morals

[johnny-boy]

Nature, or god, murders 85% of all humans before they are born.

Get real.

[prometheus]

It is real.

[johnny-boy]

It is real.

That's like saying if a person dies of lung cancer that God and/or nature murdered that person. That's completely different than the premeditated murder by abortion.

John

[prometheus]

Well, of course it isn't murder.

But it is something that happens all the time, and no one cares about. And something woman aren't even aware of.

But then when it happens because of humans it is murder?

I am very critical about abortion but an embryo isn't a human. Even if you think it is wrong it isn't murder. It isn't even killing a human. It is killing human tissue at some point and killing a human baby at another point. Somewhere inbetween them a line needs to be drawn.

[johnny-boy]

Well, of course it isn't murder.

But it is something that happens all the time, and no one cares about. And something woman aren't even aware of.

But then when it happens because of humans it is murder?

I am very critical about abortion but an embryo isn't a human. Even if you think it is wrong it isn't murder. It isn't even killing a human. It is killing human tissue at some point and killing a human baby at another point. Somewhere inbetween them a line needs to be drawn.

That tissue, in essence, is a person on the way. It's still murder in my book.

John

[mike_lang]

That tissue, in essence, is a person on the way. It's still murder in my book.

John

It depends one whether or not you believe in a spiritual soul, rather.  In my case, I believe that the soul is infused by God at conception.  My definition of death is the separation of body from soul.  Those two things said, I believe abortion to be murder.

Best,
Michael

[prometheus]

Then you also believe god murders most humans before they are born.

[mike_lang]

Then you also believe god murders most humans before they are born.

I don't follow your logic...

[pianistimo]

fetuses that are naturally aborted are more likely to be damaged in some way aren't they?  after all, something caused them to be aborted.  unless certain women have a cervical condition which doesn't allow for a normal length of pregnancy due to an anomoly of the womb. 

i thought that in certain instances - a fetus would not continue to grow if the nourishment in the womb wasn't sufficient or if the fetus wasn't growing properly.  say, the heart had a malfunction?

[johnny-boy]

fetuses that are aborted are more likely to be damaged in some way aren't they?  after all, something caused them to be aborted.  unless certain women have a cervical condition which doesn't allow for a normal length of pregnancy due to an anomoly of the womb.

Not exactly Pianistimo, many people use abortion as a form of birth control.

John

[prometheus]

I don't follow your logic...

Of all egg cells that are fertilised about 60% to 85% don't actually nest in the womb. The pregnacy will be over before the woman realises it. The menstruation will just be dumped in the toilet. No one will care either. That's your sacred life...


This is the stupid thing about religious taboo morality. The reason why something is disallowed is not understood. So it is applied without any thought. The result is these kinds of nut ideas where people think that females are murderers when they menstruate.


The people that wrote the bible, people worse than the Taliban, never thought that a fertilised egg cell is alive. But you do think this. How come?

[mike_lang]

Of all egg cells that are fertilised about 60% to 85% don't actually nest in the womb. The pregnacy will be over before the woman realises it. The menstruation will just be dumped in the toilet. No one will care either. That's your sacred life...


This is the stupid thing about religious taboo morality. The reason why something is disallowed is not understood. So it is applied without any thought. The result is these kinds of nut ideas where people think that females are murderers when they menstruate.


The people that wrote the bible, people worse than the Taliban, never thought that a fertilised egg cell is alive. But you do think this. How come?

The fertilized egg cell that is disposed of during menstruation (unintentionally) is not the problem.  We speak of deliberate abortion.  What happens naturally does not constitute a sin, any more then that God should let us die in our sleep.

The moral comes additionally from the principle of what God has made whole, let no man divide.  This extends beyond the marriage of a man and a woman in holy matrimony.  It indeed extends to the intimate union of spirit and matter, or spiritual soul and body, which is the human being.  As a Catholic, I believe that the human being is indeed a human being from the moment of conception, at which point the spiritual soul is infused.  The concern here is not of natural death - it is of the deliberate murder which is abortion.

Even if (and this is useless conjecture) it were the case that the embryo were not a human being, that does not justify abortion.  It is as wrong to disrupt the creative act as it is to destroy the created being.  If life is holy, then the life-creating process of procreation is equally holy.  Both human life and procreation are to be regarded with great reverence and respect.

