Family Values: Abortion

[Racoon]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

Those that believe in the Laws of Karma and rebirth would disagree with you on this.

Who's to say which belief system is right or wrong??

Those who believe that bringing in another poor, hungry, doomed Orphan into this crazy and hostile world 'would' agree.

Then according to rebirth theory - the child could be re-born later at a more appropriate time.
IF we all die and are reborn, then it shouldn't matter THAT much...
Because it is an Endless and Painful Cycle.

Most everybody can agree on disagreeing on this puppy.

[pgrmdave]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

As for the abortion thing... like I said, I'd rather it be killed before it's born instead of living a lifetime of suffering.

That's a very confusing viewpoint...Do you have a life of suffering? Do you know people who do? Is there a definite way you can decide whether someone else's life is worth living before it's even gotten underway?

[Panjandrum]

I dont get why this is an issue at all. Its seems so obviously to be the woman's right to choose, whatever her reasons and whetever the total duration of her pregnancy.

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by Racoon

Who's to say which belief system is right or wrong??

There are no rights/wrongs in Religious Belief systems. Who would be the judge?
I brought up the suffering issue simply to remind us that there is another interesting cultural viewpoint on why suffering exists - one that is far more revealing of the Laws of Caue and Effect than what we have in our Christian culture.

What we can judge is ethical behavior, for Natue has set that standard. Abortion of a healthy fetus is unnatural. That is a fact. What we do about it is an opinion. As I define sanity as being a consensus of opinion - and since there is no consensus on this issue - then we are flirting with mass insanity. We should and must resolve it and arrive at consensus.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

There are no rights/wrongs in Religious Belief systems. Who would be the judge?

I humbly beg to differ as far as this topic goes.

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

I brought up the suffering issue simply to remind us that there is another interesting cultural viewpoint on why suffering exists - one that is far more revealing of the Laws of Cause and Effect than what we have in our Christian culture.

Who's the intended audience for your documentary? Catholics will have an opinion regarding this matter 180 degrees away from the Protestant belief. And that also includes incompatible preconceptions not only on abortion, but even more basic, more fundamental issues like birth control, and also the common perceptions of what you'd refer to as suffering. And that's only amongst Christians. Which 'Christian Culture' are you referring to?

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

What we can judge is ethical behavior, for Natue has set that standard. Abortion of a healthy fetus is unnatural. That is a fact. What we do about it is an opinion. As I define sanity as being a consensus of opinion - and since there is no consensus on this issue - then we are flirting with mass insanity. We should and must resolve it and arrive at consensus.

Humans walking on Earth is natural. Humans walking on the moon is not.
Yet we have done it.
Humans taking an issue (the desire to walk on the moon - or to fly through the atmosphere, for that matter) and applying mind to matter in order to reach and realise these desires, are part and parcel of what humans are. Whether the basic idea is unnatural or not is immaterial. If the desire exists for a woman to abort the baby she is carrying, somehow, somewhere, somebody will make it possible. If we don't accept the reality that women have that choice today, and ban the practice of abortions, women holding this desire will still go to disreputable backyard abortionists who work with a coupla shots o' whiskey and a rusted coathanger.
If we outlaw flying, apprentice flyboys will still jump off cliffs in homemade contraptions and fall to their deaths, equally unnaturally.
Sure - the analogy isn't totally appliccable. The one includes the termination of a human life.
But is it human? Is it a person?
Doesn't this whole argument boil down to the age-old question of 'when' a baby *becomes* a person? And any termination before that date is acceptable, and anything after, not?
I mean - where do you draw the line?
If abortion is unacceptable at any time, then so is coitus interruptus. Or using condoms, for that matter, seeing as you're denying all those sperm cells their chance to life.

[pgrmdave]

If abortion is unacceptable at any time, then so is coitus interruptus. Or using condoms, for that matter, seeing as you're denying all those sperm cells their chance to life.

That's not true - I believe that life starts at conception, because then the DNA is still that of a human, but it is not the mothers. It is a viable lifeform. It has nothing to do with denying it the chance for life, it has to do with killing it once it's alive.

[ughaibu]

In nature we find various animals eating their offspring in times of crisis, in order to preserve the protein. Abortion seems natural enough to me.

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by ughaibu

In nature we find various animals eating their offspring in times of crisis, in order to preserve the protein. Abortion seems natural enough to me.

Cannibalism is another issue entirely. Aborting a healthy futus is entirely unnnatural.

[pgrmdave]

Actually, many fetuses are aborted naturally by the mother
from Wikipedia:

Approximately 10-50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.

So, abortion is natural in that sense.

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Actually, many fetuses are aborted naturally by the mother
from Wikipedia:


So, abortion is natural in that sense.

Okay. Restatement. A healthy mother aborting a healthy fetus is entirely unnatural