|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 20, 2008 19:15:09 GMT -8
Nate wrote: Your question makes sense, but I for one see a definite dividing line between the death penalty and abortion. I've given part of my defense of capital punishment here: The Death Penalty?There I only covered what Christians can glean from the Old Testament on the subject. I have yet to add additional support from the New Testament. |
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Oct 20, 2008 23:28:31 GMT -8
Josh,
Again, I'm not saying there isn't a difference between war and abortion, or the death penalty and abortion. I am just saying there may be an imbalance to where Christians direct their pro-life fervor, and war and the death penalty are two places I see this.
Mo,
I had a feeling you might be. I'm glad to here that. I, for one, don't think this is strictly a Christian issue. I don't know how it is in Germany, but here it seems like it is mostly Christians speaking out on this, which is fine, but I think it is important to get people of all stripes on board if anything is going to get done about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 21, 2008 3:17:58 GMT -8
Mo, I had a feeling you might be. I'm glad to here that. I, for one, don't think this is strictly a Christian issue. I don't know how it is in Germany, but here it seems like it is mostly Christians speaking out on this, which is fine, but I think it is important to get people of all stripes on board if anything is going to get done about it. It's the same in Germany. And it is logical if you think about it. You and I are both against abortion but for different reasons. And your reasons are probably more urgent. Cause for you abortion must be murder or something similarly evil. That means that the issue is much wider and imperatively for you than for me. Needless to say that our different reasons to be against abortion most probably also leads us to different conclusions about how to improve the situation. But I could be wrong here too. After all, abortion is a complex issue. There are many aspects to be considered and even among Christians there has been a lot of discrepancy. It's hard for me to side with people or organizations when it comes to disussing abortion because I often don't find my own view represented. |
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Oct 21, 2008 9:58:20 GMT -8
I'd be curious to here your reasons.
My basic thinking is pretty simple: A born baby is obviously a human life. 10 minutes before it was born it was still a human life, 20 before that still a life, and so on. And, we should have laws against taking human life.
Thats a pretty simple treatment, but I think even a simple treatment holds up philosophically and scientifically.
|
|
|
|
Post by bagels on Oct 21, 2008 19:36:54 GMT -8
Hey, fellas (and ladies, too =^). I've been real busy lately. Since the last thread about the presidential race went away, and the focus turned to "Obama on Abortion", I just wanted to post something that's not related to this specific topic, per se, but I think is relevant. I wanted to highlight some very interesting perspectives and statements that Colin Powell made 2 days ago in an interview w/ Tom Brokaw... For those who aren't aware or have forgotten, Powell was President Bush's first Secretary of State, served as National Security Advisor under Reagan, was a highly decorated 4-Star General, and also was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest military position in the Dept. of Defense). He's also has been very good friends with John McCain for many years. Here's what he said: "On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values. And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate." He later went on to say this... "... Let me make one point, Tom, both Senator McCain and Senator Obama will be good presidents. It isn't easy for me to disappoint Senator McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that. But I strongly believe that at this point in America's history, we need a president that will not just continue, even with a new face and with some changes and with some maverick aspects, who will not just continue, basically, the policies that we have been following in recent years. I think we need a TRANSFORMATIONAL FIGURE. I need--think we need a president who is a generational change. And that's why I'm supporting Barack Obama. Not out of any lack of respect or admiration for Senator John McCain." I think Colin Powell has as much integrity, wisdom, respect, and sound judgement as anyone on this subject, and I couldn't have stated it ANY BETTER THAN THAT... That's all folks. See ya at the election after party!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 21, 2008 19:53:35 GMT -8
The needs and aspirations of our people to throw away their babies like bic lighters?  That was mostly kidding.... just tying it back into the whole abortion thing. |
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Oct 21, 2008 22:03:29 GMT -8
you meant all kidding right? Bic lighters?
PS did my little factoids* have any impact on you (or anyone)?