To answer your question of the ignorance of those who subscribe to morality, we completely understand why these things are forbidden.  There is great thought, in addition to faith, involved in moral action.

Regarding such thought, I direct you to the following site, which additionally cites scripture:
https://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

Best wishes,
Michael

[gilad]

Prometheus is a most impossible to person argue with.
He is not stupid, yet he has very strange ideas about things.
And he is pretty rude, robotic and insensitive in saying them too.
What comes to my mind is a quote.


"Never argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference"

[ted]

On the contrary. I have always found the posts of Prometheus to contain objectively expressed substance, knowledge and reason and I therefore enjoy reading them and thinking about them.

[johnny-boy]

You don’t have to get syrupy. 

[ada]

prometheus does tend to favour the carpet bombing approach to debate but just about everything he says is eminently sensible.

Perhaps you should try listening.

[johnny-boy]

I do listen, but I don't hear anything. Let me check, maybe my speakers are shut off.

Nope, they're on, and I still don't hear anything.

Maybe one has to be from the same planet to hear it.

John

[ada]

very funny JB

Anyhow I love the way all you blokes reckon you can jump in and claim to have any authority on abortion.

This is women's business, aint got nothing to do with men.

[quasimodo]

very funny JB

Anyhow I love the way all you blokes reckon you can jump in and claim to have any authority on abortion.

This is women's business, aint got nothing to do with men.

Untru.
No woman would have to deal with abortion if she didn't get boned by a man in the first place  .

[johnny-boy]

Good point Quasi.

[ada]

true nuff (aaaagh stop it!)

acknowledged. But she carries the baby, she makes the decisions.

[johnny-boy]

true nuff (aaaagh stop it!)

acknowledged. But she carries the baby, she makes the decisions.

Yeah, but it's his child too. He should have equal say towards the welfare of their child.

[ada]

Yes I do actually appreciate that point and I acknowledge it can be rough on a man when a woman terminates a child he wants to have.

But, the truth of the matter is that the man has no claim on his child until it is born. Until it is, it remains part of the woman's body.

This may be unfair but that's just the way it is. Just as a man can never be guaranteed of paternity, barring a DNA test.

[leahcim]

My definition of death is the separation of body from soul.

Well I'd sue, because a bunch of guys have been going around for thousands of years claiming they thought of that first

[johnny-boy]

But, the truth of the matter is that the man has no claim on his child until it is born. Until it is, it remains part of the woman's body.

And a woman is part of the child's body. Who is going to talk up for the child?

[ada]

But, the truth of the matter is that the man has no claim on his child until it is born. Until it is, it remains part of the woman's body.

And a woman is part of the child's body. Who is going to talk up for the child?

well correctly we aren't talking a child but a fertilised egg and later a blastocyst being carried by the woman. This is before it even becomes an embryo.

Until the foetus becomes viable it is part of the woman's body, not vice versa.

I don't know if you are catholic or not, I suspect you are baptist or charismatic or pentecostal or Hillsong Church or something like that, so I don't know whether you ascribe to the philosophy that the use of contraception amounts to killing a baby.

It's all a question of lines isn't it. Even I find the question of abortion beyond six weeks  problematic.

[johnny-boy]

The use of contraception is not murder – and either is abstinence, for the same reason. The child doesn't start its journey until the egg is fertilized. You can’t murder life before it exists.

John

[leahcim]

Yeah, but it's his child too. He should have equal say towards the welfare of their child.

You sound very possessive of people as though they are like things. If it's "his child" then how is the child something that has its own rights and needs talking up for by some 3rd party?. OTOH, if it's something that has its own rights that you want to protect, why is it his or her child? That seems a flaw in your argument to get men a say?

It seems that you don't want him to have any say...[well we all have a say, a say is what we call democracy, what he actually might want is control over the situation, not just an opinion] e.g if he says and she says the wrong thing in your opinion, then you want to override what they say and have control over them and give them a life sentence, which is the going rate for murder which you claim abortion is.

But you haven't even met them or heard what the circumstances are, let along shagged one of them. Why's that? Guilt?

Ah no, it's all in the name of "think of the children" but afaict it's a child that, ultimately your posts seem to suggest that you care more about having control over what they should and shouldn't do rather than their welfare per se.

