Kerdy, I am just going back in time to see how I might have played a role in you disgust of this particular topic and my potential role in it in another thread.
If it is why do we not treat it as such?
Our society suffers from what I have tagged, the “Me Syndrome”. What’s in it for me? What do I get out of it? How does this affect me? It’s all about “me” and no one else. Even parenting suffers from this affliction. You see it in almost every aspect of modern life today, which is why I believe America is falling into shambles. Homosexuals say they were born that way thinking this somehow justifies their life choices of sin. Parents kill their living children because its inconvenient to have them any longer. Pregnancy and motherhood suffer as well. I have heard women actually, in defense of abortion, ask why they should destroy their bodies just to have a child ignoring their own actions caused their condition. Lack of responsibility. The world is a sick and evil place. Since most of society suffers from the Me Syndrome, they see no problem with killing unborn children. They have convinced themselves it is not only ok, but the child is not real. Lately, some have even been so bold as to proclaim a born child is not a viable personality and can be killed up to two years old. Evil controls the country and it is only getting stronger. Those of us who see it for what it really is are the minority. Abortion has absolutely become birth control.
If a woman and her "doctor" actually commit murder, with the state's permission if not actual blessing, why do we not take the law into our own hands?
Because this creates Anarchy, which easily spirals out of control. At least now we still maintain some semblance of authority.
Moreover, if a person shoots and kills an abortionist in order to literally save the lives of children, we should reach out to him with some degree of empathy.
But then, we become the criminal and the scourge of society and culture. Usually those who conduct this type of action are unstable anyway and dangerous to anyone. Abortion is only a means for them to focus their aggression. Until we are able to change laws, it is a losing battle to engage in this type of warfare. At best, the person or persons will be called extremists or religious zealots.
I have often pondered in my head the right form and level of civil disobedience.
One of the things I believe the Roman Catholic Church as gotten right is this. Their response to abortion is respectable. A very dear friend of mine who is Catholic is very involved in prayer vigils at abortion clinics and state buildings, etc. Peaceful, but they let their voices be heard in the silence of prayer. No violence, no loudness, only peaceful non-resistance to show there is a better way. My wife and I once convinced a young woman to not abort and instead give the child over for adoption simply by talking to her for a few hours. If you feel very strongly and want to participate, I encourage to you ask your Catholic friends if you can join.
If the abortion industry is in fact the holocaust that it's been called, is it not justified to kill the murderer, not so much as means of punishment, but rather as a form of prevention?
I see your reasoning, but again, this results in chaos, which does no good for anyone. Until the state has its mind changed, all efforts would be wasted.
Examples include injuring an abortionists hands or eyes so that he or she has to give their practice. I have also pondered forms of non-violent methods such as vandalizing machinery.
What you must understand is if we all went around beating the dog snot out of people we disagreed with, we would have no time left for anything else and everyone would be engaged in fighting and hurting one another. Violence is rarely the right response and only as a last resort when all lesser means have failed. Vandalizing machinery still gets people hurt. If your goal is to end abortion, you must win the hearts of others and convince their minds it is wrong. Being a vigilante would not accomplish this goal. They would only think you were a nutjob and dismiss anything you had to say.
All the while I have abstained from any of these actions. I'd like to give a more noble reason, but the truth is I am too cowardly and selfish to face prison.
Sounds like a good reason to me.
Or is it possible that many pro-Life advocates in fact see a fetus as a 'potential' person, rather than an actual person?
This is the multi-billion dollar question. When does life actually begin? Ask 10 people and you will get 10 different answers. Until we know for certain, I say be cautious and start at conception, to make sure we do not kill anyone.
Since we are talking about this, I was convinced by the abovementioned Catholic friend the abortion pill is also wrong. Took some time, but he won me over. I mention this because this is how you will change a person’s mind.
Overall I concur with this post. The "Me Syndrome" stems from a political philosophy of a particular party and I will not participate in private forums.
I mean birth control pill. I always knew the day after pill was wrong.
This is where the problem starts as far as I can see and I am in the process of changing my opinion based on what I have read recently as a result of your inquiry.
Indeed. I'm a "show me" sort of person and my friend presented the evidence, so I change my view to fit the facts.
Based on what I just read and you were equally informed, the evidence is likely statistically insignificant. I could be wrong, but let us continue on this path.
My friend showed me. The birth control pill makes the womb inhospitable to the fertilized egg, it does not prevent fertilization.
This is both right and wrong. The birth control pill primarily prevents fertilization. It does have the "potential" of preventing implantation of the embryo. A lot of things that have potential prove not to be relevant such that you should regulate you life according to your beliefs rather that scientific evidence because from what I can see it does not exists. More on this later.
You certainly are defensive. There is no reason to be. I said he showed me and convinced me, which was not easy, but I was open to the possibility and realized he was right. He had the information as he is very active in the anti-abortion movement. Mine was a personal inquiry. If you have some reason to disbelieve what I have said, by all means believe what you want, but if you think I am going to “forum battle” with you, you are mistaken. I do not have the relevant information you request, I never did and you seem unwilling to digest it appropriately anyway. If you are, I suggest you get in touch with those who do have the information you are looking for, but from your list of unapproved sources, I have serious doubts you will ever find anything convincing.
