|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 23, 2008 1:27:18 GMT -8
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). Maybe confrontational methods have been effective. I don't know the statistics. It's rather my own experience that whenever I'm confronting people aggressively or swing the moral bat at them that they rather shut their ears and block everything instead of thinking about it. Whenever I see demonstrants throwing God or Jesus as a weigh against abortion into the ring, I get annoyed and feel the urge to distance myself from them, even though them and me are sharing ultimately the same opinion, namely that abortion shouldn't be. Do you understand what I mean? Sure, God is a heavy weight for believers, but how are such arguments ever gonna reach a non-believer? I find the other methods you suggested far more constructive. I disagree. Outlawing it would certainly help reduce the amount of abortions- from millions to thousands per year would be my rough estimate. Maybe. But heres what I think. Those people who could be persuaded to keep their baby simply through the dictate of the law, can also be persuaded to keep their baby without the law. And just like prohibition fostered criminal side effects, outlawing abortion would only lead to a black market because the demand isn't going to stop. The desperate women who are going to abort anyway will do it secretly, sometimes with unqualified persons and in the worst case not only put an end to the existence of their fetus, but to their own lives too. The money will at least partly go into the hands of organized crime and the vicious circle continues. Those who can afford it will go abroad. And even if it was forbidden everywhere, this would only give birth to a black market. Again, if the law is reason enough for a woman not to abort, I'm sure this same woman can be persuaded without the law too. Can anyone fill me in about the legal situation of abortion in the USA? Just in a nutshell. Can any woman simply decide to abort or does she need a certificate like in Germany? |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 23, 2008 2:14:49 GMT -8
Yeah, because nothing immoral ever makes it into law. Except slavery, segregation, pogroms.....  Exactly. ;D Kidding aside. We are moving straight back to the relativity of morals. You know my opinion. Slaveowners, segregators and Nazis thought they were righteous. From their perspective, they weren't committing anything immoral. The crux of this aspect of the abortion discussion is the good old question: what is a human and when? The definitions vary and there is no universal agreement in the details. You and I will have to agree to disagree here. 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. You are talking past me. I'm in full agreement that the causal chain that WILL LEAD to human life has been started with the conception. What I think is random is to say that what was a sperm a second ago is a human right now even before a cell division. This is as illogical to me as to say that un unborn baby isn't a human the second before it is born. The fetus becomes a human along the way in my opinion. I've said when it is a human to me and I'm willing to agree that this is arbitrary. But the truth is, it's just as arbitrary as your opinion. It's just that I think my definition makes more sense  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. Of course, cause that's what it is: a human embryo. Not a human  What I tried to show with the picture is that at the beginning, there is little more that separates us from an animal except for the genetical code we have inside of us. The genetical code is certainly one factor that determines to what species one belongs. But not the only one. Since the genetic information is also inside the sperm and the egg, those two should be considered humans too if we want to say that the genetic information is decisive. 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? Because the embryo hasn't reached the point in its development from which on it is viable without being directly connected to another human. If the mother dies, the baby dies. Only those babies, who can be saved out of a dead mother are humans to me. 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. You are misreading this logic. I was trying to say - and I apologize if my language skills failed again - that at a certain point, a fetus doesn't need to be physically connected to the mother in order to survive. The moment it could be taken out of the mothers belly and survive relying on his own organs, is the moment it becomes a human imo. Technical support (in case of early birth), necessary nutricion and protection by others play no part in this rationality. Arbitrary? Okay. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 23, 2008 7:40:16 GMT -8
Wow you have some real admiration for the General, and you statement about his words standing on a pedestal were very moving. Would you say the same thing about his words before the UN when he said that Iraq was "harboring and developing WMDs"? Was he lying, or did he have good reason to believe what he said, and therefore the war with Iraq was warranted? You can't have it both ways. For too long the left has berated Powell for his connections with the republican party even going so far as to call him an "Uncle Tom" and the republican's "token N****r" (not my words). Now all of a sudden the left wants to put his words belong on a "pedestal". Give me a break. Do you honestly want me to believe that there is not a racial component to a black Conservative, who has served three Republican administrations with honor, endorsing the most liberal and inexperience Senator who is also black? you can refuse to accept reality if you want, but I will see things for what they are. One other thing. Why should I be careful about criticizing Powell's words? Is he some sort of deity that will strike me down if I don't pay homage?   Robin |
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Oct 23, 2008 11:32:02 GMT -8
I am not at my home computer and so, can't post much more than a very quick message. Can I just interject how MUCH I have appreciated reading all the intellegent, well-thought out, heart-felt points that have been made on this thread? Like so many of you, I am trapped between what I KNOW--is true and what my vote should look like. ( I know that is a much clearer question for some of you than for others, but that is where I am, so I hope you can respect that.) I just need to compliment you for creating a safe space where these things can be brought out and dissected among brothers and sisters without hearing "you are going straight to hell because you have a disagreement with another believer!" (Kudos for Josh, most definitely intended  Thank you to all who have contributed here--I feel I've learned a lot and you've given me a lot to think about. Hopefully I will have a few moments to flesh out where I personally stand on all this stuff, later tonight. I miss visiting with you thinking bretheren.....maybe this Sunday... oxox M |
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Oct 23, 2008 11:51:47 GMT -8
Robin said: "Do you honestly want me to believe that there is not a racial component to a black Conservative, who has served three Republican administrations with honor, endorsing the most liberal and inexperience Senator who is also black? you can refuse to accept reality if you want, but I will see things for what they are. "
Whoa, Robin. I don't always agree with your viewpoints, but so many of your opinions and comments are heart-felt and carefully thought through. Unfortunately, I gotta say I was pretty disappointed in this one.
