OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 21, 2014, 12:04:11 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is Abortion actually murder?  (Read 21553 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,464


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #405 on: February 26, 2013, 10:39:07 AM »

Seriously, how expansive are contraceptives?  This BS about people who cannot afford contraceptives is getting kinda old. 

Very true; quite frankly, it is a bunch of bullpoop. In California where I live, anyone of any age could walk into any clinic, hospital, pharmacy or medical facility and ask for contraceptives, and be given them entirely free of charge no questions asked. To be fair though, I don't know if states in the Bible-Belt are like this though...

Planned Parenthood distributes contraceptives in just about every medium sized town.... Plus they have locations in high schools.   Of course, they are more about abortion than contraceptive.  They are even embedded in the Girl Scouts!

I am against abortion.  I am against contraceptives.  I already have 5 children, and if God wills it, we'll have more.  Yes, even if we end up like the Duggars.  His will be done.

Just wondering, within God's creation are a seemingly infinite multitude of his creatures including ones harmful to humans like certain bacteria. Many people have died as a consequence of nature's normal cycles by means of bacterial infection. With the development of antibiotics in the 20th century many diseases formerly deadly to mankind were no longer a threat to humans. Do you take antibiotics when ill?  How do you reconcile modern medicine with God's will?

Hi, glad you asked.  Before I answer I must warn, that my answer will not coincide with modern Science, modern medicine, or common thought.    Also, for the CRITICS of almost everything I say, I can't cover every ailment, sickness, or example...

I do not believe in modern medicine.  I believe surgery, but the the pharmacy side of it.   God forbade pharmacia (witchcraft) in the scriptures.  I believe our modern pharmacy is the "user of potions".

With that said I believe that most often diseases are caused by people being lazy, nasty, and unhealthy.  Bathing in dung infested waters for example.  I believe things like high blood pressure are related to obesity, eating salt that is "not real", being lazy, eating a poor unnatural diet...

I  believe bacterial diseases and viral diseases are very curable, if we embrace (untouched) what God has provided.  (look these up because there is no way I can give all of them here)

1) Propolis - what bees use to "glue their hives together"... This is extremely anti-bacterial and anti-viral.  It contains tons of amino acids.   You can even brush your teeth with it (an excellent toothpaste).  Look it up, it's awesome.   Given to us by God in a pure form.

2) Goji Berries - these contain almost all of the amino acids and all the essential amino acids.  Tons of vitamins.  Contains the highest level of carotenoids on the planet (perfect for eyes and reverses age related macular degeration).   Has an abundance of B vitamins, perfect for those with type 2 diabetes & hypoglycemics.  Also contains the most antioxidants of anything on Earth (by far).  Look it up!  Given to us by God in a pure form.

3) Willow Bark - will cure head aches. Given to us by God in a pure form.

4) Bee Pollen - Will cure many air born allergies.  Given to us by God in a pure form.

5) Echinachea - Is a catalyst for the immune system.  Take as you feel yourself getting sick.  Given to us by God in a pure form.

6) Spirulina - This stuff is insanely good for you, packed with vitamins.  Want a healthy temple?  this stuff is awesome.  Given to us by God in a pure form.

7) Royal Jelly - Full of anti oxidants, amino acids, and vitamins.  This is what worker bees feed to the queen.  Pure, and given to us by God.

Okay, fingers are tired of examples.  There are tons of these, but I covered some of the best.  I believe that it was not Science that offered us solutions to ailments.  I believe that God created things in nature that will help us.

Even for his animals.  For my goats, if they get worms, we feed them Cedar or Honeysuckle.   Cures it.   For humans with worms - heavy use of Garlic.

I believe vaccines are toxic and that the "supposed things" they cure, were being eradicated by more sterile conditions of living.  My opinion is that when Polio was being "vaccinated", people were also leaving life where they were drinking unsanitary water.  Many infected drank from wells too close to out houses.  Suburbs were springing up (pun intended) that were connected to more sanitary sources of water at that time.  Vaccines took all the credit.   Today, rather than the 4 vaccines that were "given" when I was a child, there is 62.  

Again these are my opinions.  I refuse to believe that in God's wondrous creation for us that there are not cures.   I know in his creation is the perfect things to give us perfect health.  Youtube has a video called "the raw food trucker", a man who cured his colon cancer (1 month to live) by consuming an all raw / mostly vegan diet.   lost a ton of weight too.
 
I know there are critics.  None of my 5 children are vaccinated.   We have no problems yet.  In fact, we have been to the doctor (heh knocking on wood) less than 5 times with any of them COMBINED.   This is because most ailments were treated with God's creation.

The times we went were for more of "surgical" reasons.  My son got his finger smashed in a portable cement mixer.  Thank God he didn't need surgery.  My daughter swallowed a bunch of little magnets faster than we could get to her - we freaked.  Food poisoning, but they couldn't do anything.  Once my son got his elbow popped out on monkey bars.  

All sicknesses, bacterial infections, colds, flu, etc., all treated with what God made for us.

Anyway, its almost a philosophy.  A philosophy of health, respecting the creation, and using what God gave us to help us.  I'm nearly 40 years old, I rarely get sick, and I can still hold my own against 5 children wrestling on a trampoline (kind of LOL).  My wife rarely gets sick - as well as our children.

I believe that when we embrace what God has made for us, we are much more healthy.

Anyway, this is what works for us for many years now.  This info is often met with scorn and ridicule.  This is not conclusive, but only a trickle in an ocean of what is out there.

I believe that modern contraceptives are pharmacia (witchcraft) and its people's attempts at altering the will of God.






I believe what ive highlighted in brown is utter crap. If we can do nothing without God, then God is in the medicines that we create and are His creations, just like everything else you mention.

However, even with me disagreeing with that part, you still make a lot of good points, especially with a lot of our health problems being our own fault. The rest I'm not convinced of, but at the same time, if it works, then, it works and is good, and shall be looked in to. (but, all of this is of course, a topic for a different thread)
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #406 on: February 26, 2013, 11:31:31 AM »

It's a bunch of bull, tbh. All these nazi-feminists pushing their "choice" crap. The way I see it is that if it takes two people to make a baby, then it takes two people to decide what to do with it.

When men find a way to carry and birth the babies they want and their women don't, then they will have an equal say. Until then, all the decisions are firmly on the woman's side.

This is one of the most useless and baseless arguments I have ever heard in my life, ever.

Uh oh..didnt your parents ever have "The Talk" with you?  Smiley
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #407 on: February 26, 2013, 11:36:39 AM »

Seriously, how expansive are contraceptives?  This BS about people who cannot afford contraceptives is getting kinda old. 

Very true; quite frankly, it is a bunch of bullpoop. In California where I live, anyone of any age could walk into any clinic, hospital, pharmacy or medical facility and ask for contraceptives, and be given them entirely free of charge no questions asked. To be fair though, I don't know if states in the Bible-Belt are like this though...

Planned Parenthood distributes contraceptives in just about every medium sized town.... Plus they have locations in high schools.   Of course, they are more about abortion than contraceptive.  They are even embedded in the Girl Scouts!

I am against abortion.  I am against contraceptives.  I already have 5 children, and if God wills it, we'll have more.  Yes, even if we end up like the Duggars.  His will be done.

Just wondering, within God's creation are a seemingly infinite multitude of his creatures including ones harmful to humans like certain bacteria. Many people have died as a consequence of nature's normal cycles by means of bacterial infection. With the development of antibiotics in the 20th century many diseases formerly deadly to mankind were no longer a threat to humans. Do you take antibiotics when ill?  How do you reconcile modern medicine with God's will?

Hi, glad you asked.  Before I answer I must warn, that my answer will not coincide with modern Science, modern medicine, or common thought.    Also, for the CRITICS of almost everything I say, I can't cover every ailment, sickness, or example...

I do not believe in modern medicine.  I believe surgery, but the the pharmacy side of it.   God forbade pharmacia (witchcraft) in the scriptures.  I believe our modern pharmacy is the "user of potions".

With that said I believe that most often diseases are caused by people being lazy, nasty, and unhealthy.  Bathing in dung infested waters for example.  I believe things like high blood pressure are related to obesity, eating salt that is "not real", being lazy, eating a poor unnatural diet...

