Evidence for God from Science

I don't understand the view that CHOICE supersedes Justification when it comes to taking a life.
The whole, "It's a woman's body, she can do what she wants with it", is so illogical I can't even fathom that as ANY argument for ANYTHING !
It stops being JUST a woman's body the moment there is a life involved BESIDES her own.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:15 am I don't understand the view that CHOICE supersedes Justification when it comes to taking a life.
The whole, "It's a woman's body, she can do what she wants with it", is so illogical I can't even fathom that as ANY argument for ANYTHING !
It stops being JUST a woman's body the moment there is a life involved BESIDES her own.

It is the morally bankrupt argument that either denies life begins at conception or denies morality altogether.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:15 am I don't understand the view that CHOICE supersedes Justification when it comes to taking a life.
The whole, "It's a woman's body, she can do what she wants with it", is so illogical I can't even fathom that as ANY argument for ANYTHING !
It stops being JUST a woman's body the moment there is a life involved BESIDES her own.

It’s the same argument that justified slavery. The slave was the master’s property. The unborn baby is part of the woman’s body. The slave wasn’t viewed as human in the same sense that the white man was human. The unborn baby isn’t viewed as human in the same sense that the mother is human.

I just hope and pray that we outlaw the killing of the unborn humans, just as we as a country, outlawed the owning of other humans.

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:58 pmIt’s the same argument that justified slavery. The slave was the master’s property. The unborn baby is part of the woman’s body. The slave wasn’t viewed as human in the same sense that the white man was human. The unborn baby isn’t viewed as human in the same sense that the mother is human.

Slavery was morally wrong, so resistance to slavery was just and noble. You want your cause to be viewed as just and noble as well, so you're trying to connect the two. Except that slaves often aborted their own pregnancies as an act of defiance against masters who wanted to use them as breeding stock. Surely those abortions were just and noble, too, being that they were undertaken for the just and noble cause of resistance to slavery? If they were then it follows that abortion can be the best choice. If they weren't then you're in some pretty sketchy company...

Also, comparing the experience of an enslaved person to that of a six week old fetus is spurious. The enslaved person is a person, out in the world, suffering the cruelty and injustice of bondage and forced labor. The six week old fetus is approximately the size of a lima bean and has not yet developed a brain. You're conflating a human being with a potential human being, and in the process devaluing and trivializing the experiences that slaves actually endured.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:36 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:58 pmIt’s the same argument that justified slavery. The slave was the master’s property. The unborn baby is part of the woman’s body. The slave wasn’t viewed as human in the same sense that the white man was human. The unborn baby isn’t viewed as human in the same sense that the mother is human.

Slavery was morally wrong, so resistance to slavery was just and noble. You want your cause to be viewed as just and noble as well, so you're trying to connect the two. Except that slaves often aborted their own pregnancies as an act of defiance against masters who wanted to use them as breeding stock. Surely those abortions were just and noble, too, being that they were undertaken for the just and noble cause of resistance to slavery? If they were then it follows that abortion can be the best choice. If they weren't then you're in some pretty sketchy company...

Also, comparing the experience of an enslaved person to that of a six week old fetus is spurious. The enslaved person is a person, out in the world, suffering the cruelty and injustice of bondage and forced labor. The six week old fetus is approximately the size of a lima bean and has not yet developed a brain. You're conflating a human being with a potential human being, and in the process devaluing and trivializing the experiences that slaves actually endured.

Is it alive Ed?

Also, don't forget that slave owners NEVER viewed slaves as "people" or even human in some cases.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:36 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:58 pmIt’s the same argument that justified slavery. The slave was the master’s property. The unborn baby is part of the woman’s body. The slave wasn’t viewed as human in the same sense that the white man was human. The unborn baby isn’t viewed as human in the same sense that the mother is human.

Slavery was morally wrong, so resistance to slavery was just and noble. You want your cause to be viewed as just and noble as well, so you're trying to connect the two. Except that slaves often aborted their own pregnancies as an act of defiance against masters who wanted to use them as breeding stock. Surely those abortions were just and noble, too, being that they were undertaken for the just and noble cause of resistance to slavery? If they were then it follows that abortion can be the best choice. If they weren't then you're in some pretty sketchy company...

Also, comparing the experience of an enslaved person to that of a six week old fetus is spurious. The enslaved person is a person, out in the world, suffering the cruelty and injustice of bondage and forced labor. The six week old fetus is approximately the size of a lima bean and has not yet developed a brain. You're conflating a human being with a potential human being, and in the process devaluing and trivializing the experiences that slaves actually endured.

After fertilization, a zygote contains all the DNA it needs to fully develop into a human. It lacks nothing other than a proper environment and nutrition, much the same way a born infant lacks nothing other than a proper environment and nutrition. It's just a matter of location and time.

So what's the litmus flavor of the day Ed?

• Size? Is it a mustard seed, Lima bean, a walnut, an apple, a watermelon, what?