I feel like I just flashed back to 1957. Are you saying you know what goes though a person's mind because they are a certain race?? I am of a different race than most of you, but in no way do I follow "party lines"--in fact most people have a lot of trouble following how I jump around (!) What you are saying is scary, scary stuff brother.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 23, 2008 12:23:53 GMT -8
I'm not sure whats scary about me sharing my opinion. I don't feel compelled to defend myself, but if it will make others here more comfortable I can assure you I'm not racist, nor am I trying to create any racial divisions. Remember it was kegan who brought up the Powell endorsement, and I simply responded by stating an pinion that I believe that the endorsement was largely base on race.
Lets face it, it's only human for Powell, as a black man, to want to see a Black man become president. I want to see a black man be president, just not Obama. I would like to see Ken Blackwell, or Michael Steele be President. Again, my problem isn't with the endorsement, but the reasons given by Powell I believe to be disingenuous given his past political ties and endorsements.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 23, 2008 15:15:58 GMT -8
Thanks, Margot. That's the vision for these forums for sure and I'm glad to see that people are experiencing that as a reality!
|
|
|
|
Post by bagels on Oct 23, 2008 19:44:55 GMT -8
Fair enough, Joshua. I didn't mean to "pee in anyone's pool" over here, I just didn't think that thread was still goin on (still gettin used to these forum deals)... I'll stick to the topics at hand from now on. Peace... K
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 23, 2008 19:47:16 GMT -8
No prob. The forums are way too complicated for anyone who actually has a real life  |
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Oct 23, 2008 21:57:58 GMT -8
Yeah, I guess this is pretty much what I am saying. I DON'T feel the desire to see someone of my racial/ethnic background become President. Neither do I desire to see a woman become President, just because she is a woman. I am hoping--praying--to see the right person become President. I guess because I, as a minority, don't look at it that way, I don't think it should be assumed that the "human" way of looking at it would be to line up along racial lines. Now, back to Abortion/The Politics of Abortion--the thread of this discussion , right? I would say I have talked at length w/ about 5 peeps in the last 2 months about abortion, all of which are pro-choice, one of which just recently had an abortion. In each case no one denied the logical argument that a child before its born is still a human life. Yet, none of them could be persuaded to change their opinion. Granted it usually takes time to change strongly held beliefs, but I think there is some sort of emotional disconnect going on that I can't quite put my finger on. Nate, I think "emotional disconect" is a great way to phrase this. My husband and I have had many discussions over the years on this same question. Why is it that pro-choicers, who are able to make perfectly rational arguments over so many other issues, suddenly "go deaf" when it comes to accepting the idea that life could begin at conception? You can chalk it up to selfishness and the determination to do whatever it is you want to do, no matter what the consequences, but what makes more sense to me is that it is a kind of spriritual blindness--not unlike that deer in the headlights look you get when you start talking about having a relationship with God. In my mind there is a lot of evidence of a veil of sorts. Proof? Not necessarily, (yet!) but a lot of evidence. BTW Nate, your little "factoids" also resonated strongly with me, for what it is worth. ;D They pretty much describe where I'm at right now. I know who I want to vote for, but, I guess I wish it were different. I wanted to throw something else in the mix: Recently, I heard a believer on radio say something to the effect of: "For any Christian, the preservation of life will always trump any other issue. That is why, no matter what they think about other issues and other candidates, a Christian will always ultimately vote for whoever values the right to life." I have never thought of it that way--although I know some of my friends have. I am not sure I agree. Are there some issues that outweigh all others? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Isn't God calling us to weigh all of them heavily? Your thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 24, 2008 1:09:26 GMT -8