I  believe bacterial diseases and viral diseases are very curable, if we embrace (untouched) what God has provided.  (look these up because there is no way I can give all of them here)

1) Propolis - what bees use to "glue their hives together"... This is extremely anti-bacterial and anti-viral.  It contains tons of amino acids.   You can even brush your teeth with it (an excellent toothpaste).  Look it up, it's awesome.   Given to us by God in a pure form.

2) Goji Berries - these contain almost all of the amino acids and all the essential amino acids.  Tons of vitamins.  Contains the highest level of carotenoids on the planet (perfect for eyes and reverses age related macular degeration).   Has an abundance of B vitamins, perfect for those with type 2 diabetes & hypoglycemics.  Also contains the most antioxidants of anything on Earth (by far).  Look it up!  Given to us by God in a pure form.

3) Willow Bark - will cure head aches. Given to us by God in a pure form.

4) Bee Pollen - Will cure many air born allergies.  Given to us by God in a pure form.

5) Echinachea - Is a catalyst for the immune system.  Take as you feel yourself getting sick.  Given to us by God in a pure form.

6) Spirulina - This stuff is insanely good for you, packed with vitamins.  Want a healthy temple?  this stuff is awesome.  Given to us by God in a pure form.

7) Royal Jelly - Full of anti oxidants, amino acids, and vitamins.  This is what worker bees feed to the queen.  Pure, and given to us by God.

Okay, fingers are tired of examples.  There are tons of these, but I covered some of the best.  I believe that it was not Science that offered us solutions to ailments.  I believe that God created things in nature that will help us.

Even for his animals.  For my goats, if they get worms, we feed them Cedar or Honeysuckle.   Cures it.   For humans with worms - heavy use of Garlic.

I believe vaccines are toxic and that the "supposed things" they cure, were being eradicated by more sterile conditions of living.  My opinion is that when Polio was being "vaccinated", people were also leaving life where they were drinking unsanitary water.  Many infected drank from wells too close to out houses.  Suburbs were springing up (pun intended) that were connected to more sanitary sources of water at that time.  Vaccines took all the credit.   Today, rather than the 4 vaccines that were "given" when I was a child, there is 62.  

Again these are my opinions.  I refuse to believe that in God's wondrous creation for us that there are not cures.   I know in his creation is the perfect things to give us perfect health.  Youtube has a video called "the raw food trucker", a man who cured his colon cancer (1 month to live) by consuming an all raw / mostly vegan diet.   lost a ton of weight too.
 
I know there are critics.  None of my 5 children are vaccinated.   We have no problems yet.  In fact, we have been to the doctor (heh knocking on wood) less than 5 times with any of them COMBINED.   This is because most ailments were treated with God's creation.

The times we went were for more of "surgical" reasons.  My son got his finger smashed in a portable cement mixer.  Thank God he didn't need surgery.  My daughter swallowed a bunch of little magnets faster than we could get to her - we freaked.  Food poisoning, but they couldn't do anything.  Once my son got his elbow popped out on monkey bars.  

All sicknesses, bacterial infections, colds, flu, etc., all treated with what God made for us.

Anyway, its almost a philosophy.  A philosophy of health, respecting the creation, and using what God gave us to help us.  I'm nearly 40 years old, I rarely get sick, and I can still hold my own against 5 children wrestling on a trampoline (kind of LOL).  My wife rarely gets sick - as well as our children.

I believe that when we embrace what God has made for us, we are much more healthy.

Anyway, this is what works for us for many years now.  This info is often met with scorn and ridicule.  This is not conclusive, but only a trickle in an ocean of what is out there.

I believe that modern contraceptives are pharmacia (witchcraft) and its people's attempts at altering the will of God.






I believe what ive highlighted in brown is utter crap. If we can do nothing without God, then God is in the medicines that we create and are His creations, just like everything else you mention.

However, even with me disagreeing with that part, you still make a lot of good points, especially with a lot of our health problems being our own fault. The rest I'm not convinced of, but at the same time, if it works, then, it works and is good, and shall be looked in to. (but, all of this is of course, a topic for a different thread)

Could you take this over to the Nutrition and Diet thread? We talk  a lot there about what is "Our Fault" and what things have perhaps been falsely presented to us.

Here is a good starting point: Why we get fat, by Gary Taubes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH9079LV4tY
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,731



« Reply #408 on: February 26, 2013, 11:39:49 AM »

So why doesn't the man get to unilaterally decide where his money goes?  He's the one who had to work for it.  He's the one who had to put in is time and effort, he should be the only one who gets to decide how it's spent.  His body.  His choice.

Please note that I am not supporting deadbeatism.  But when it gets down to it, both of them made the mutual decision to screw (if not then why weren't rape charges filed?).  She now has a moral obligation to be a mother to that child and he has a moral obligation to be a father to it.  The fact that legal obligations and moral obligations in this instance don't match up only shows that our laws are no longer legitimate except as they are enforced by firearms.  The ONLY one who had no choice in the beginning is the child, thus his or her right to life trumps both the mother's right to liberty and the gather's to property.

I'm biased (obviously, being a mother and all), but I don't believe there is enough money in the known universe to match the bulk of work a single parent puts into childrearing.

I have known a number of single parents.  They run the gambit from one woman who despite language difficulties and having her husband deported still works at Walmart to give her three children the best life possible, to another who divorced her husband, as well as the last SEVEN, and once spanked her kid with a cheese grater, claims disabilities, and her eldest son pretty much ran the family from 18 on (claims her and his siblings on his taxes, even).

So I don't have this bias because I don't put single mothers on a pedestal.  I have seen the extreme effort that one has put out with everything stacked against her and others who have had everything pretty much handed to them and still need their sons to raise them!

Quote
Now, a woman deciding to have her child despite her man's pressure to have an abortion - that's an entirely unilateral decision, and based on your 'unilateral decision, unilateral responsibility' quote further up, the father owes nothing to nobody. Which is, frankly, a despicable thing even to suggest.

Is it any more despicable than her murdering his child without him even having the opportunity to have him raise it on his own with no support from her?  

Quote
I'd want nothing more than have every child conceived in this world welcomed into the world by two parents who want and love it, but that's not going to happen any time soon. And I'm convinced that, unless everyone in a state is on the same page on the moral status of abortion, criminalising it is going to bring on much greater evil than it will prevent.

That's your opinion.  Frankly, I can't see any greater evil arising from criminalizing than what is already legal.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,731



« Reply #409 on: February 26, 2013, 11:47:17 AM »

Seriously, how expansive are contraceptives?  This BS about people who cannot afford contraceptives is getting kinda old.  

Very true; quite frankly, it is a bunch of bullpoop. In California where I live, anyone of any age could walk into any clinic, hospital, pharmacy or medical facility and ask for contraceptives, and be given them entirely free of charge no questions asked. To be fair though, I don't know if states in the Bible-Belt are like this though...

I've never heard of that. I really don't think they'll be giving free contraceptives to two-year-olds. Where do you get this stuff?

Anyway, anything other than condoms can get pretty expensive. Hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year. At least. I've worked in health care for years. I know what stuff costs. If you're going to tell people not to have sex, number one that doesn't work, and number two, there are plenty of poor married people. Are you going to tell all of them not to have sex? How much strain is that going to put on the marriage?

"I really don't think they'll be giving free contraceptives to two-year-olds."  Not really that big of a problem.  Seeing as they can't really do anything that requires birth control...

With proper and consistent use they are pretty effective.  And they are cheap, even free.  But ultimately, screwing is the number one cause of pregnancy.  Sometimes people have to accept responsibility for their actions.  Killing another person because of their own mistake is not the way civilized human beings go about things.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,126


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #410 on: February 26, 2013, 11:53:53 AM »

Seriously, how expansive are contraceptives?  This BS about people who cannot afford contraceptives is getting kinda old.  

Very true; quite frankly, it is a bunch of bullpoop. In California where I live, anyone of any age could walk into any clinic, hospital, pharmacy or medical facility and ask for contraceptives, and be given them entirely free of charge no questions asked. To be fair though, I don't know if states in the Bible-Belt are like this though...

I've never heard of that. I really don't think they'll be giving free contraceptives to two-year-olds. Where do you get this stuff?

