Jump to content


Abortion.. what are your views?


  • Please log in to reply
296 replies to this topic

#271 Zach360

Zach360

    SuperTrooper

  • VIP Club Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1272 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 12:22 PM

I agree. I love animals and never would want to see one suffer. I do not hunt myself. However, if it is for food, it is fine. I do not believe in killing for sport. As you said, they are part of God's creation and should be treated as such.


View Postill05nino, on 28 October 2010 - 12:19 PM, said:

View Postruntslover, on 28 October 2010 - 12:14 PM, said:

View PostZach360, on 28 October 2010 - 12:09 PM, said:

I have to agree with the "murder" part. That sounds more like a PETA argument than anything else. Abortion is murder of a human life; hunting is taking of the food that God provided for human sustenance. No correlation between the two.

I don't see how it's not the same. In both your ending life.

And by the way, I hate PETA. They go way to far with stuff that is none of their business.


To your previous post question, yes, I am a Christian, however, I am a follower of Christ, not the 'religion'.

It's not the same at ALL. As indicated in Genesis 1:26, God gave man control over the rest of His physical creation: “And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea…and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing…”

The Creator then went on to very clearly indicate which kinds of animals were fit for human consumption, in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14:3-21. Very plainly then, hunting and killing animals for food cannot be wrong. King David was a hunter of game, and the disciples were fishermen. During one particular trip, it is recorded (Luke 5:1-9) that Jesus Himself even helped them with that day’s catch.

It is also not wrong to kill predators. Again, the record of David’s youth indicates in I Samuel 17:34-36 that he killed a lion and a bear to protect his flock of sheep.

When killing animals, you have to carefully discern the purpose and attitude. Is it truly for food? Or is it more for the sport or trophy? Keep in mind that animals are, after all, part of God’s creation and, as such, should be treated with a certain amount of respect. I do not agree with killing animals for sport, but when it is for food, I believe that God provided food for us through animals.

Posted Image

#272 TreasureTech

TreasureTech

    Programmer

  • Staff
  • PipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 12:58 PM

I like PETA. That's "People eating tasty animals" right?
Posted Image

#273 AGNJoe

AGNJoe

    Archaeologist

  • VIP Club Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 706 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 02:30 PM

Here's my two cents on this...

1)  I'm not touching this debate with a 100-ft pole.
I'm here to chew bubblegum and kick @$$...and I'm all out of bubblegum.

-movie quote from "Rowdy" Roddie Piper in They Live.

Posted Image

#274 ill05nino

ill05nino

    Metal Detector

  • VIP Club Member
  • PipPip
  • 423 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 02:34 PM

View PostAGNJoe, on 28 October 2010 - 02:30 PM, said:

Here's my two cents on this...

1)  I'm not touching this debate with a 100-ft pole.


HAHA! I'd be interested to hear your perspective!
Posted Image

#275 runtslover

runtslover

    Metal Detector

  • Regular Trooper
  • PipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 03:22 PM

View Postill05nino, on 28 October 2010 - 12:19 PM, said:


To your previous post question, yes, I am a Christian, however, I am a follower of Christ, not the 'religion'.

It's not the same at ALL. As indicated in Genesis 1:26, God gave man control over the rest of His physical creation: “And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea…and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing…”

The Creator then went on to very clearly indicate which kinds of animals were fit for human consumption, in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14:3-21. Very plainly then, hunting and killing animals for food cannot be wrong. King David was a hunter of game, and the disciples were fishermen. During one particular trip, it is recorded (Luke 5:1-9) that Jesus Himself even helped them with that day’s catch.

It is also not wrong to kill predators. Again, the record of David’s youth indicates in I Samuel 17:34-36 that he killed a lion and a bear to protect his flock of sheep.

When killing animals, you have to carefully discern the purpose and attitude. Is it truly for food? Or is it more for the sport or trophy? Keep in mind that animals are, after all, part of God’s creation and, as such, should be treated with a certain amount of respect. I do not agree with killing animals for sport, but when it is for food, I believe that God provided food for us through animals.

I just asked if you were Christian so I could better understand why you felt the way you do about abortion.

Though I like that, follower of Christ and not the religion. You seem to be big on what the bible and are using it properly. My grandfather did that, he was a church of Christ preacher and always thought if you were going to quote the bible you better do it right. Which gives me some respect for you, but I'm afraid if you are going to be quoting the bible I am going to keep my further comments to myself and bow out of this debate.