Nate, I think "emotional disconect" is a great way to phrase this. My husband and I have had many discussions over the years on this same question. Why is it that pro-choicers, who are able to make perfectly rational arguments over so many other issues, suddenly "go deaf" when it comes to accepting the idea that life could begin at conception? hm, I'm not sure the pro-choicer can't accept the idea that life begins at conception. But I'm pretty sure that they don't consider an embryo as a human. Neither do I even though I'm against abortion. And that's the crux. The worth of life is very relative. Technically speaking, plants are alive too. And of course animals. I don't know if you are a vegetarian, but if you aren't one might ask: "how can you as a pro-lifer, who are able to make rational decisions, be so brute and eat a beefsteak?" I'm not a vegetarian but I know people who think like that. For them animal life is standing on the same scale as human life. And I think Buddhists who believe in reincarnation in different living forms also have a different understanding of life than we do. Anyway, I think people who abort don't think they are killing a human. And I haven't heard a good reason so far why an embryo should be considered a human. I like your idea of spiritual blindness. I've often asked myself if I'm spiritually blind. When I came to doubt and started to loose God, I've prayed a lot. I've told God that if he is trying to give me hints, I'm unable to understand them and need more obvious ones. Of course I didn't get them. Or I got more obvious ones but I'm just 100% blind already. Or maybe the spiritual blindness cuts the other way too. He who stares too long into the sun goes blind. Religion certainly has this effect on people, no doubt about that. So who is spiritually blind? It's all relative. Think about it. I wanted to throw something else in the mix: Recently, I heard a believer on radio say something to the effect of: "For any Christian, the preservation of life will always trump any other issue. That is why, no matter what they think about other issues and other candidates, a Christian will always ultimately vote for whoever values the right to life." I have never thought of it that way--although I know some of my friends have. I am not sure I agree. Are there some issues that outweigh all others? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Isn't God calling us to weigh all of them heavily? Your thoughts? Well, let's just draw a scenario and see. Let's say you had to choose between the fictive politician John Q. Public, a Christian who tolerates abortion, and the fictive politician Muhamad Al-Islam, who is a pro-life Muslim with the open agenda to make the USA a muslim theocracy and to convert all Christians into good Muslims (without killing anybody). What would be more important for a Christian, the pro-life agenda or the religious integrity and freedom? I think the question is rethoric and doesn't require an answer. So apparently life doesn't always trump. But even if we don't take such a black and white example, I think the matter isn't as easy as the guy you quoted put it. President Bush, if I'm not mistaken, is against abortion. But he is pro war and pro death penalty. Only a total hipocrite could defend this double standard as being pro life.* John McCain is against abortion but he is willing to stay another 100 years in Iraq, sacrificing thousands of soldiers just so the USA don't lose. Thousands of lifes for his national pride. That isn't pro life. A German song once said "a hundret years of war leave no space for victors". And what about life in a more philosophical way? What about the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay? They are technically alive but have been held without a trial and against any enlightened democratic principle. They have been bereft of their human dignity. I don't know the numbers but I know that there were innocent people among them. Those people have been bereft of parts of their lifes. Maybe they'll never be the same again. So when does life trump? Whose life trumps? The life of the embryo? The life of the soldier? The life of the innocent prisoner? The life of the guilty prisoner? Will the life of the embryo be saved by any candidate? Will the life of the soldier be saved? Whose politics will end up killing more lifes? It's not that easy. *Let's just get one thing straight: to say war is okay if it is the last possible solution has it's justification. But in the Iraq war we were far away from having tried every possible peaceful solution. And the death penalty? Maybe a murderer deserves to be killed. I'm not pointing at that. I'm just questioning the logic of being pro life and pro death penalty. In the case of war one could still argue: If we don't kill them, they are gonna kill us. One could argue that the total number of deaths could be held smaller with a military intervention than without. But with the death penalty this doesn't work. The murderer can't murder anymore. He is still a human, even though he is guilty. To kill him is to kill a human life without self-defense. Clearly not pro life. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 25, 2008 20:34:51 GMT -8
OK, so I do want to respond to you Mo. But first, a little intermission-
Did any of you watch the movie Juno?