Anyway, anything other than condoms can get pretty expensive. Hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year. At least. I've worked in health care for years. I know what stuff costs. If you're going to tell people not to have sex, number one that doesn't work, and number two, there are plenty of poor married people. Are you going to tell all of them not to have sex? How much strain is that going to put on the marriage?

"I really don't think they'll be giving free contraceptives to two-year-olds."  Not really that big of a problem.  Seeing as they can't really do anything that requires birth control...

With proper and consistent use they are pretty effective.  And they are cheap, even free.  But ultimately, screwing is the number one cause of pregnancy.  Sometimes people have to accept responsibility for their actions.  Killing another person because of their own mistake is not the way civilized human beings go about things.

I think "civilized human beings" are in extremely short supply.  Maybe all those non-baby, not-yet-human fetuses who get not-murdered in the womb would have gone some way to decrease that shortage.  I guess we'll never know in this life.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #411 on: February 26, 2013, 09:05:14 PM »

It's a bunch of bull, tbh. All these nazi-feminists pushing their "choice" crap. The way I see it is that if it takes two people to make a baby, then it takes two people to decide what to do with it.

When men find a way to carry and birth the babies they want and their women don't, then they will have an equal say. Until then, all the decisions are firmly on the woman's side.

This is one of the most useless and baseless arguments I have ever heard in my life, ever.

Uh oh..didnt your parents ever have "The Talk" with you?  Smiley
Which has nothing at all to do with the utter uselessness of the above pseudo argument.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #412 on: February 26, 2013, 09:39:22 PM »

It's a bunch of bull, tbh. All these nazi-feminists pushing their "choice" crap. The way I see it is that if it takes two people to make a baby, then it takes two people to decide what to do with it.

When men find a way to carry and birth the babies they want and their women don't, then they will have an equal say. Until then, all the decisions are firmly on the woman's side.

This is one of the most useless and baseless arguments I have ever heard in my life, ever.

Uh oh..didnt your parents ever have "The Talk" with you?  Smiley
Which has nothing at all to do with the utter uselessness of the above pseudo argument.

Well..Men cant be impregnated.. Therefore, the decision making are the Woman's. She is the one carrying the baby. 

Kinda basic
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Android_Rewster
Raving fanatic of Jesus Christ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Not a Protsetant anymore
Posts: 43


I need you so much closer


« Reply #413 on: February 27, 2013, 12:02:08 AM »

Anatomically speaking, the average fetus is closer to a rat than a human being around the time it is aborted. That doesn't sound like murder to me.

Anatomically speaking?

(1) What exactly do you think your professing? I am questioning your understanding of the subject.
(2) How does form exhibit nature?
     (2b) Can you think of any other cases, to not include a developing baby, where a person does not have the form of a functional human being, but is still human?
(1)The anatomy of a human fetus is more similar to a rat than a human. That's what I'm professing. Murder is defined as one Human killing another human, with spiteful intent. Abortion is more of one(emotionally confused) human removing an unwanted clump of cells from its abdomen.

 Here's a good definition for a human:
"Humans are characterized by having a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making them capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning."

 Does a developing fetus fit this criteria?

By anatomy, is the predication of this definition based solely on appearance or actual substance?
Actually substance. Appearance is a pretty silly reason.

Quote
The biological tissue of a fetus is not closer to a rat. The genetic information is not closer to a rat.
Do you shed a tear every time you kill the human biological tissue on your nose that you scratch off?

Quote
Does appearance set the standard for reality? Would you want to be held to using a measurement based on appearance for other situations/objects/creatures? Would you want to be held to that measurement?
My assertion is not based on appearances. I kinda said that.

Quote
Does anything than an average adult fit this criteria?
Pretty much every human.

Quote
What about mentally disabled, malformed adults, patients post-cerebral operation, or other alternative conditions to set one outside this adult characterisitic. What about a 6 month old? They don't have a well-developed brain and aren't capable of abstract reasoning, language, etc.
There's an incredibly significant difference between having a temporal lobe/neocortex/prefrontal cortex that you cannot use, and not having one at all.

Quote
To the clump of cells: If I shoot someone in the face, am I not only removing an unwanted clump of cells from my presence?
No, you'd be shooting a living, breathing, thinking human being. That is wrong.

Quote
(2) The point was that it's not human. I wasn't really saying "because it doesn't look like a human, it isn't". I was throwing out an example of why I don't really think it's "murder" to have an abortion. Do I personally think it's wrong to have one, and will I urge friends and family to avoid them? Of course. Christianity values life on a higher sense than Secularism. But I also think that lying is wrong, and I urge my friends and family to avoid it as well.
(2b) I think I need a better definition of what you're asking before I can answer this. My answer right now would be no, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Respects,
 Andrew

(2) My counter is that your definition of "human" is lacking, and is narrow enough to exclude many individuals despite their stage of development.
I explained in the above answers to your questions. Smiley

Quote
(2b) An example could be be a reduction of form to escape your definition. Stephen Hawking could meet your definition. What if we took his brain and put it in a jar, still alive. Is he still human, or does he forfeit that right?
I think he'd still be considered human. If his brain was kept alive. He would still be thinking, although he would be completely deprived of his senses. He would just sit there and think. That's actually pretty sad. >_> But that's irrelevant. Anyhow.

Quote
What about the mentally disabled? Are they human? Some aren't capable of the definition you propose, even at 30 years old.
I explained. If you have a developed temporal lobe at all, in the way that you are a human being, you should in theory be capable of abstract thought. As you are a human, you have a well-enough developed temporal lobe to be considered human.

 I'd also like to remind you of the fact that I was not the creator of these parameters. I pretty much copied and pasted Wikipedia.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #414 on: February 27, 2013, 03:54:50 AM »

It's a bunch of bull, tbh. All these nazi-feminists pushing their "choice" crap. The way I see it is that if it takes two people to make a baby, then it takes two people to decide what to do with it.

When men find a way to carry and birth the babies they want and their women don't, then they will have an equal say. Until then, all the decisions are firmly on the woman's side.

This is one of the most useless and baseless arguments I have ever heard in my life, ever.

Uh oh..didnt your parents ever have "The Talk" with you?  Smiley
Which has nothing at all to do with the utter uselessness of the above pseudo argument.

Well..Men cant be impregnated.. Therefore, the decision making are the Woman's. She is the one carrying the baby. 

Kinda basic
Kinda basically wrong
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #415 on: February 27, 2013, 07:55:12 AM »

The pro-abortion argument fails when we prosecute people for double homicide when they murder a pregnant mother.  Its either a human life or it is not.  This double standard is tiresome.
Reiterated for contemplation. 
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,126


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #416 on: February 27, 2013, 10:32:49 AM »

The pro-abortion argument fails when we prosecute people for double homicide when they murder a pregnant mother.  Its either a human life or it is not.  This double standard is tiresome.
Reiterated for contemplation. 

I recall seeing a bumper sticker once that said, "If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant."

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #417 on: February 27, 2013, 03:01:36 PM »

It's a bunch of bull, tbh. All these nazi-feminists pushing their "choice" crap. The way I see it is that if it takes two people to make a baby, then it takes two people to decide what to do with it.

When men find a way to carry and birth the babies they want and their women don't, then they will have an equal say. Until then, all the decisions are firmly on the woman's side.

This is one of the most useless and baseless arguments I have ever heard in my life, ever.

Uh oh..didnt your parents ever have "The Talk" with you?  Smiley
Which has nothing at all to do with the utter uselessness of the above pseudo argument.

Well..Men cant be impregnated.. Therefore, the decision making are the Woman's. She is the one carrying the baby. 

Kinda basic
Kinda basically wrong

You may not like it but that's the situation. Impregnation is within the Woman's body.. That means she has more say so.. And should.. Live with it.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #418 on: February 27, 2013, 03:09:56 PM »

Anatomically speaking, the average fetus is closer to a rat than a human being around the time it is aborted. That doesn't sound like murder to me.

Anatomically speaking?

(1) What exactly do you think your professing? I am questioning your understanding of the subject.
(2) How does form exhibit nature?
     (2b) Can you think of any other cases, to not include a developing baby, where a person does not have the form of a functional human being, but is still human?
(1)The anatomy of a human fetus is more similar to a rat than a human. That's what I'm professing. Murder is defined as one Human killing another human, with spiteful intent. Abortion is more of one(emotionally confused) human removing an unwanted clump of cells from its abdomen.