Thank you, it's been fun. ^_^
Slot Rewards
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image

#276 runtslover

runtslover

    Metal Detector

  • Regular Trooper
  • PipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 03:23 PM

View PostTreasureTech, on 28 October 2010 - 12:58 PM, said:

I like PETA. That's "People eating tasty animals" right?

Yes, yes it is. :P
Slot Rewards
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image

#277 ill05nino

ill05nino

    Metal Detector

  • VIP Club Member
  • PipPip
  • 423 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 03:32 PM

runts, I definately don't want you to bow out of a topic solely because I use the Bible as my basis for understanding. I really want to hear what you have to say. You seem to be an intelligent person, and I want to know where you are coming from with your views. I believe a debate should end with individuals understanding eachother, and eachothers points of views, and not just end because the Bible is brought into it.

However, I am sure you and I will see eachother on these forums plenty of times in the future! Good Luck in everything you do!
Posted Image

#278 runtslover

runtslover

    Metal Detector

  • Regular Trooper
  • PipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 03:35 PM

I know it's very childish of me but the bible makes me nervous, that's the only reason I backed out. But if you honestly want me to stay then I will, just because I really am having fun talking to you. :P
Slot Rewards
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image

#279 bunnysound

bunnysound

    Metal Detector

  • Regular Trooper
  • PipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 05:11 PM

If you honestly don't think that abortion is murder, than there is something wrong! And if you don't think murder is WORSE than rape, you really need to go see a psychiatrist.

Abortion is NOT murder. Murder is a legal term meaning the unlawful killing of one human being by another under specific conditions covered by law, usually involving malicious intent and premeditation. However you may feel about abortion, the fact of the matter is that abortion and murder are not the same.

I just noticed that you defined murder in an earlier post, so I should not need to explain to you that under those pesky legal conditions, abortion is not considered murder.

As for the question of which is worse, rape or murder, I would imagine that depends very much on the details of each case. I'm sure there are instances where being raped is worse than being murdered-- we've all got imaginations capable of painting the most horrific pictures, so I don't think I need to provide an example.

By the logic of "You're a man so you shouldn't have an opinion", you must not have an opinion on murder, since you've never had a gun pointed at your head.

Nowhere in my post did I suggest that you shouldn't have an opinion. I merely pointed out (quite truthfully) that you're expressing strong and narrow-minded opinions on subjects which you yourself will never have to face-- rape, unwanted pregnancy, and abortion. It is easy to point the judgmental finger at someone when you're secure in the knowledge that you will never, ever be in that same position. You also cracked several rape jokes a few posts above this one, so it seems that the gravity of rape hasn't yet impressed itself upon you.

One of the beautiful things about being human is that we have the ability to empathize with people who are suffering in ways we ourselves might never suffer. I challenge you to put yourself into a woman's place momentarily. Imagine that you are raped-- and no, I don't mean by a pretty girl. Imagine discovering that for the better part of this year, you will have that man's progeny growing inside of you. Imagine the shame, horror, fear, guilt, the questioning of faith, the pleas to God. Try to really feel what a woman in this position would be feeling-- I mean, really experience it as best you can in your imagination. Then I dare you to look into the eyes of a woman who has been through all of that and tell her that she is no better than a murderer. If you could honestly say that to someone in so much pain, then I shudder to think what your soul must be like.

Further, giving birth to a baby does NOT mean you have to raise it.

Obviously not. We are discussing adoption.

You're aware that every one of 50 states in the USA has a list of parents waiting for babies to adopt, many of them willing to adopt even trouble cases (such as those suffering 'crack-baby' syndrome or other developmental issues)? There aren't enough babies to fulfill the demand for babies.

You're also aware that states often provide excellent pre-natal care to mothers and their unborn children, even those with no ability to pay?


This is all quite wonderful for women who choose to give their babies up for adoption, but what you're suggesting is that women should have no choice in the matter. You're proposing a law that would force all women, whatever their circumstances, to carry a pregnancy to term. I have nothing against adoption. Adoption can be a beautiful thing. I do resent very strongly the idea that any woman should be forced-- by you, by me, by the law-- into doing anything with her body that she does not want to do.

You're also aware that short of the typically mild side effects of pregnancy, such as the added weight and hormonal swings, MOST pregnancies do not significantly impinge the woman's ability to engage in healthful or recreational activities?