*I would say 23 out 35 years of republican presidency is fact in itself. The republicans also had a majority rule in the senate 6 years under Reagan and 6 years under George W. Bush. Republicans also held the presidency when Roe v Wade decision happened. They also appointed 6 out of the 9 supreme court justices that decided Roe v Wade, as well as 7 of the 9 current supreme court justices. These seem to me like pretty strong facts that republicans either don't want to or are unable to reverse this decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 22, 2008 1:03:13 GMT -8
you meant all kidding right? Bic lighters? PS did my little factoids* have any impact on you (or anyone)? *I would say 23 out 35 years of republican presidency is fact in itself. The republicans also had a majority rule in the senate 6 years under Reagan and 6 years under George W. Bush. Republicans also held the presidency when Roe v Wade decision happened. They also appointed 6 out of the 9 supreme court justices that decided Roe v Wade, as well as 7 of the 9 current supreme court justices. These seem to me like pretty strong facts that republicans either don't want to or are unable to reverse this decision. I think you are probably right Nate. The record shows that as much as Republicans might be against abortion, there is no reason to believe they are gonna change anything about it (be it because they can't or any other reason). Still, I can't blame anyone for voting a candidate who is holding a closer position to one's own moral worldview. I think this kind of reasoning is often predominant when people vote. Not only in the USA but in the entire world. The actual solutions for the problems are mostly not decisive. To be more precise: Both candidates are mostly tackleing the same problems (like economic crisis, taxes, climate change, etc.). This is my impression from the TV debates. They offer different solutions and the voter can't really know which solution will work best (they tend to believe the solution of the candidate they like the most works best of course). Maybe even both solutions would work, or maybe neither. So among a variety of other reasons (like political bias), the voters find themselves asking: who of them is sharing my worldview. Who of them is going to represent my interests. Often the answer is: candidate A in matters x and candidate B in matters y. So one has to decide which matters are most important to one. I don't think McCain or Obama are going to overturn Roe vs Wade (for whatever reason). But let's say that in 3 years from now a new moral issue will forcefully present itself. An issue that will take the world by surprise lite 9/11 did. An issue that can't be handled by existing laws and that requires new laws. Which of the candidates is more likely to represent your own moral agenda? I think this is a legitimite question. And if, for instance Josh, chooses to vote McCain for this very reason, I think it's fair enough. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make advertisement for McCain here. I pride myself in being objective. If you (or anyone else) would like to hear more about my observations from a distance just say so or ask a precise question. I'll answer in the politics thread I started a couple of weeks ago. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 22, 2008 4:15:17 GMT -8
I'd be curious to here your reasons. Trying to find the sense of life without entering the sphere of guessing, I made a basic observation: I'm alive. We all are. That's what we have in common with every other species on this planet be it plants or animals. And there's another thing. We reproduce life. On this very basic level, my conclusion is that the sense of life is life. So though death is a part of life, I'm opposed to the purposeful destruction of life.* This includes the death penalty, war and abortion.** Another thing that bothers me about abortion is the attitude. "My body is mine" is a slogan that has often been used by abortion advocates. And it is true, but not in the case of pregnancy. In the case of pregnancy, there is a new body developing itself inside of a woman. The fetus, if it could think and speak would probably say: "hey, but my body is mine too!". The reasons for aborting, as far as I can estimate this*** appear mostly selfish to me. "Oh but what about my carreer???" That makes me sick and is no excuse for aborting. People want their pleasure but they are not willing to pay. I can't identify with this. If I choose to have sex I must be aware of the possible consequences. And I must be willing to take the responsibility. I can understand, that many, maybe most aborting women find themselves in desperate situations. But there is a phrase I learned in elementary school which I hold is ture: "There is a solution for everything"****. This is where the society comes into play. We must help women who find themselves in such situations to choose life. We have to make them realize that they can do it. That they are not alone. Maybe the climate in our countries has become too tolerant towards abortion. But condemning it isn't the solution either. Banner and cross waving Christians who speak of hell and God's will and sin