 Here's a good definition for a human:
"Humans are characterized by having a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making them capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning."

 Does a developing fetus fit this criteria?

By anatomy, is the predication of this definition based solely on appearance or actual substance?
Actually substance. Appearance is a pretty silly reason.

Quote
The biological tissue of a fetus is not closer to a rat. The genetic information is not closer to a rat.
Do you shed a tear every time you kill the human biological tissue on your nose that you scratch off?

Quote
Does appearance set the standard for reality? Would you want to be held to using a measurement based on appearance for other situations/objects/creatures? Would you want to be held to that measurement?
My assertion is not based on appearances. I kinda said that.

Quote
Does anything than an average adult fit this criteria?
Pretty much every human.

Quote
What about mentally disabled, malformed adults, patients post-cerebral operation, or other alternative conditions to set one outside this adult characterisitic. What about a 6 month old? They don't have a well-developed brain and aren't capable of abstract reasoning, language, etc.
There's an incredibly significant difference between having a temporal lobe/neocortex/prefrontal cortex that you cannot use, and not having one at all.

Quote
To the clump of cells: If I shoot someone in the face, am I not only removing an unwanted clump of cells from my presence?
No, you'd be shooting a living, breathing, thinking human being. That is wrong.

Quote
(2) The point was that it's not human. I wasn't really saying "because it doesn't look like a human, it isn't". I was throwing out an example of why I don't really think it's "murder" to have an abortion. Do I personally think it's wrong to have one, and will I urge friends and family to avoid them? Of course. Christianity values life on a higher sense than Secularism. But I also think that lying is wrong, and I urge my friends and family to avoid it as well.
(2b) I think I need a better definition of what you're asking before I can answer this. My answer right now would be no, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Respects,
 Andrew

(2) My counter is that your definition of "human" is lacking, and is narrow enough to exclude many individuals despite their stage of development.
I explained in the above answers to your questions. Smiley

Quote
(2b) An example could be be a reduction of form to escape your definition. Stephen Hawking could meet your definition. What if we took his brain and put it in a jar, still alive. Is he still human, or does he forfeit that right?
I think he'd still be considered human. If his brain was kept alive. He would still be thinking, although he would be completely deprived of his senses. He would just sit there and think. That's actually pretty sad. >_> But that's irrelevant. Anyhow.

Quote
What about the mentally disabled? Are they human? Some aren't capable of the definition you propose, even at 30 years old.
I explained. If you have a developed temporal lobe at all, in the way that you are a human being, you should in theory be capable of abstract thought. As you are a human, you have a well-enough developed temporal lobe to be considered human.

 I'd also like to remind you of the fact that I was not the creator of these parameters. I pretty much copied and pasted Wikipedia.

And now for the entire answer.. Neither sides knows for sure. The fetus could be just a mass of cells at least early on.. OR that primitive body could be endowed with a full human spirit, a soul.. No one knows for sure..Right/Wrong?

 I would err on the side of extreme caution and not condone abortion as you may well be snuffing out a human life and then suffer dire spiritual consequences.

But that suggestion is informed by my religion and my trust in the Tradition of The Church.

Therefore, I would try to persuade those who think abortion is inconsequential of my Religious idea's. I would also warn those with my religious idea's already to be very careful about finger pointing or name calling because here in America, we have a great aversion to having religious doctrines forced on us.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,126


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #419 on: February 27, 2013, 03:27:03 PM »

Anatomically speaking, the average fetus is closer to a rat than a human being around the time it is aborted. That doesn't sound like murder to me.

Anatomically speaking?

(1) What exactly do you think your professing? I am questioning your understanding of the subject.
(2) How does form exhibit nature?
     (2b) Can you think of any other cases, to not include a developing baby, where a person does not have the form of a functional human being, but is still human?
(1)The anatomy of a human fetus is more similar to a rat than a human. That's what I'm professing. Murder is defined as one Human killing another human, with spiteful intent. Abortion is more of one(emotionally confused) human removing an unwanted clump of cells from its abdomen.

 Here's a good definition for a human:
"Humans are characterized by having a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making them capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning."

 Does a developing fetus fit this criteria?

By anatomy, is the predication of this definition based solely on appearance or actual substance?
Actually substance. Appearance is a pretty silly reason.

Quote
The biological tissue of a fetus is not closer to a rat. The genetic information is not closer to a rat.
Do you shed a tear every time you kill the human biological tissue on your nose that you scratch off?

Quote
Does appearance set the standard for reality? Would you want to be held to using a measurement based on appearance for other situations/objects/creatures? Would you want to be held to that measurement?
My assertion is not based on appearances. I kinda said that.

Quote
Does anything than an average adult fit this criteria?
Pretty much every human.

Quote
What about mentally disabled, malformed adults, patients post-cerebral operation, or other alternative conditions to set one outside this adult characterisitic. What about a 6 month old? They don't have a well-developed brain and aren't capable of abstract reasoning, language, etc.
There's an incredibly significant difference between having a temporal lobe/neocortex/prefrontal cortex that you cannot use, and not having one at all.

Quote
To the clump of cells: If I shoot someone in the face, am I not only removing an unwanted clump of cells from my presence?
No, you'd be shooting a living, breathing, thinking human being. That is wrong.

Quote
(2) The point was that it's not human. I wasn't really saying "because it doesn't look like a human, it isn't". I was throwing out an example of why I don't really think it's "murder" to have an abortion. Do I personally think it's wrong to have one, and will I urge friends and family to avoid them? Of course. Christianity values life on a higher sense than Secularism. But I also think that lying is wrong, and I urge my friends and family to avoid it as well.
(2b) I think I need a better definition of what you're asking before I can answer this. My answer right now would be no, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Respects,
 Andrew

(2) My counter is that your definition of "human" is lacking, and is narrow enough to exclude many individuals despite their stage of development.
I explained in the above answers to your questions. Smiley

Quote
(2b) An example could be be a reduction of form to escape your definition. Stephen Hawking could meet your definition. What if we took his brain and put it in a jar, still alive. Is he still human, or does he forfeit that right?
I think he'd still be considered human. If his brain was kept alive. He would still be thinking, although he would be completely deprived of his senses. He would just sit there and think. That's actually pretty sad. >_> But that's irrelevant. Anyhow.

Quote
What about the mentally disabled? Are they human? Some aren't capable of the definition you propose, even at 30 years old.
I explained. If you have a developed temporal lobe at all, in the way that you are a human being, you should in theory be capable of abstract thought. As you are a human, you have a well-enough developed temporal lobe to be considered human.

 I'd also like to remind you of the fact that I was not the creator of these parameters. I pretty much copied and pasted Wikipedia.

And now for the entire answer.. Neither sides knows for sure. The fetus could be just a mass of cells at least early on.. OR that primitive body could be endowed with a full human spirit, a soul.. No one knows for sure..Right/Wrong?

 I would err on the side of extreme caution and not condone abortion as you may well be snuffing out a human life and then suffer dire spiritual consequences.

But that suggestion is informed by my religion and my trust in the Tradition of The Church.

Therefore, I would try to persuade those who think abortion is inconsequential of my Religious idea's. I would also warn those with my religious idea's already to be very careful about finger pointing or name calling because here in America, we have a great aversion to having religious doctrines forced on us.



At what point does the Orthodox Church say that human life begins?  Or does it?

Just as a point of reference, the Catholic Church states, from the Catechism:
Quote
2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

and

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

and

2323 Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed like every other human being.
http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=conception&xsubmit=Search&s=SS
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #420 on: February 27, 2013, 03:58:25 PM »

Anatomically speaking, the average fetus is closer to a rat than a human being around the time it is aborted. That doesn't sound like murder to me.

Anatomically speaking?

(1) What exactly do you think your professing? I am questioning your understanding of the subject.
(2) How does form exhibit nature?
     (2b) Can you think of any other cases, to not include a developing baby, where a person does not have the form of a functional human being, but is still human?
(1)The anatomy of a human fetus is more similar to a rat than a human. That's what I'm professing. Murder is defined as one Human killing another human, with spiteful intent. Abortion is more of one(emotionally confused) human removing an unwanted clump of cells from its abdomen.

 Here's a good definition for a human:
"Humans are characterized by having a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making them capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning."