You think you know better than said mother and father because you read in an old dusty book how people should behave?

[johnny-boy]

You sound very possessive of people as though they are like things.

It seems that you don't want him to have any say...we all have a say, a say is what we call democracy, what he might want is control e.g if he says and she says the wrong thing then you want to override what they say and have control over them...and you haven't even met them, let along shagged one of them. Why's that? Guilt?

Ah no, it's all in the name of "think of the children" but afaict it's a child that, ultimately your posts seem to suggest that you care more about having control over what they should and shouldn't do rather than their welfare. You think you know better than said mother and father because you read in an old dusty book how people should behave?

That gibberish didn't make any sense at all. 

Maybe you should go back and re-read the posts.

John 

[leahcim]

That gibberish didn't make any sense at all. 

See edit for clarity.

[johnny-boy]

Thanks for the clarification Leachy. I think. 

John

[leahcim]

Thanks for the clarification Leachy. I think. 

Let me put it another way.

I have my kid and I'd describe him as such, but to me that means I have parental responsibility for him, which is not to be confused with control / power or ownership of / over him [or his mother] no matter what he might think when I'm telling him to tidy his room

Clearly you'll note legislation already exists that largely means I don't have control on somet things anyway - that already covers a lot of abortion cases - they are already illegal. So giving me a pretend say because they are my kids seems a waste of time for those things.

So, the way you wrote that made it sound to me like you wanted the "his kids" thing and the "have  a say" to mean he would have some ownership / control over both the unborn child and its mother which, if that's what you did mean to imply, I disagree with the principle, as I said above, "my kids" doesn't mean that  imo, it just means I have a big responsibility [one that I welcome, but nevertheless that's what it is, it isn't a stick to beat his mother with]

OTOH if you are happy for a Government to pass legislation making abortion "murder" and internet forums / religions or whatever to decide whether a woman should be allowed to have an abortion, why worry about the male parent having a say? That would just be lip service wouldn't it?

[pianistimo]

in china abortions were forced.  this is where it CAN lead.  who has the say there?  the government.  surprise surprise. except in reverse. they have the power of death.  we have the power of life.  i believe a fetus is alive.  a living being.  growing.  being nourished.  having a sense of belonging. 

[johnny-boy]

in china abortions were forced.  this is where it CAN lead.  who has the say there?  the government.  surprise surprise. except in reverse. they have the power of death.  we have the power of life.  i believe a fetus is alive.  a living being.  growing.  being nourished.  having a sense of belonging. 

Very well said Pianistimo - and I don't think you sound like a possessive and controlling person either.

John

[leahcim]

in china abortions were forced.  this is where it CAN lead.

What exactly CAN lead there? In the USA and Europe shedloads of people have been killed and enslaved over time, so I don't see the revelancy with China. There's a lot more of them than you, so I don't think they were all killed

If some oppresive regime appeared why would an existing law, [i.e whether it existed or not],  permit or stop that regime from doing bad things? Slippery slope arguments aren't usually valid.

There have been oppressive regimes that have [more or less] forced people to have kids...are they better? It seems more likely that the USA or western europe would need to adopt that policy because for all the talk about having the power of life, folk aren't having kids.

In most cases, the law being discussed already exists, so if "it" is the legislation, and it could have lead there, it clearly didn't.

It's as daft as saying a law that doesn't prohibit the sale of hammers in a democracy CAN  lead to murders because in China people were killed with hammers [doesn't matter if they were, because you sure as hell haven't been closer to China than eating a number 24 ]. Selling a hammer CAN lead to murder.

[prometheus]

What some people don't seem to get is that I am against abortion as well. I just have a big problem with the arguments used by some.

A fertilised egg cell is just as much a human being as my chipped nails are.

Then at 17-23 years after birth a human is a 'finished human'. Somewhere inbetween that time the collection of human cells has to become a 'human' for law. I think this is before birth. Of course there will be a very large grey area and a the law just has to draw a line.

I think it is silly to only consider a baby a human because of where it exists.

As for banning abortion. At first the baby tissue will have to be considered part of the female body. Every human has full sovereignity over their bodies, state has no role here and should not have a role here. But at some point the baby will start to become aware and feel pain. When then the baby is removed actual harm is done to something, human or not.