and so on have NO CHANCE at all to reach a person who decided to abort. This much is certain. And I daresay that forbiding it by law won't help either because as you know crimes like murder or rape are forbidden by law too and keep happening all the time. I think I remember Josh saying something like "the remedy against abortion must come from the society". Something like that. I agree with that. In my utopia women have the right to choose - and freely choose life. *there is no need to remind me that sometimes the purposeful destruction of life is necessary or unavoidable. However, such an action is only justifyable if the cost-benefit calculation turns out in favor of life in my opinion. **exceptions can be found for each of these cases. I'm trying to generalize a bit so you can see where I come from. Generalizations however are always problematic and invite to go into details. Feel free to ask me about the details any time. *** I admit that I can't think myself into the situation of a pregnant women who doesn't want her baby. **** If you're cynical enough you'll say "abortion is a solution too". I'd restate the phrase and say "there's a better solution to everything"  My basic thinking is pretty simple: A born baby is obviously a human life. 10 minutes before it was born it was still a human life, 20 before that still a life, and so on. And, we should have laws against taking human life. Thats a pretty simple treatment, but I think even a simple treatment holds up philosophically and scientifically. I hear you. But if it was that easy and did hold up philosophically and scientifically, abortion wouldn't be legal. The easiest way to show the problem of that rationality is to turn it around: a sperm isn't a human a second before it gets into the ovule but a second after it got into the ovule it suddenly is?? That's just random. Scientifically speaking, the embryo in the beginning is nothing but a bunch of cells. Take a look at this picture: home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~pine/book1qts/embryo-compare.jpgIn the early phase of a pregnancy, one isn't really able to see the difference between a cow, a pig, a rabbit, a chicken and a human embryo. I think this is a matter of opinion. I can accept that you think an embryo is a human from the moment of the conception. But for me this isn't a human. It is what it is: an embryo. And as I hope became clear from other statements I made, an embryo has it's woth to me too. It's just that I can't possibly speak of murder if an embryo is killed. There's a lot of difference in my opinion. Now, the possible opinions of when an embryo/fetus becomes a human vary considerably. Not only in different cultures. The catholic church until the 19th century held the position that an embryo doesn't have a soul from the beginning (fetus inanimatus vs fetus animatus). According to Aristoteles a fetus first posseses a plants soul (anima vegetalis), then an animal's soul (anima animalis) and then a human soul (anima humana). I don't believe such a thing as a soul exists at all. To me an unborn isn't a real and full human until it is viable without the body of the mother. If I'm not mistaken this is around the 7th month or something. From then on, abortion is murder to me too.* But the German law doesn't permit abortion at that point anyway unless the life of the mother is in serious danger. By the way, Abortion is generally prohibited in Germany with three exceptions: 1. The life of the mother is threatened. 2. The mother was raped. 3. The woman can prove that she has been counseled by a state aproved pregnancy advisory service that has the duty to inform the woman about all the possibilities she has to get support in case she keeps the baby and to warn her of the consequences (for example psychological). What do you think of this? And how is it in the USA? *Don't misunderstand me, with every passing day of the pregnancy, an abortion gets worse imo. Just because it isn't murder to me before the 7th month, it doesn't mean that I find abortion before that period harmless. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 22, 2008 7:22:26 GMT -8
Hey, fellas (and ladies, too =^). I've been real busy lately. Since the last thread about the presidential race went away, and the focus turned to "Obama on Abortion", I just wanted to post something that's not related to this specific topic, per se, but I think is relevant. I wanted to highlight some very interesting perspectives and statements that Colin Powell made 2 days ago in an interview w/ Tom Brokaw... For those who aren't aware or have forgotten, Powell was President Bush's first Secretary of State, served as National Security Advisor under Reagan, was a highly decorated 4-Star General, and also was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest military position in the Dept. of Defense). He's also has been very good friends with John McCain for many years. Here's what he said: "On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values. And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate." He later went on to say this... "... Let me make one point, Tom, both Senator McCain and Senator Obama will be good presidents. It