 Does a developing fetus fit this criteria?

By anatomy, is the predication of this definition based solely on appearance or actual substance?
Actually substance. Appearance is a pretty silly reason.

Quote
The biological tissue of a fetus is not closer to a rat. The genetic information is not closer to a rat.
Do you shed a tear every time you kill the human biological tissue on your nose that you scratch off?

Quote
Does appearance set the standard for reality? Would you want to be held to using a measurement based on appearance for other situations/objects/creatures? Would you want to be held to that measurement?
My assertion is not based on appearances. I kinda said that.

Quote
Does anything than an average adult fit this criteria?
Pretty much every human.

Quote
What about mentally disabled, malformed adults, patients post-cerebral operation, or other alternative conditions to set one outside this adult characterisitic. What about a 6 month old? They don't have a well-developed brain and aren't capable of abstract reasoning, language, etc.
There's an incredibly significant difference between having a temporal lobe/neocortex/prefrontal cortex that you cannot use, and not having one at all.

Quote
To the clump of cells: If I shoot someone in the face, am I not only removing an unwanted clump of cells from my presence?
No, you'd be shooting a living, breathing, thinking human being. That is wrong.

Quote
(2) The point was that it's not human. I wasn't really saying "because it doesn't look like a human, it isn't". I was throwing out an example of why I don't really think it's "murder" to have an abortion. Do I personally think it's wrong to have one, and will I urge friends and family to avoid them? Of course. Christianity values life on a higher sense than Secularism. But I also think that lying is wrong, and I urge my friends and family to avoid it as well.
(2b) I think I need a better definition of what you're asking before I can answer this. My answer right now would be no, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Respects,
 Andrew

(2) My counter is that your definition of "human" is lacking, and is narrow enough to exclude many individuals despite their stage of development.
I explained in the above answers to your questions. Smiley

Quote
(2b) An example could be be a reduction of form to escape your definition. Stephen Hawking could meet your definition. What if we took his brain and put it in a jar, still alive. Is he still human, or does he forfeit that right?
I think he'd still be considered human. If his brain was kept alive. He would still be thinking, although he would be completely deprived of his senses. He would just sit there and think. That's actually pretty sad. >_> But that's irrelevant. Anyhow.

Quote
What about the mentally disabled? Are they human? Some aren't capable of the definition you propose, even at 30 years old.
I explained. If you have a developed temporal lobe at all, in the way that you are a human being, you should in theory be capable of abstract thought. As you are a human, you have a well-enough developed temporal lobe to be considered human.

 I'd also like to remind you of the fact that I was not the creator of these parameters. I pretty much copied and pasted Wikipedia.

And now for the entire answer.. Neither sides knows for sure. The fetus could be just a mass of cells at least early on.. OR that primitive body could be endowed with a full human spirit, a soul.. No one knows for sure..Right/Wrong?

 I would err on the side of extreme caution and not condone abortion as you may well be snuffing out a human life and then suffer dire spiritual consequences.

But that suggestion is informed by my religion and my trust in the Tradition of The Church.

Therefore, I would try to persuade those who think abortion is inconsequential of my Religious idea's. I would also warn those with my religious idea's already to be very careful about finger pointing or name calling because here in America, we have a great aversion to having religious doctrines forced on us.



At what point does the Orthodox Church say that human life begins?  Or does it?

Just as a point of reference, the Catholic Church states, from the Catechism:
Quote
2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

and

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

and

2323 Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed like every other human being.
http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=conception&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

I believe it is exactly the same.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,126


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #421 on: February 27, 2013, 04:03:19 PM »

Anatomically speaking, the average fetus is closer to a rat than a human being around the time it is aborted. That doesn't sound like murder to me.

Anatomically speaking?

(1) What exactly do you think your professing? I am questioning your understanding of the subject.
(2) How does form exhibit nature?
     (2b) Can you think of any other cases, to not include a developing baby, where a person does not have the form of a functional human being, but is still human?
(1)The anatomy of a human fetus is more similar to a rat than a human. That's what I'm professing. Murder is defined as one Human killing another human, with spiteful intent. Abortion is more of one(emotionally confused) human removing an unwanted clump of cells from its abdomen.

 Here's a good definition for a human:
"Humans are characterized by having a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making them capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning."

 Does a developing fetus fit this criteria?

By anatomy, is the predication of this definition based solely on appearance or actual substance?
Actually substance. Appearance is a pretty silly reason.

Quote
The biological tissue of a fetus is not closer to a rat. The genetic information is not closer to a rat.
Do you shed a tear every time you kill the human biological tissue on your nose that you scratch off?

Quote
Does appearance set the standard for reality? Would you want to be held to using a measurement based on appearance for other situations/objects/creatures? Would you want to be held to that measurement?
My assertion is not based on appearances. I kinda said that.

Quote
Does anything than an average adult fit this criteria?
Pretty much every human.

Quote
What about mentally disabled, malformed adults, patients post-cerebral operation, or other alternative conditions to set one outside this adult characterisitic. What about a 6 month old? They don't have a well-developed brain and aren't capable of abstract reasoning, language, etc.
There's an incredibly significant difference between having a temporal lobe/neocortex/prefrontal cortex that you cannot use, and not having one at all.

Quote
To the clump of cells: If I shoot someone in the face, am I not only removing an unwanted clump of cells from my presence?
No, you'd be shooting a living, breathing, thinking human being. That is wrong.

Quote
(2) The point was that it's not human. I wasn't really saying "because it doesn't look like a human, it isn't". I was throwing out an example of why I don't really think it's "murder" to have an abortion. Do I personally think it's wrong to have one, and will I urge friends and family to avoid them? Of course. Christianity values life on a higher sense than Secularism. But I also think that lying is wrong, and I urge my friends and family to avoid it as well.
(2b) I think I need a better definition of what you're asking before I can answer this. My answer right now would be no, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Respects,
 Andrew

(2) My counter is that your definition of "human" is lacking, and is narrow enough to exclude many individuals despite their stage of development.
I explained in the above answers to your questions. Smiley

Quote
(2b) An example could be be a reduction of form to escape your definition. Stephen Hawking could meet your definition. What if we took his brain and put it in a jar, still alive. Is he still human, or does he forfeit that right?
I think he'd still be considered human. If his brain was kept alive. He would still be thinking, although he would be completely deprived of his senses. He would just sit there and think. That's actually pretty sad. >_> But that's irrelevant. Anyhow.

Quote
What about the mentally disabled? Are they human? Some aren't capable of the definition you propose, even at 30 years old.
I explained. If you have a developed temporal lobe at all, in the way that you are a human being, you should in theory be capable of abstract thought. As you are a human, you have a well-enough developed temporal lobe to be considered human.

 I'd also like to remind you of the fact that I was not the creator of these parameters. I pretty much copied and pasted Wikipedia.

And now for the entire answer.. Neither sides knows for sure. The fetus could be just a mass of cells at least early on.. OR that primitive body could be endowed with a full human spirit, a soul.. No one knows for sure..Right/Wrong?

 I would err on the side of extreme caution and not condone abortion as you may well be snuffing out a human life and then suffer dire spiritual consequences.

But that suggestion is informed by my religion and my trust in the Tradition of The Church.

Therefore, I would try to persuade those who think abortion is inconsequential of my Religious idea's. I would also warn those with my religious idea's already to be very careful about finger pointing or name calling because here in America, we have a great aversion to having religious doctrines forced on us.



At what point does the Orthodox Church say that human life begins?  Or does it?

Just as a point of reference, the Catholic Church states, from the Catechism:
Quote
2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

and

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

and

2323 Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed like every other human being.
http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=conception&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

I believe it is exactly the same.

Are there any official Orthodox Church documents, encyclicals, etc. that address that that you know of?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Android_Rewster
Raving fanatic of Jesus Christ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Not a Protsetant anymore
Posts: 43


I need you so much closer


« Reply #422 on: February 27, 2013, 05:50:36 PM »

Anatomically speaking, the average fetus is closer to a rat than a human being around the time it is aborted. That doesn't sound like murder to me.

Anatomically speaking?