This means that the state should only jump in the moment the baby needs protection. One does not have to protect 'gods sacred life'. Even if this idea was not silly then god should do this herself.

So this means that whenether you think abortion is good or bad, right or wrong has no relevance on the state until the state needs to do its duty; protect someone.

Personally, I think abortion of a embryo after it has settled and started to grow should be avoided. And that removing a fetus is worse. The older the baby the more immoral.

What is murder is clearly defined by the law. Law has no moral authority.

But this is not my call to make. It is not my body. People will make mistakes that may lead to abortion being a reasonable idea, eventhough it is bad in itself.

The state does not have the right to impose moral standards. It would be called oppression.

[quasimodo]

The state does not have the right to impose moral standards. It would be called oppression.

Pardon ? When the state prohibits murder or rape it imposes moral standards, and I guess normal citizens wouldn't find that oppressive ...

[prometheus]

I don't think you understand. One of the primary roles of the state is to protect the people. So this has nothing to do with laying down a moral frame work.

Also, there isn't much a state can do about a murderer anyway.

[quasimodo]

I don't think you understand. One of the primary roles of the state is to protect the people. So this has nothing to do with laying down a moral frame work.

Moral frameworks are laid down in order that people are protected from something they consider "harm" to them.
That's the only origin of the notions of right or wrong.
The debate about abortion is exactly in the line of the role of the state that you described, providing foetus is considered "people".

[prometheus]

Yes, you are right. That's what I am saying. We know quite sure that there is nothing special about a fertilised egg cell. And that an embryo in early stages is nothing more than some human tissue.

Even after the embryo starts to grow more humanlike features there is still no human consciousness. But this does happen after the baby is born, at least to some extent. After the baby is born it will still take about 3 years before the brain starts to work properly.

That's why I say that as long as there is no embryo to be harmed a pregnacy can be aborted. Only when the embryo starts to experience pain I say it should be illegal. And it is illegal to abort in late stadiums.

[mike_lang]

Yes, you are right. That's what I am saying. We know quite sure that there is nothing special about a fertilised egg cell. And that an embryo in early stages is nothing more than some human tissue.

Even after the embryo starts to grow more humanlike features there is still no human consciousness. But this does happen after the baby is born, at least to some extent. After the baby is born it will still take about 3 years before the brain starts to work properly.

That's why I say that as long as there is no embryo to be harmed a pregnacy can be aborted. Only when the embryo starts to experience pain I say it should be illegal. And it is illegal to abort in late stadiums.

The infusion of the spiritual soul precedes the development of the matter.  This is why it is a sacred human life from the very point of conception.  What it experiences is not the issue - what it is is the issue.

[prometheus]

The infusion of the spiritual soul precedes the development of the matter. 

Nothing like this has ever been observed and nothing about the fertilisation of egg cells is in the bible because these people were totally oblivious to this kind of knowledge.


And even if we have 'sacred life'. It will probably 'die' anyway. I don't see why we can't flush away this 'sacred life'.

There is nothing sacred about life. Everything that has ever lived has already died. And those few things that are still alive will die very soon.

[pianistimo]

dear prometheus,

i think it is you that have the antiquated outlook.  but i am not saying this to irritate you.  the reason i say this is up until the early 20th century - very little was done to save babies who were compromised at birth.  it wasn't the 'sacredness' of life over death -but the fact that the child was born, named, and possibly buried under the age of 2 or 3 when times were bad.  food shortages, disease, whatever.

now, we have much more medical care.  the options are open to us as to whether to seek life support systems, or do some large or small medical operation (such as close a hole in the heart), to save the life of the baby or unborn child.

so, now we have the dillema on the opposite side.  rather than accepting death sometimes - we choose to take care of the child to the best of our ability and maintain life.  most MOST parents choose this if their baby is born alive.  even with several developmental, known emotional side-effects, and also physical defects.  so - with the advent of medicine - we have - in effect prolonged life.

for people of faith - they took your position.  that God allowed the child to die or if looked like the child was going to die they accepted it.  the death of children was a cruel thing to endure - but not as much as today.  people had way more children.  they could always have another one.  one out of thirteen might be not so terrible?  although i tend to think parents always mourn the one they lost.  my husband's father was one of thirteen.  a very tight family.  one was lost in WWI i believe.  at a very young age.