isn't easy for me to disappoint Senator McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that. But I strongly believe that at this point in America's history, we need a president that will not just continue, even with a new face and with some changes and with some maverick aspects, who will not just continue, basically, the policies that we have been following in recent years. I think we need a TRANSFORMATIONAL FIGURE. I need--think we need a president who is a generational change. And that's why I'm supporting Barack Obama. Not out of any lack of respect or admiration for Senator John McCain." I think Colin Powell has as much integrity, wisdom, respect, and sound judgement as anyone on this subject, and I couldn't have stated it ANY BETTER THAN THAT... That's all folks. See ya at the election after party!! Hi Kegan, Its seems rather obvious to me that this was little more that a racial endorsement. Lets face it, If it were a white candidate who held the same political views and had the same foreign policy experience as Obama, Colin Powell would have endorsed McCain. This may not be a popular statement but in my opinion it is accurate. I think any objective observers will see it the same way. In fact I don't even have problem with it. I just wish Powell would have been honest about his reasons for endorsing, rather than coming up with, what seemed to be weak points about the handling of the financial crisis, and supreme court justices. By the way, I'm still trying to figure out what exactly it was that Obama did during the financial crisis that was so encouraging to Powell. Perhaps it was the fact that Obama hid and said call me if you need me. Now that leadership  . God bless, Robin |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 22, 2008 7:24:28 GMT -8
you meant all kidding right? Bic lighters? PS did my little factoids* have any impact on you (or anyone)? *I would say 23 out 35 years of republican presidency is fact in itself. The republicans also had a majority rule in the senate 6 years under Reagan and 6 years under George W. Bush. Republicans also held the presidency when Roe v Wade decision happened. They also appointed 6 out of the 9 supreme court justices that decided Roe v Wade, as well as 7 of the 9 current supreme court justices. These seem to me like pretty strong facts that republicans either don't want to or are unable to reverse this decision. You convinced me! No, not really. ;D Robin |
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Oct 22, 2008 12:12:28 GMT -8
I agree w/ much of what you said and don't think our rationale is that far apart. The easiest way to show the problem of that rationality is to turn it around: a sperm isn't a human a second before it gets into the ovule but a second after it got into the ovule it suddenly is?? That's just random. Scientifically speaking, the embryo in the beginning is nothing but a bunch of cells. In the early phase of a pregnancy, one isn't really able to see the difference between a cow, a pig, a rabbit, a chicken and a human embryo. To be honest I don't have a full grasp on what an embryo actually is, or if I think it is a human. With limited info, I probably lean toward it being human, though. Scientifically speaking it is a LIFE though, right? And if its a human egg fertilized by human sperm , its not as if that life is ever going to turn into a pig or a chicken. At least I hope not, that could get awkward. ;D Its ALWAYS going to develop as a human. Shoot. That's all I've gots time for, for now. |
|
|
|
Post by bagels on Oct 22, 2008 19:07:14 GMT -8
Robin, you are killing me right now. A racial endorsement, huh? So that's the ONLY REASON that you could possibly think that Colin Powell would endorse Obama, eh? I almost didn't want to comment back about this, but dude, you got to at least "try" to accept the fact that Republicans AREN'T ALWAYS RIGHT ON EVERY SINGLE ISSUE ALL OF THE TIME (the same is true for left-wing nut jobs who think Democrats or Green Party canidates are right on every single issue). I would be very careful, Robin, what kind of individual you're making such a reckless accusation towards. Colin Powell is one of the biggest patriots that you'll ever find in the United States, and your rationale for his endorsement is quite ridiculous. In a lot of peoples opinion (including mine), it takes a "real patriot" to buck his/her own party when that individual decides that voting outside of their own party will benefit the country more. You've made it clear that you don't want to accept any other explanation and that it was completely based on race. So you can spin it however you feel, but I think the "General's words" stand alone on a pedestal that neither you, nor I, could ever touch (and you know it)... So in the immortal words of Forest Gump, "... and dat's all I got to say bout' dat."  Cheers, K |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 22, 2008 19:19:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 22, 2008 19:33:45 GMT -8
Nate wrote:
I was kidding that Powell or Obama define the pursuit of the American dream that way... but I wasn't kidding in insinuating that our culture has in general moved towards this kind of mentality.
