would see this. This fight for more law is so ironic, btw.

As mentioned in another thread on this issue, I'm a Christian that is Pro-Choice.

jlay wrote:Your are correct. We could never irradicate abortion by making it illegal. Just as you can not irradicate theft, murder, and myriad of other crimes by passing a law.

So on the issue of abortion, where would our efforts be be best placed?
.
.

humblesmurph wrote:

In the broader sense, zoegirl and you are arguing that the state should force a woman to fulfill a particular obligation with her body, to wit, taking a fertilized egg to term. That is the forcing I am talking about.

I fail to see how making an act illegal(abortion) "forces" a woman to "fulfill a particular obligation with her body, to wit, taking a fertilized egg to term." Rape, murder, speeding, going through red lights, are all illegal. Is anyone forced to comply with those laws? If abortion was made illegal, would anyone be forced to comply with this law?

You are entitled to your opinion regarding the legality of a woman's right to choose.

The issue isn't if a woman has the right to choose. She along with the man, do have a right to choose. Choose not to commit the act that may lead to a pregnancy. Didn't the slave owners have a "right" to own property(slaves)? Most of us realize that a slave is a human whos right to freedom and life overrides the slave owner's right to own a slave as property. When will we realize that a child's life is more important than a woman's right to choose to kill her own flesh and blood? Slavery is clearly wrong, and is illegal. Does slavery still exist in this world? Of course. Abortion is clearly wrong, and is legal. If a law was passed to make abortion illegal, does that mean it would still happen? It probably would. The difference is that we as a nation support, by law, the killing of human beings for the sake of convenience and selfishness. How long do you think God will be patient with us?