saying that war claims the religious right and that their feelings about death nullify giving birth - i think - are quite biased.  of course, you probably think that i am biased.  the reason i say this is because we don't know when we give birth that there will be a war.  it isn't the first thing that enters a woman's mind (whether liberal or conservative) whether she will allow him to join the army.  on both sides, there are sons that leave home and join the army without even asking their family.  so how is this even a related subject to war and choosing life? 

now, i do understand an analogy being drawn in terms of governments.  some governments do not see life as truly equal for all people.  they (especially during times of war) treat certain people with suspect, ridicule, and neglect).  imo, this is not an expression of a Christian government.  when the world is ruled by Christ - there will neither be male/female, slave/nor free - (he won't see the biases that people see today).  some might say - well, why then did he cause the woman to be a help-mate to the man.  he was making her less in worth than the man.  that is a misnomer, imo.  i think the word 'less' has nothing to do with the idea of authority.  back in the old days - if a person was a shepherd, they were leading a flock of sheep.  they didn't beat them all to follow.  they led gently.  so, imo, a man leads gently when he allows a woman her right to be a woman and not complain about her qualities and visa-versa.  i think we were created differently and for different purposes. 

where morals enter nowdays, as far as i can see, is that they are non-existant.  relativity is the word.  do you ever even hear the word 'morals' anywhere?  it implys 'rules.'  do you hear the word 'rules' anywhere?  that implies 'authority.'  do you hear the word 'authority' anywhere?  that implies God. because God is the final authority.  unless we are talking dictatorships.  but, from teh beginning God make the strong to serve the weak.  i'm not saying women are weak - but that they need protection from men.  if men are moral - women will be moral.  a woman can try to seduce a man - but if he is a moral man - he will respect her anyways and allow her to see a worth in herself far beyond her sexual capacities.  or, he will marry her.  that's what i think.

[quasimodo]

I don't think you understand. One of the primary roles of the state is to protect the people. So this has nothing to do with laying down a moral frame work.

Prometheus, I have another example, slightly different, do you think that western governements are wrong to prohibit polygamy?
Qualifying polygamy as a crime is definitely a moral stance which doesn't have much to do with protecting the people. In your logic, you should consider that position as oppression.

[prometheus]

Yes, of course.

But do note that a human is naturally neither polygamous or monogamous.

But it is not illegal in western countries. It is only illegal in those US states with anti-mormon laws, which aren't really enforced nowadays.

Maybe you meant that you can't officially marry with more than one person. That is true. But living together with more than one partner is legal.

As for marriage. I don't really think non-religious people should marry, regardless of their relationship. But the state should give everyone the right to have the same legal status, married or not.

[pianistimo]

what about the children?  what would their legal names be?  the maternal name?  we'd have a sudden switch of generational stuff that would suddenly eliminate the importance #1 of male presence  #2 of useful outlook on the male  #3 of bonding between fathers and children.  if you do any sort of psychological studies - it is found that a father is one of the most important figures (besides the mother) to a son as a sort of 'role model' of what he should grow up to be like.  fathers also have a very important role to play in helping a daughter see her feminine worth.  how father's treat daughters is just as important as how the mother's treat them.

in a less than ideal society - noone would have a family tree, everyone would think that there was no need to honor the elderly (since they allowed the family to disintegrate - and therefore lose the identity of the children) - and no need to give children the self-esteem that they naturally have when born into a family with a mother and father that know them.  i'm not saying adoption can't be the same way.  but to make adoption the general rule.  no way, for me.  i was adopted on my step-dad's side and although he strived very hard to provide for me and show me love- i missed not knowing my genetic dad because i might have had traits very similar to him and we might have had a connection also. 

[prometheus]

It's a totally different issue. I am close to not allowing same sex couples to adopt children if we have high standards for adoption parents. Because yes, you are right. Having a parent of both sexes is very very important.

But the state has no role in forcing people to be good parents. The state has a role to protect children. The state has no right to tell people the right way to raise children. Unless the child is harmed. For example, hitting your children should be illegal. As is the case in my country.


So this has nothing to do with it. If people choose to be bad parents there is nothing, you, I or the state can do about it.

Actually, if a state tries to regulate too many details there will also be victims of these rules and regulations. A state can't create rules that consider every case. So problems will arise.