Rose and I did recently. The scene in the abortion clinic is poignant and really underscores the insanity of abortion imo. I understand the director got some flak for that one. Kudos to him for not towing the line... especially in a movie with all the other themes that Juno delved into.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 26, 2008 4:20:20 GMT -8
(...) the insanity of abortion. Your self-righteousness stinks to high heaven. This is why I'll never side with Christians in this issue even though I'm against abortion. Who do you think you are? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 26, 2008 7:47:32 GMT -8
Mo, I don't know how this has anything to do with my "self-righteousness". As a human, I personally do insane things frequently (it's called sin). I am guilty of "insanity"- living in contradiction with what I know is right, just like everyone else.
Attributing a strong moral statement by someone religious to mere "self-righteousness" gains a lot of snide agreement among people who already have beef with religious folk but it's not the heart of the conflict.
The conflict is really about a disagreement between whether morality has an absolute component or not.
Are you "self-righteous" because you think that evolution occurred? Do you think you are better than those who don't? I don't think so.
Who do I think I am? Now that's a different question. Here's a quick part of that story:
I'm an imperfect but growing child of God with a purpose and a calling and the unconditional love of the Father over me.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 26, 2008 12:31:16 GMT -8
Who do I think I am? Now that's a different question. Here's a quick part of that story: I'm an imperfect but growing child of God with a purpose and a calling and the unconditional love of the Father over me. Oh, that lofty declaration almost made me puke cry. Your imperfection is no excuse for your moral arrogance. Mo, I don't know how this has anything to do with my " self-righteousness". As a human, I personally do insane things frequently (it's called sin). I am guilty of "insanity"- living in contradiction with what I know is right, just like everyone else. No, insanity and sin are two different stories. Don't try to take me for a fool. I wouldn't even have reacted to your statement if you had said "the sin of abortion". Look, I'm against abortion too and I understand why abortion upsets you (given your religious background). But you have no right to judge these people. Your own scripture tells you to contain your judgement. Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."The last time I checked you were unable to get pregnant. You are unable to know the motives, thoughts and feelings of women who abort. Did it ever occur to you that it may be more despair that influences their decision rather than insanity? What you have displayed is the arrogance of the Christian who thinks he is morally superior despite his own acknowledged imperfection. Despite the blatant immorality of his own religion. I'm asking you again, who do you think you are? And don't give me that cheesy "child of God with a calling" stuff again. PS: The worst thing about this is that you force me to defend aborters. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 26, 2008 14:56:33 GMT -8
It wasn't meant to be. If you think it's arrogant to postulate a moral absolute, I think your definition of arrogance is faulty.
I didn't judge any person. I simply said that abortion is insane. I wasn't using the word insane in a clinical sense. In the scene from the movie several people are going about the business of getting an abortion and their callousness, their blindness, their numbness to their own decision is emphasized. Juno sees all this "insanity" and it freaks her out, so she runs out of the clinic.
Sure, despair is a factor. Sure desperation is a factor. But I believe that there is a moral blindness to the choice of an abortion- just as there is a moral blindness or insanity every time I make a decision to sin.
The Scripture tells us to judge without hypocrisy, to judge rightly, and not to judge someone else's ultimate standing before God. It does encourage us to judge between right and wrong and it does say we can discern others integrity by their moral choices.
It's unfortunate that the deepest reality of my life offends you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 26, 2008 17:26:00 GMT -8
Mo,
How does saying that "my arrogance stinks to high heaven" not classify as "judging" according to your own logic?
Here I'm attacking the logic of abortion, not an individual. But now you're going directly for my personal jugular.
You are judging my motives for saying what I said (attributing it to arrogance), when in reality I don't think you really even know what motivates me to consider abortion "insane". Arrogance implies that I think I'm better than someone else, and if there's anything I'm convinced of because of the gospel, it's that sin and Christ's forgiveness is the ultimate levelor of the playing field. We are all equally in need of grace, regardless of what particular sins we have committed.
Perhaps you need to know why I chose the word insane anyway. It's actually a softening, less judgmental word to use than sin, along the lines of when Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" It's insanity in the sense that it should be clear* but they don't see it.
Whew... this has been a tense week on the ol' boards!
*I know you don't think the issue is clear- that's a point of difference between us.
|
|