That might have come out wrong. It was supposed to be a slam on our consumer culture- not on these individuals.
Nate wrote:
Yes, I resonated with them. Factoids like that about the history of Republican actions so far on abortion are one of the major causes of doubt I have about the GOPs real intentions about the issue of abortion. Still, I don't know enough to really weigh in.
For instance, I wonder if perhaps there has been a change (for the good) in the GOPs stance on the subject since Roe. v. Wade or in more recent years. Parties aren't static-- I mean, look at the Democrats- they were the bastions of racist segregationism for 80 years until Johnson. Maybe just like the Democrats on racism, the Republicans just needed a little waking up on the issue of abortion???
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 22, 2008 19:35:32 GMT -8
Mo wrote:
Mo, I very much appreciated this post. Thanks for sharing your perspective!
Mo wrote:
Wow, mo. This is way too much agreeing than I'm used to ;D
I only partially disagree with this bit. Some picketers of abortion clinics don't angrily condemn but do shout out things like, "you don't have to do it! It's a baby!" etc... and that has been effective, whether you agree with that approach or not. Many people are motivated to reconsidered by seeing this as a distinctly moral/ spiritual issue. I can't say that there isn't a place for more confrontational methods (though there is no place for rude and angry condemnations imo). Still, I do prefer, and think this better suits the nature of Christ's kingdom, the kinds of interventions that don't just make moral declarations but actually try to help single mothers teetering on the edge of such a decision. For instance, there is a great organization here called Pregnancy Resource center which does just that... combating the agenda of abortion promoting agencies such as Planned Parenthood.
I disagree. Outlawing it would certainly help reduce the amount of abortions- from millions to thousands per year would be my rough estimate. It's similar to how people say that Prohibition in America didn't stop people from drinking. Actually, the statistics I've seen are that indeed there was much less drinking during Prohibition. The problem with Prohibition was all the other manifestations that it encouraged (gangs, etc..) PLUS the fact that there is nothing inherently evil about consuming alcohol whereas abortion is the taking of a human life.
I did say something like that. I think change will come through convincing our culture person by person that abortion is wrong- not primarily through legal strongarming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 22, 2008 20:03:54 GMT -8
Yeah, because nothing immoral ever makes it into law. Except slavery, segregation, pogroms.....  I think Nate's logic is sound but this doesn't make sense to me at all. Clearly a sperm isn't a human. Even in the most protected environment it cannot on it's own become a human. But the second it unites with an egg, if it remains in a natural, protected environment, it will progress to adulthood. It's not a random event at all. There is a very clear line of demarcation there... one that has no later precedent. I'm not sure how the appearance of the fetus in the early stages in germaine to this topic. If you looked deep enough at a human embryo you would know it was a human embryo and no other. A further question: why is a baby a human, a toddler a human, a child a human, an elderly person a human, but not an embryo? The problem with this logic imo is that not even a newborn baby is viable without adult intervention. Not even a 5 year old child could survive on their own. Yet they are human. Many elderly people would not survive on their own without intervention. People who are comatose or severely handicapped wouldn't be human according to how I'm reading this logic. And if you say that you were just talking about independence from the embryo's particular mother, then I would respond and say isn't that an arbitrary rule? I'm glad this much is agreed on. |
|
.