• Location? Inside the womb? Why not outside and by what length of time?

• Experience? How much experience and what kind? Is pain an experience? Does quantity factor in? age? What about those who can't experience anything, like the comatose?

• And, more importantly, who decides all this and so many more ethical questions that necessarily arise?

Now this may shock some but I have to be honest here, I'm not entirely certain repealing Roe V. Wade is the answer either without thinking through the ramifications of the incredibly lop-sided undue burdens placed on the shoulders of women. A man impregnates a woman and can simply walk away, assuming no responsibility whatsoever. The woman, on the other hand, not only suffers the grueling pains of pregnancy and child birth, but also a life-time sentence of caring for the child. Obviously I am not in any way suggesting the alternative is abortion. But it should be as equally obvious how unimaginably unfair this is towards women and why many gravitate towards termination, disguised in the form of 'choice'.

If we, as Christians, are to succeed in eliminating this silent killer called abortion, we damn well better be prepared to offer viable alternatives.
I for one have none.

Byblos wrote:
If we, as Christians, are to succeed in eliminating this silent killer called abortion, we damn well better be prepared to offer viable alternatives.
I for one have none.

I have an alternative...

If as a woman, you’re not ready to raise a child, KEEP YOUR DAMN LEGS SHUT!

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:10 pm

Byblos wrote:
If we, as Christians, are to succeed in eliminating this silent killer called abortion, we damn well better be prepared to offer viable alternatives.
I for one have none.

I have an alternative...

If as a woman, you’re not ready to raise a child, KEEP YOUR DAMN LEGS SHUT!

And how well did preaching that message work out over the years? And what do you think will happen if Roe v. Wade is repealed? You think it'll stop abortion dead in its tracks? Sorry Rick, that's just silly.

Byblos wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:21 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:10 pm

Byblos wrote:
If we, as Christians, are to succeed in eliminating this silent killer called abortion, we damn well better be prepared to offer viable alternatives.
I for one have none.

I have an alternative...

If as a woman, you’re not ready to raise a child, KEEP YOUR DAMN LEGS SHUT!

And how well did preaching that message work out over the years? And what do you think will happen if Roe v. Wade is repealed? You think it'll stop abortion dead in its tracks? Sorry Rick, that's just silly.

“Keeping your legs shut” still works for those who do it. Making abortion a way out of irresponsible behavior is just wrong.

Roe vs Wade needs to be overturned, and doctors who perform these “baby is an inconvenience” abortions should be prosecuted, just like anyone else who murders someone.

Making abortion illegal, will cut the number of abortions. I’ll take that as a starting point.

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 3:39 pm

Byblos wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:21 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:10 pm

Byblos wrote:
If we, as Christians, are to succeed in eliminating this silent killer called abortion, we damn well better be prepared to offer viable alternatives.
I for one have none.

I have an alternative...

If as a woman, you’re not ready to raise a child, KEEP YOUR DAMN LEGS SHUT!

And how well did preaching that message work out over the years? And what do you think will happen if Roe v. Wade is repealed? You think it'll stop abortion dead in its tracks? Sorry Rick, that's just silly.

“Keeping your legs shut” still works for those who do it. Making abortion a way out of irresponsible behavior is just wrong.

Roe vs Wade needs to be overturned, and doctors who perform these “baby is an inconvenience” abortions should be prosecuted, just like anyone else who murders someone.

Making abortion illegal, will cut the number of abortions. I’ll take that as a starting point.

Don't get me wrong Rick, I'm all for repealing RvW, no argument there. All I'm saying is doing so, in and of itself, is not actually addressing the deeper problem of the disproportionate price women pay, driving them to seek abortions, which they will continue to do in back allies, paying even a heavier price. I mean look at what you're proposing, just keep your legs closed and the problem is solved. Putting the responsibility squarely in women's laps with not even a hint of any mention of male responsibility whatsoever. That's my issue. It's not a criticism Rick. Sadly, I don't presume to know what the answers are, other than prayer.

IMO:
An abortion is the taking of a life, this is a fact and one that is indisputable for obvious reasons.
The law clearly states that the taking of a life is only permissible under certain justifications, such as:
The protection of another life ( yours or the life of another).
Punishment for a crime ( captial punishment).
I don't recall any other justifications...

So, an abortion should ONLY be permitted when the life of the mother is at stake.

Now, that said, how does one deal with the matters of rape ?
We all agree that it is NOT the fault of the life growing within the womb, correct?
But that doesn't change the trauma that the victim has endured and MAY endure carrying the pregnancy to term.
Mental health is just as important as physical health and MUST be addressed.

BTW, I am in agreement with drugs like Plan B.

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:10 pmIf as a woman, you’re not ready to raise a child, KEEP YOUR DAMN LEGS SHUT!

The initial discussion was about Alabama criminalizing abortion even in the case of rape and incest, so your advice isn't going to help much.