Excuse me? I don't even know where to start. There are very many problems, both physical and psychological, that can arise during a pregnancy. My own mother, for instance, suffered from preeclampsia and couldn't give birth to me-- I was delivered four months prematurely via C-section. Hypertensive disorders such as preeclampsia are fairly common (according to the Preecampsia Foundation's website, they are "a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death... responsible for 76,000 maternal and 500,000 infant deaths each year.") This is only one of the many complications that can arise during a pregnancy.

More importantly, we aren't discussing a planned pregnancy or even an unplanned pregnancy borne of consensual sex between two adults-- We're discussing a pregnancy borne of rape. The "side effects" (strange choice of words, by the way) of such a pregnancy could never be considered "mild" and run much deeper than hormonal changes and weight gain.


******You're also aware of the research that shows women who are raped and become pregnant, who bring the child to term are less likely to suffer extended periods of psychological trauma, attempt suicide, or successfully complete a suicidal act, than women who are raped, become pregnant, and terminate?******


No, I am not aware of these studies. Could you provide some references? Who funded this research? It can be difficult to conduct a survey of this nature because rape victims tend not to speak publicly about their experiences-- same with women who have undergone an abortion-- so the sample surveyed is often not indicative of the wider population.

Biologically, from the moment of conception, the fertilized egg contains the necessary genetics for a human being. Nature left its course and will result in one of two outcomes -- birth or miscarriage.


Biologically, sperm contains part of the necessary genetics for a human being, as do ovaries. Out of curiosity, are you one of those who feels it is a sin to "spill one's seed," as they say?

Nature taking its course... now, that's an interesting idea. Human beings have been tampering with nature for so long that I'm not sure we can even say for certain what Nature would do if left to its own devices. The laws of Nature, I suppose, dictate that I should have died shortly after my own birth. As I said, I was a premature baby and I required intervention from the doctors in order to survive: surgery, medicine, breathing tubes, an incubator. Similarly, my step-father is diabetic and requires daily insulin shots to regulate his glucose levels-- without such intervention, he would surely have died by now. At what point do you draw the line? If your argument against the termination of pregnancy is that we must let Nature take its course, then at what point is it acceptable to step in and tamper with Nature?

Biologically, it's alive from the moment of fertilization, so abortion is causing a death. The argument over whether it is moral then is not a question of if it is a living human (biologically, it is), but at what point we wish to extend personhood to it.

Plants are alive, biologically-- is pulling a weed tantamount to murder? Obviously that is an extreme and fairly silly exaggeration, but my point is that scientists and theologians have been arguing over the definition of "life" for years and have yet to reach an agreement. Morality is an entirely separate and equally complex thing on its own. This is a complicated issue with so many twisting moral pathways that neither one of us could say with certainty what the correct answer might be. That's why I am so adamant that you not be allowed to decide for me, that I not be allowed to decide for you.

I contend that since it has all the potential of a human it ever will have at the moment of fertilization, and biologically it is genetically distinct and separate from the mother (except in rare medical emergenices where the placental barrier is breached), that it is a person at the moment of conception.

I am confused as to where you found this information, because frankly that is untrue. An embryo is entirely dependent on the mother for its survival. It is, essentially, a parasite which will die if it cannot feed off its host-- granted, it can be a rather adorable and beloved parasite, but it is a parasite nonetheless. ;)


So you have no right to judge a murderer until he's shot you dead?

You do realize that's exactly what you just implied, right?


You're the one making the ridiculous abortion=murder association. I'm not even sure that I understand this analogy. Are you implying that pro-choice women are somehow a threat to you, and that if you withhold your judgment for too long, you'll end up dead? I still fail to see how a rape victim is like a murderer. Is this one of those Alice in Wonderland riddles? How is a raven like a writing desk?

I do judge. I judge because I am a member of a society where the actions of the individual have repercussions on the whole. Your actions then and now have ripple effects that effect the society of which we are both members.

This is true-- no man is an island. Yet while most of us are dog-paddling, you're running for the motorboat. If what you believe about abortion were to become a law, the beliefs of the individual (you, the religious right) would affect me and everyone else in the most personal areas of our lives.

I judge you to have made a poor choice in an admittedly bad situation. However, your behavior shows you have no remorse for it, despite the potentially mitigating circumstances. Therefore I judge you a murderer with no sorrow for the willful killing of a human life. I judge the impact you have had on society in the past to be terrifically harmful and abhorrent.