Here it is apparent that your issue is with Orthonorm rather than the topic. My take on Orthonorm is someone who I would consider tries to serve as an educator with an emphasis on critical thinking. I likewise dislike debating and if you start debating I will likewise cease what I am trying to introduce as a conversation.
I feel it important, prior to discussing what is or is not wrong, a clear explanation of exactly when life begins should be established. Without that, all views are subjective and nothing more than opinion.
Here you start to tackle the the issue.
We'd have to define life first, and then human life... wouldn't we?
Here Asteriktos, in his wisdom, states what I inquired in a different thread.
Despite my rejection of Asteriktos's taste in music and videos and despite his on-going ambivalency, I respect and pay attention to his posts. And it is not because we agree in this particular, isolated, instance.
Here you complain about Asterkitos query:
Perhaps, but this is where science begins to fail miserably and the only place to obtain the answers being sought is within what God has already provided. I was going to add no one has ever been able to supply the answer outside conception (which modernists abhor), but I thought someone would actually try.
And here you apparently reject the definition of life by scientists without a replacement. Although it is so obscure I have no idea of what you are talking about.
This should be a start to the discussion of this matter, a post that you have not apparently looked at although I cited it specifically for you:http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe/transcripts/jan03/session1.htm
l "Let me again try to begin by defining life and I think there exists a reasonable consensus amongst biologists on this definition, namely that life consists of all of the self-contained units of nature considered primarily of organic matter, autonomously and I stress the autonomously capable of undergoing development, reproduction and evolution. Note that this definition excludes the viruses because they're not autonomously capable of undergoing development and reproduction."
You do absolutely need to deal with the definition of life before going on with this discussion. This is something in your ball court and not ours.
Now, I feel it safe to say unless someone can clearly prove life starts at any time after conception the answer to abortion is, "Yes. In the overwhelming majority of abortion cases it should be considered murder." Additionally, if any medicine does in fact create an inhospitable environment for a conceived embryo to survive, which at least several do, it also should be considered murder. There will be people who attempt to justify their actions and present circular arguments resisting anything produced to counter their arguments. What they fail to realize is burden of proof is not only left for one side of the debate, rather each group must be able to support whatever it is they claim. This support, of course, is left for those engaged in the fight. In other words, asking your service station attendant to prove Loving vs. Virginia is a race case, not a marriage case is foolhardy and done for the sole purpose of making oneself feel superior.
Is abortion murder? Probably, are you willing to risk it is not?
Is the pill the same? Many people have seen the evidence to suggest it is. Are you willing to risk it is not?
The choice is left to the individual. Research the information, but do not look for the answer you want to find, look for the truth. That burden is upon each person as an individual. The one who makes the most noise has historically been proven to usually be wrong.
I did not have objections to this post but I do now:
Is the pill the same? Many people have seen the evidence to suggest it is. Are you willing to risk it is not?
By reason rather than faith I have doubt about the truthfulness of this statment.
So the only evidence for the pill being an "abortifacient" presented so far on this thread is that Kerdy says that his friend showed him something which I guess we're all supposed to believe. Am I following this right?
You are not supposed to believe anything I say. In fact, I encourage most people not to believe me about anything and research it themselves. I supplied that engagement with my friend for people to know the information exists. I went looking for the information to satisfy my own concerns, and found it. If you want to see it, by all means go look for it. If not, that is your choice. I am not here to sway you in any direction. As I previously stated, I did not collect the information to convince others in the future. For anyone to think I should have I can only ask if every conversation they have ever had their mind changed on a topic, did they maintain all proof to share with others? Doubtful. In other words, its food for thought for those who realize they may be wrong. For those who stand firm, there is nothing which will change your mind, which is why I did not collect it all to provide to others. You don’t have to agree with my thinking process, but I feel if people really want to know, they will look into what they have questions about. I am not a person equipped to get into detail about that topic, so I refrain from doing so and leave it to those who are.
I did research it, and your premise is woefully wanting. Where do you want to go from here?
From what I know this is were this line of inquiry ended with a new thread essentially dedicated in your honor that I posted in response to issues that I thought you had.
This is what I learned:
If the naturally occurring abortion rate due to the absence of embryonic implantation is 50-60%, who is going to fund the huge amount of money it would take to make a statement that that a 56.1% vs 56.2% natural abortion rate is statistically significant. And of course we should include how late, unknowingly pregnant women go to bed, whether they smoke, drink coca cola or beer, eat luncheon meats with nitrates, have sex, dance, watch soap operas, get distraught due to reading the newspaper, are unemployed, are impoverished, have in the past been beaten by their husbands, and this list goes on. What are you willing to pay once fractional rises have been quantified? I suspect most of the hypothetical rise of natural abortion rates is not voluntary, like taking normal contraceptives, but nevertheless is preventable. You started out with the "Me Syndrome". You must decide if the "Me Syndrome" is a good economic model or not. I reject it.