Even if we hadn't been talking about women and girls who became pregnant involuntarily, your suggestion is simplistic and inadequate. It flies directly in the face of biology, for starters, and is really just an exercise in wishful thinking.

Beyond that, if the entire policy is "No abortions for sluts (or anyone else)!" then the result will be a lot of women (who you say should have kept their legs shut) and a bunch of kids (who seem blameless by any reasonable measure) being thrown into poverty and despair.

It's a great plan if you're looking to increase crime, drug addiction, and unwanted pregnancy. If that's not your goal then it's got some issues.

Byblos wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:52 pmDon't get me wrong Rick, I'm all for repealing RvW, no argument there. All I'm saying is doing so, in and of itself, is not actually addressing the deeper problem of the disproportionate price women pay, driving them to seek abortions, which they will continue to do in back allies, paying even a heavier price. I mean look at what you're proposing, just keep your legs closed and the problem is solved. Putting the responsibility squarely in women's laps with not even a hint of any mention of male responsibility whatsoever. That's my issue.

I agree completely.

Byblos wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:52 pmIt's not a criticism Rick. Sadly, I don't presume to know what the answers are, other than prayer.

Step One - accept that women and girls are going to have sex, now matter what, period, and stop judging, shaming, and punishing them for it.

Step Two - introduce programs to help those inevitably sexually active women and girls avoid pregnancy or deliver and raise a healthy baby if they happen to become pregnant.

In other words, lower the odds of an unplanned pregnancy, and take away some of the terror, desperation, and despair if it happens anyway.

Some guys will do the right thing, but others will be deadbeats no matter what, so how about if we just take the fathers out of the equation and support the mothers? Sure, we can have the courts hound the deadbeat dads out there and we can bludgeon the hell out of them if they refuse to pay up, but we also need to support the moms and the kids as a matter of course.

I have some experience with that one, as it happens. After my dad left the courts told him to pay up, but it was years before he got around to it. In the meantime it was on my mom to try and support three kids and not lose the house. She managed (working 50 hours a week as a seamstress and cleaning offices after work and houses on weekends), but it wasn't uncommon for us to have to choose between food and heat or for mom to have to call the bank to beg for an extension on the mortgage. See, if you own a house you're not seen as poor enough to qualify for food stamps, even if you can't reliably to pay the mortgage, heat the house, and feed your kids. The State said that we should have sold the house, but mom understood that if we did then we'd have been back in the same situation in a few years, only as renters. Keeping the house was the difference between holding onto our spot in the lower middle class and dropping down to working poor, so she did what she had to do to keep it. Sometimes food was scarce and having heat was a bit of a luxury (in Maine), but we got by.

Anyway, every kid should get what they need, no matter what, and a good father should just be added value. "Everybody gets what they need and some get more" seems like a pretty good baseline for a wealthy, industrialized nation.

So...

How about universal healthcare so that women at all social levels can gain access to birth control, mental health and substance abuse counseling, STD screenings, prenatal care, postnatal care, and consistent access to a GP for the mom and a pediatrician for the kid?

Failing that, how about if conservatives lay off Planned Parenthood, since it's the only place that many poor women can get the birth control they need to avoid pregnancy or the prenatal care they need to have a healthy, thriving child? It's also the only place many women can get reproductive health care or a mammogram. Rick, if you don't understand why any of that matters then ask your wife.

How about free childcare so that single mothers can work, either at all or just without having to leave their kids home alone?

How about comprehensive, scientific sex education (with no BS opt outs) so that every kid knows how their body works and how to keep it healthy, safe, and free of disease and pregnancy?

In one regard the war on abortion is no different than the war on drugs - you can attack supply all you want, but all you'll do is waste resources and create corruption and misery. If you want to lower the frequency of abortions (or drug use) you need to address the reasons that people get abortions (or take drugs). Make America a safe place for anyone to have and raise a child and more people will choose that over abortion.

Putting the responsibility squarely in women's laps with not even a hint of any mention of male responsibility whatsoever. That's my issue.

If the only one to decided wither a child is born is the woman and no one else, then why would it NOT be SOLELY her responsibility?

Guys, you know how liberals sometimes question the sincerity of the anti-abortion movement's insistence that they're pro-life?

It's because comments like "Keep your damn legs shut" and "If the only one to decide whether a child is born is the woman and no one else, then why would it NOT be SOLELY her responsibility?" make it seem as though you're at least as interested in controlling women as you are in preventing abortions. We figure that if you really, sincerely gave a [poop] you'd be talking about prenatal and postnatal care, pediatricians, day care, preschool, nutrition and the like, but for some reason you open with "if you do the crime you do the time" and never seem to get any further. It makes it seem like you want the woman to carry to term as punishment for her licentious ways and you lose interest as soon as you know she didn't get away with whoring around.

Perhaps that's not how you actually feel, but it's the strong impression I get from guys in the "pro-life" movement in general, and from you two in particular.