I judge you human, however, so hope you might be better than this in the future. No one is perfectly corrupt.


Are you serious? Pardon my implied French, but who the f' are you? You're making some pretty big assumptions there. Maybe I should assume that you're a rapist who gets off on the thought of dozens of innocent young girls giving birth to your offspring-- except I'm not insane, so I don't make assumptions like that based off things I read in an internet forum.

I would also like to add that you call yourself a follower of Christ, yet Christ himself urged us over and over and over again not to judge. Perhaps I am not as familiar with the Bible as you are, so forgive me if I misquote this, but isn't there a passage in the Bible reminding us not to berate our neighbor for the splinter in his eye when we've got a log in our own? Isn't there another one urging only those of us without sin to cast stones-- the point being that none of us are in a position to judge another? You are not only judging-- which I feel is honestly part of our nature, we're judgmental creatures-- but you are judging harshly. You are judging victims of violent crime, you are judging innocent women, you are judging people who have been through things which you will hopefully never see in your lifetime. You are judging these people from your high throne of moral superiority, believing yourself untouchable. Well, I sincerely hope that your life is never personally touched by these things we're discussing. I hope that no woman you love is ever faced with this kind of choice, but it is not unthinkable. Try a little bit of Christian empathy, why don't you?

I also like how MOST woman who are Pro-Choice say, "It's my body and I can do what I want." Well guess what? It's NOT "part of your body." It has different DNA, which means it is a different human being, not part of you (like a finger).

Real life isn't an episode of Jerry Springer. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is an incredibly rough one. It is a choice that no woman makes lightly. People who believe in choice-- who truly believe in choice-- don't go around encouraging abortion as though it's some statement of feminine independence. We are pro-CHOICE. I support every woman who has ever carried a child to term, especially if the pregnancy was difficult or unplanned. I support every woman who has ever given birth. I support every woman who has given a child up for adoption. I support every woman who has decided that the best thing she can do for herself and her family is to terminate a pregnancy. I support the right of every woman to make that decision for herself, to decide for herself what is right. I do not support giving you, or anyone else, the power to make that decision for any woman. Why you would ever want to have that power, I don't know.

PS: This has nothing to do with oppression of women.

PS: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!  Educate yourself on the history of feminism and then say that again.

Edited by bunnysound, 28 October 2010 - 06:30 PM.

Ceci n'est pas une signature.

Posted Image x 2

Posted Image Posted Image

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

#280 bunnysound

bunnysound

    Metal Detector

  • Regular Trooper
  • PipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 05:54 PM

As an aside, I would just like to comment on this:

It's not the same at ALL. As indicated in Genesis 1:26, God gave man control over the rest of His physical creation: “And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea…and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing…”


I have always interpreted this passage to mean that we have a responsibility toward non-human animals-- that we are in a position of power and that we should use this power wisely. We have not used this power wisely at all. Apparently many people believe that our "God-given dominion" grants us the right to go nuts and destroy everything we see.

When killing animals, you have to carefully discern the purpose and attitude. Is it truly for food? Or is it more for the sport or trophy? Keep in mind that animals are, after all, part of God’s creation and, as such, should be treated with a certain amount of respect. I do not agree with killing animals for sport, but when it is for food, I believe that God provided food for us through animals.


You and I agree on this point, although I personally do not kill animals for food, either. I also do not eat animals that have been killed for me. I've been a vegetarian since my childhood only because I can't bear the thought of causing so much unnecessary suffering and death. The way animals are harvested for food these days is in no way similar to the hunting and fishing practiced by Jesus and his disciples. What we have now is a multi-billion dollar industry, huge factory farms where animals are treated not as living beings but as commodities. The living conditions in these places are heart-breaking: sick animals left to die, corpses left to rot, the rest of the animals wallowing in filth. Insufficient exercise, fresh air, sunlight, clean water, healthy food-- cows being fed corn meal because it's cheaper than grass, cows being fed the ground-up bodies of other cows. I would suggest anyone to do some research on what really goes into that burger you ate for lunch, but honestly it is so horrible that I almost want to urge you not to look.

Edited by bunnysound, 28 October 2010 - 05:55 PM.

Ceci n'est pas une signature.

Posted Image x 2

Posted Image Posted Image

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users