(1) What exactly do you think your professing? I am questioning your understanding of the subject.
(2) How does form exhibit nature?
     (2b) Can you think of any other cases, to not include a developing baby, where a person does not have the form of a functional human being, but is still human?
(1)The anatomy of a human fetus is more similar to a rat than a human. That's what I'm professing. Murder is defined as one Human killing another human, with spiteful intent. Abortion is more of one(emotionally confused) human removing an unwanted clump of cells from its abdomen.

 Here's a good definition for a human:
"Humans are characterized by having a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making them capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning."

 Does a developing fetus fit this criteria?

By anatomy, is the predication of this definition based solely on appearance or actual substance?
Actually substance. Appearance is a pretty silly reason.

Quote
The biological tissue of a fetus is not closer to a rat. The genetic information is not closer to a rat.
Do you shed a tear every time you kill the human biological tissue on your nose that you scratch off?

Quote
Does appearance set the standard for reality? Would you want to be held to using a measurement based on appearance for other situations/objects/creatures? Would you want to be held to that measurement?
My assertion is not based on appearances. I kinda said that.

Quote
Does anything than an average adult fit this criteria?
Pretty much every human.

Quote
What about mentally disabled, malformed adults, patients post-cerebral operation, or other alternative conditions to set one outside this adult characterisitic. What about a 6 month old? They don't have a well-developed brain and aren't capable of abstract reasoning, language, etc.
There's an incredibly significant difference between having a temporal lobe/neocortex/prefrontal cortex that you cannot use, and not having one at all.

Quote
To the clump of cells: If I shoot someone in the face, am I not only removing an unwanted clump of cells from my presence?
No, you'd be shooting a living, breathing, thinking human being. That is wrong.

Quote
(2) The point was that it's not human. I wasn't really saying "because it doesn't look like a human, it isn't". I was throwing out an example of why I don't really think it's "murder" to have an abortion. Do I personally think it's wrong to have one, and will I urge friends and family to avoid them? Of course. Christianity values life on a higher sense than Secularism. But I also think that lying is wrong, and I urge my friends and family to avoid it as well.
(2b) I think I need a better definition of what you're asking before I can answer this. My answer right now would be no, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Respects,
 Andrew

(2) My counter is that your definition of "human" is lacking, and is narrow enough to exclude many individuals despite their stage of development.
I explained in the above answers to your questions. Smiley

Quote
(2b) An example could be be a reduction of form to escape your definition. Stephen Hawking could meet your definition. What if we took his brain and put it in a jar, still alive. Is he still human, or does he forfeit that right?
I think he'd still be considered human. If his brain was kept alive. He would still be thinking, although he would be completely deprived of his senses. He would just sit there and think. That's actually pretty sad. >_> But that's irrelevant. Anyhow.

Quote
What about the mentally disabled? Are they human? Some aren't capable of the definition you propose, even at 30 years old.
I explained. If you have a developed temporal lobe at all, in the way that you are a human being, you should in theory be capable of abstract thought. As you are a human, you have a well-enough developed temporal lobe to be considered human.

 I'd also like to remind you of the fact that I was not the creator of these parameters. I pretty much copied and pasted Wikipedia.

And now for the entire answer.. Neither sides knows for sure. The fetus could be just a mass of cells at least early on.. OR that primitive body could be endowed with a full human spirit, a soul.. No one knows for sure..Right/Wrong?

 I would err on the side of extreme caution and not condone abortion as you may well be snuffing out a human life and then suffer dire spiritual consequences.

But that suggestion is informed by my religion and my trust in the Tradition of The Church.

Therefore, I would try to persuade those who think abortion is inconsequential of my Religious idea's. I would also warn those with my religious idea's already to be very careful about finger pointing or name calling because here in America, we have a great aversion to having religious doctrines forced on us.


I personally believe in not having an abortion, and urging loved ones not to as well. But as for others, particularly those not of the faith, I cannot say with certainty what is right and wrong for them. To make another man live by my ideals is an incredibly frightening precedent to be setting.

 I would typically advise everyone to advocate contraception rather than to have an abortion, due to the fact that(although I don't believe it's "murder") it is the ending of a potential human life before it even began, and human life is a sacred thing. Jesus Christ died for human life.

 Once again, this is my current train of thought, and if any of you would like to give me a new perspective on this I would enjoy hearing about it.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 05:51:07 PM by Android_Rewster » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,289


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #423 on: February 27, 2013, 06:10:18 PM »

Anatomically speaking, the average fetus is closer to a rat than a human being around the time it is aborted. That doesn't sound like murder to me.

Anatomically speaking?

(1) What exactly do you think your professing? I am questioning your understanding of the subject.
(2) How does form exhibit nature?
     (2b) Can you think of any other cases, to not include a developing baby, where a person does not have the form of a functional human being, but is still human?
(1)The anatomy of a human fetus is more similar to a rat than a human. That's what I'm professing. Murder is defined as one Human killing another human, with spiteful intent. Abortion is more of one(emotionally confused) human removing an unwanted clump of cells from its abdomen.

 Here's a good definition for a human:
"Humans are characterized by having a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making them capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning."

 Does a developing fetus fit this criteria?

By anatomy, is the predication of this definition based solely on appearance or actual substance?
Actually substance. Appearance is a pretty silly reason.

Quote
The biological tissue of a fetus is not closer to a rat. The genetic information is not closer to a rat.
Do you shed a tear every time you kill the human biological tissue on your nose that you scratch off?

Quote
Does appearance set the standard for reality? Would you want to be held to using a measurement based on appearance for other situations/objects/creatures? Would you want to be held to that measurement?
My assertion is not based on appearances. I kinda said that.

Quote
Does anything than an average adult fit this criteria?
Pretty much every human.

Quote
What about mentally disabled, malformed adults, patients post-cerebral operation, or other alternative conditions to set one outside this adult characterisitic. What about a 6 month old? They don't have a well-developed brain and aren't capable of abstract reasoning, language, etc.
There's an incredibly significant difference between having a temporal lobe/neocortex/prefrontal cortex that you cannot use, and not having one at all.

Quote
To the clump of cells: If I shoot someone in the face, am I not only removing an unwanted clump of cells from my presence?
No, you'd be shooting a living, breathing, thinking human being. That is wrong.

Quote
(2) The point was that it's not human. I wasn't really saying "because it doesn't look like a human, it isn't". I was throwing out an example of why I don't really think it's "murder" to have an abortion. Do I personally think it's wrong to have one, and will I urge friends and family to avoid them? Of course. Christianity values life on a higher sense than Secularism. But I also think that lying is wrong, and I urge my friends and family to avoid it as well.
(2b) I think I need a better definition of what you're asking before I can answer this. My answer right now would be no, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Respects,
 Andrew

(2) My counter is that your definition of "human" is lacking, and is narrow enough to exclude many individuals despite their stage of development.
I explained in the above answers to your questions. Smiley

Quote
(2b) An example could be be a reduction of form to escape your definition. Stephen Hawking could meet your definition. What if we took his brain and put it in a jar, still alive. Is he still human, or does he forfeit that right?
I think he'd still be considered human. If his brain was kept alive. He would still be thinking, although he would be completely deprived of his senses. He would just sit there and think. That's actually pretty sad. >_> But that's irrelevant. Anyhow.

Quote
What about the mentally disabled? Are they human? Some aren't capable of the definition you propose, even at 30 years old.
I explained. If you have a developed temporal lobe at all, in the way that you are a human being, you should in theory be capable of abstract thought. As you are a human, you have a well-enough developed temporal lobe to be considered human.

 I'd also like to remind you of the fact that I was not the creator of these parameters. I pretty much copied and pasted Wikipedia.

And now for the entire answer.. Neither sides knows for sure. The fetus could be just a mass of cells at least early on.. OR that primitive body could be endowed with a full human spirit, a soul.. No one knows for sure..Right/Wrong?

 I would err on the side of extreme caution and not condone abortion as you may well be snuffing out a human life and then suffer dire spiritual consequences.

But that suggestion is informed by my religion and my trust in the Tradition of The Church.

Therefore, I would try to persuade those who think abortion is inconsequential of my Religious idea's. I would also warn those with my religious idea's already to be very careful about finger pointing or name calling because here in America, we have a great aversion to having religious doctrines forced on us.


I personally believe in not having an abortion, and urging loved ones not to as well. But as for others, particularly those not of the faith, I cannot say with certainty what is right and wrong for them. To make another man live by my ideals is an incredibly frightening precedent to be setting.

 I would typically advise everyone to advocate contraception rather than to have an abortion, due to the fact that(although I don't believe it's "murder") it is the ending of a potential human life before it even began, and human life is a sacred thing. Jesus Christ died for human life.

 Once again, this is my current train of thought, and if any of you would like to give me a new perspective on this I would enjoy hearing about it.


The problem that I have with your thinking (and you express a common opinion) is that by such a standard we should have no laws at all. There are certain "ideals" which are universal and common to the welfare of all people. We have laws against murder, rape, and theft. Of course murderers, rapists, and thieves don't like these laws, and in spite of the law they still find ways to murder, rape, and steal. But it would be silly and ineffective to abolish laws against these evils on the premise that it is unfair to make others "live by our ideals," or by the premise that the laws don't stop these evils completely and therefore we might as well relinquish the laws. Abortion is the deliberate, premeditated, calculated destruction of the most vulnerable members of the human race. Leaving religion out of it for the moment, humanity has a vested utilitarian interest in outlawing abortion, because if the weakest among us are not safe then none of us are safe. Now, as Orthodox Christians, we know that the apostles called abortion "murder," and so we dare not equivocate the language they used.

I hope that makes sense. Please continue to prayerfully wrestle through this important issue.



Selam
Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,433


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #424 on: February 27, 2013, 06:19:35 PM »

The Apostles mentioned abortion? And they said the word "abortion" itself, not something else? This happened when?

 Huh

Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,289


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #425 on: February 27, 2013, 06:31:35 PM »

The Apostles mentioned abortion? And they said the word "abortion" itself, not something else? This happened when?

 Huh




I think we've been over this before Biro. Perhaps it was somebody else and not you. But yes, the apostles expressly mentioned abortion and called it "murder" in no uncertain terms. See the Didache 2:2 and the Letter of St. Barnabas.



Selam
Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #426 on: February 27, 2013, 07:08:43 PM »

The Apostles mentioned abortion? And they said the word "abortion" itself, not something else? This happened when?

 Huh




I think we've been over this before Biro. Perhaps it was somebody else and not you. But yes, the apostles expressly mentioned abortion and called it "murder" in no uncertain terms. See the Didache 2:2 and the Letter of St. Barnabas.



Selam

You can certainly make a case for calling abortion Murder even though there are tremendous inconsistencies in how you would likely punish those who have had an abortion as I have pointed out.

The real question is if you should shove that in the face of people you are trying to persuade. I think not. I think being that strident is detrimental and will cause people to shut down and not listen.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,315


« Reply #427 on: February 27, 2013, 07:11:09 PM »

The real question is if you should shove that in the face of people you are trying to persuade. I think not. I think being that strident is detrimental and will cause people to shut down and not listen.

And have offered absolutely no evidence to this end.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #428 on: February 27, 2013, 07:34:15 PM »

The real question is if you should shove that in the face of people you are trying to persuade. I think not. I think being that strident is detrimental and will cause people to shut down and not listen.

And have offered absolutely no evidence to this end.


How's the Pro Life movement doing? Roe about to be overturned?

Just my suggestion based on the utter failure of using that approach so far. You decide for yourself.

Planned Parenthood reports record number of abortions in 2012

http://www.examiner.com/article/planned-parenthood-reports-record-number-of-abortions-2012

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,315


« Reply #429 on: February 27, 2013, 08:16:01 PM »

So downgrading it from a serious moral issue to some irrelevant and quaint facet of fringe morality is going to help the cause. OK.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,289


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #430 on: February 27, 2013, 11:04:05 PM »

The real question is if you should shove that in the face of people you are trying to persuade. I think not. I think being that strident is detrimental and will cause people to shut down and not listen.

And have offered absolutely no evidence to this end.


How's the Pro Life movement doing? Roe about to be overturned?

Just my suggestion based on the utter failure of using that approach so far. You decide for yourself.

Planned Parenthood reports record number of abortions in 2012

http://www.examiner.com/article/planned-parenthood-reports-record-number-of-abortions-2012




I'm shocked. I was told that president B.O.'s policies would greatly reduce the abortion rate.




Selam
Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #431 on: February 28, 2013, 07:16:03 AM »

It's a bunch of bull, tbh. All these nazi-feminists pushing their "choice" crap. The way I see it is that if it takes two people to make a baby, then it takes two people to decide what to do with it.

When men find a way to carry and birth the babies they want and their women don't, then they will have an equal say. Until then, all the decisions are firmly on the woman's side.

This is one of the most useless and baseless arguments I have ever heard in my life, ever.

Uh oh..didnt your parents ever have "The Talk" with you?  Smiley
Which has nothing at all to do with the utter uselessness of the above pseudo argument.

Well..Men cant be impregnated.. Therefore, the decision making are the Woman's. She is the one carrying the baby. 

Kinda basic
Kinda basically wrong

You may not like it but that's the situation. Impregnation is within the Woman's body.. That means she has more say so.. And should.. Live with it.
It takes two people to make a baby, so 50% of it is the property of the father.  If she wants to terminate the baby, should should be willing to compensate monetarily with an agreed amount by the father. 

By the way,  surrogate mothers don't get to terminate based on the foolish terms you stated.  Nonsense and a failed reasoning.
Logged
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,303


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #432 on: February 28, 2013, 07:19:18 AM »

Surrogate mothers are paid to be pregnant and not raise the children they bear. Wombs for hire. Your point?
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #433 on: February 28, 2013, 07:20:27 AM »

The real question is if you should shove that in the face of people you are trying to persuade. I think not. I think being that strident is detrimental and will cause people to shut down and not listen.

And have offered absolutely no evidence to this end.
Additionally, the question if abortion is murder and if so what to do with those involved in abortion are two separate issues not to be mixed.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #434 on: February 28, 2013, 07:23:52 AM »

Surrogate mothers are paid to be pregnant and not raise the children they bear. Wombs for hire. Your point?
And this is relevant how? 
Logged
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,303


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #435 on: February 28, 2013, 07:25:42 AM »

Surrogate mothers are paid to be pregnant and not raise the children they bear. Wombs for hire. Your point?
And this is relevant how? 

Surrogacy is a job, therefore it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of dealing with unwanted pregnancy. I'm not sure why you would bring it up in the first place.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #436 on: February 28, 2013, 07:29:54 AM »

Surrogate mothers are paid to be pregnant and not raise the children they bear. Wombs for hire. Your point?
And this is relevant how?  

Surrogacy is a job, therefore it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of dealing with unwanted pregnancy. I'm not sure why you would bring it up in the first place.
I didn't create the pro-abortion argument.  Perhaps you folks should have done a better job and you not have to defend the broken support for it.  Within the defense presented here, your point is meaningless.  Maybe you should change the foundation of the argument to compensate.

And maybe the father wants the baby.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 07:31:12 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,303


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #437 on: February 28, 2013, 07:35:30 AM »

Surrogate mothers are paid to be pregnant and not raise the children they bear. Wombs for hire. Your point?
And this is relevant how? 

Surrogacy is a job, therefore it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of dealing with unwanted pregnancy. I'm not sure why you would bring it up in the first place.
I didn't create the pro-abortion argument.  Perhaps you folks should have done a better job and you not have to defend the broken support for it.  Within the defense presented here, your point is meaningless.  Maybe you should change the foundation of the argument to compensate.

And maybe the father wants the baby.

Broad brushes much? Roll Eyes

I'm not pro-abortion; I'm pro-choice. That is, I want every woman to have a choice about how to deal with the prospect of childbearing. I'd be ecstatic if every woman chose to have their babies. But, whatever the decision, I want every woman to make such a choice herself. And then live with it.

That's called responsibility. That's how we learn and grow.

Though there is a point; your surrogacy tangent is meaningless and I should have ignored it.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 07:36:28 AM by Arachne » Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #438 on: February 28, 2013, 09:48:07 AM »

Broad brushes much? Roll Eyes
No, not at all.  

I'm not pro-abortion; I'm pro-choice.
I have heard this nonsense before.  It’s the same thing.

That is, I want every woman to have a choice about how to deal with the prospect of childbearing.
Me too, and they do, prior to getting pregnant.

I'd be ecstatic if every woman chose to have their babies.
As would I.
But, whatever the decision, I want every woman to make such a choice herself.
Why?  There are other people involved.  She doesn’t get the corner market because of her design.

And then live with it.
 
It’s easy to live with abortion when you have convinced yourself its acceptable and have no guilt

That's called responsibility.
Funny you should use the world responsibility.  I wouldn’t call killing another human being out of mere convenience spawned by selfishness responsible.

That's how we learn and grow.
 

The only thing learned is there are no negative consequences to killing babies and babies certainly do not have the chance to grow as a result.

Though there is a point; your surrogacy tangent is meaningless and I should have ignored it.

Aww, now you hurt my feelings. Cry  Don’t be upset when the scenario of choice fabricated by pro-abortionists backfires because it is not a fit all logically produced idea.  Some surrogates don’t get paid and who is to say 6 weeks into it she decides she doesn’t want to do it any longer.  Her choice, right?  I mean, it’s her body.  Others lost ownership when it was inserted into her body.  Sounds pretty crazy when it is applied to something other than the regular drum beat, right?
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 09:49:13 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #439 on: February 28, 2013, 09:51:07 AM »

And maybe the father wants the baby.

Nice job ignoring this part.  I guess fathers actually wanting to be fathers doesn’t matter anymore.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #440 on: February 28, 2013, 09:52:33 AM »

The pro-abortion argument fails when we prosecute people for double homicide when they murder a pregnant mother.  Its either a human life or it is not.  This double standard is tiresome.
Reiterated for contemplation. 

I recall seeing a bumper sticker once that said, "If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant."



Apparently, things only apply when the individual desires it.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #441 on: February 28, 2013, 09:55:28 AM »

It's a bunch of bull, tbh. All these nazi-feminists pushing their "choice" crap. The way I see it is that if it takes two people to make a baby, then it takes two people to decide what to do with it.

When men find a way to carry and birth the babies they want and their women don't, then they will have an equal say. Until then, all the decisions are firmly on the woman's side.

This is one of the most useless and baseless arguments I have ever heard in my life, ever.

Uh oh..didnt your parents ever have "The Talk" with you?  Smiley
Which has nothing at all to do with the utter uselessness of the above pseudo argument.

Well..Men cant be impregnated.. Therefore, the decision making are the Woman's. She is the one carrying the baby. 

Kinda basic
Kinda basically wrong

You may not like it but that's the situation. Impregnation is within the Woman's body.. That means she has more say so.. And should.. Live with it.

Perhaps I will live with it, when women can get pregnant without mens sperm.
Logged
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,303


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #442 on: February 28, 2013, 10:00:30 AM »

Aww, now you hurt my feelings. Cry  Don’t be upset when the scenario of choice fabricated by pro-abortionists backfires because it is not a fit all logically produced idea.  Some surrogates don’t get paid and who is to say 6 weeks into it she decides she doesn’t want to do it any longer.  Her choice, right?  I mean, it’s her body.  Others lost ownership when it was inserted into her body.  Sounds pretty crazy when it is applied to something other than the regular drum beat, right?

Cry me a river. Tongue

You obviously don't have the foggiest idea how surrogacy works. Or perhaps it's really that primitive over there. Whenever you feel like educating yourself, we can take up that issue, on another thread.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #443 on: February 28, 2013, 10:12:01 AM »


Cry me a river. Tongue

Nice reply.

You obviously don't have the foggiest idea how surrogacy works. Or perhaps it's really that primitive over there. Whenever you feel like educating yourself, we can take up that issue, on another thread.
I know a lot more than you think I know.  Again, do not be upset with me when your own defense holds no water when applied to anything else in the universe.  It may be a problem with your justification process.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #444 on: February 28, 2013, 10:20:26 AM »


Quote
When men find a way to carry and birth the babies they want and their women don't, then they will have an equal say. Until then, all the decisions are firmly on the woman's side.

So much for equality...

Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #445 on: February 28, 2013, 11:32:57 AM »

It's a bunch of bull, tbh. All these nazi-feminists pushing their "choice" crap. The way I see it is that if it takes two people to make a baby, then it takes two people to decide what to do with it.

When men find a way to carry and birth the babies they want and their women don't, then they will have an equal say. Until then, all the decisions are firmly on the woman's side.

This is one of the most useless and baseless arguments I have ever heard in my life, ever.

Uh oh..didnt your parents ever have "The Talk" with you?  Smiley
Which has nothing at all to do with the utter uselessness of the above pseudo argument.

Well..Men cant be impregnated.. Therefore, the decision making are the Woman's. She is the one carrying the baby. 

Kinda basic
Kinda basically wrong

You may not like it but that's the situation. Impregnation is within the Woman's body.. That means she has more say so.. And should.. Live with it.
It takes two people to make a baby, so 50% of it is the property of the father.  If she wants to terminate the baby, should should be willing to compensate monetarily with an agreed amount by the father. 

By the way,  surrogate mothers don't get to terminate based on the foolish terms you stated.  Nonsense and a failed reasoning.

Surrogate mothers sign a contract and waive their rights.. It they didnt, they would have all the say so.. Your information is lacking so your logic is flawed Smiley

Men have few rights and lots and lots of responsibility if they get a woman pregnant. This is not only the legal situation but reflects natural law IMHO.

Human babies are not property and dealing with them does not fall under property law, formally speaking.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,731



« Reply #446 on: February 28, 2013, 12:19:01 PM »

It's a bunch of bull, tbh. All these nazi-feminists pushing their "choice" crap. The way I see it is that if it takes two people to make a baby, then it takes two people to decide what to do with it.

When men find a way to carry and birth the babies they want and their women don't, then they will have an equal say. Until then, all the decisions are firmly on the woman's side.

This is one of the most useless and baseless arguments I have ever heard in my life, ever.

Uh oh..didnt your parents ever have "The Talk" with you?  Smiley
Which has nothing at all to do with the utter uselessness of the above pseudo argument.

Well..Men cant be impregnated.. Therefore, the decision making are the Woman's. She is the one carrying the baby. 

Kinda basic
Kinda basically wrong

You may not like it but that's the situation. Impregnation is within the Woman's body.. That means she has more say so.. And should.. Live with it.
It takes two people to make a baby, so 50% of it is the property of the father.  If she wants to terminate the baby, should should be willing to compensate monetarily with an agreed amount by the father. 

By the way,  surrogate mothers don't get to terminate based on the foolish terms you stated.  Nonsense and a failed reasoning.

Surrogate mothers sign a contract and waive their rights.. It they didnt, they would have all the say so.. Your information is lacking so your logic is flawed Smiley

Men have few rights and lots and lots of responsibility if they get a woman pregnant. This is not only the legal situation but reflects natural law IMHO.

Human babies are not property and dealing with them does not fall under property law, formally speaking.

How is this natural law?  A man does not have a right to sex on demand.  Thus, if a woman gets pregnant, she had an equal say in the decision.  I agree with you that a man doesn't have many rights but lots of responsibilities, as things are, but I do not see this as being right in any way, shape, or form.  If you want to do law of the jungle, a woman does have a responsibility to pick a man who will do these things by the nature of his character and suffer the consequences for choosing a cad.
Logged
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,303


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #447 on: February 28, 2013, 12:26:20 PM »

And maybe the father wants the baby.

Nice job ignoring this part.  I guess fathers actually wanting to be fathers doesn’t matter anymore.

Then they should only bed women who want to be mothers. Preferably after marrying them.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,126


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #448 on: February 28, 2013, 12:36:06 PM »

And maybe the father wants the baby.

Nice job ignoring this part.  I guess fathers actually wanting to be fathers doesn’t matter anymore.

Then they should only bed women who want to be mothers. Preferably after marrying them.

Yes, they should.  As should women only bed men who want to be fathers.  Preferably after marrying them.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,731



« Reply #449 on: February 28, 2013, 12:46:49 PM »

And maybe the father wants the baby.

Nice job ignoring this part.  I guess fathers actually wanting to be fathers doesn’t matter anymore.

Then they should only bed women who want to be mothers. Preferably after marrying them.

Yes, they should.  As should women only bed men who want to be fathers.  Preferably after marrying them.

Wait...are you saying that responsibility goes both ways?  That women are capable of making rational decisions as well? 

That's crazy talk.
Logged
Tags: abortion cheval mort totes pferd horseus mortus 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.253 seconds with 72 queries.