Abortion///cont.

[Eagles Wings]

"Why" a woman aborts is outside the fact that it is permissible for her to do so.

Obviously you understand the difference between legal permission and God's law.

No Christian would approve of the slaughtering of innocents as a legal right, for we uphold the Decalogue.

Roe v Wade, et al., must be overturned, and I hope I see it in my lifetime.

We pray for an end to abortion, each and every night.

We pray for those who are pro-abortion.

We pray for you, quip.

 

[quip]

Well said EW.

To Quip,
I do disagree with any militant or overt attempts to oppose those who see things differently.
We are not at war with other ideologies except in the ideological sense.
But the Christian must be involved and use every opportunity short of violence to oppose evil.
Proverbs 31:8-9KJV

And thus the ideological battle has being waged against a practical dispensation of rights.

For the Christian there is no difference between the born and the unborn.
If we are repelled by the atrocities of the Third Reich, that repulsion should be the same for the unborn.
We have lost our sensibilities for the innocent.
What high ideal is served by murdering the helpless?
Is that not what we hate about Isis?

Such comparisons rely highly upon emotional appeal whilst short-supplying any salient disparities; high in circumscribed, ideological dogma... short on practical, rational examination.

That's the practical animus to your ideologically approached war.

 

[quip]

Obviously you understand the difference between legal permission and God's law.

No Christian would approve of the slaughtering of innocents as a legal right, for we uphold the Decalogue.

I understand the difference. I also understand that it's irrelevant to abortion's legal standing.

Roe v Wade, et al., must be overturned, and I hope I see it in my lifetime.

We pray for an end to abortion, each and every night.

We pray for those who are pro-abortion.

We pray for you, quip.

ok.

 

[Eagles Wings]

And thus the ideological battle has being waged against a practical dispensation of rights.



Such comparisons rely highly upon emotional appeal whilst short-supplying any salient disparities; high in circumscribed, ideological dogma... short on practical, rational examination.

That's the practical animus to your ideologically approached war.

Typical of pro-aborts to place rational examination above all else.

It is not rational for a doctor to invade a woman's womb and assassinate a living being.

That is insane.

 

[quip]

it would be nice to see quip give a clear, brief answer to this

Indeed...quite a nice change! :bang:

 

[quip]

Typical of pro-aborts to place rational examination above all else.

How else but rationally are we to objectively approach the issue?

It is not rational for a doctor to invade a woman's womb and assassinate a living being.

That is insane.

Of course it's rational and sane.... if the mother wants it removed.

 

[George Affleck]

This is great. You have every right to your specific moral views regarding the unborn and abortion. While I respect your view (I likewise respect the right to differ), as such and unto itself, this is no argument against the universal proscription against abortion.

I respect your right to differ and I have always enjoyed our civil discussions.

This is correct. My personal convictions cannot be seen as proof that it is wrong and should be changed. It is likewise not proof that abortion is OK based on your version of morality either.

Regardless, most laws and judgments made by societies have been enacted based on moral principles.
They basically stem from the Golden Rule.

Why we should follow this principle for so many things and yet, on the subject of abortion, negate our sensibilities and refuse to allow moral principles to apply here, is a mystery to me.

If we could ask a 3 month old baby if he/she would like to be killed, I assume the answer would be no. I similarly assume the answer would be the same for a baby still in the womb. And we do not make it a requirement for someone to answer this question in other cases. (mentally infirm, comma) We simply assume it. It goes to; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

In fact, that statement assumes you do not have to receive a reply from the person in order to make a judgement about how to act in regard to them. It really comes down to; "I would not like to have my life terminated by the arbitrary actions of others so I will treat all other life by the same rule." In addition, I will support laws that reflect this moral principle, especially for the helpless. (I am talking only of humans at this point)

I hope you can see this where strong visceral reactions against abortion constrict some from certain facts. :e4e:

I do see this. Nevertheless, we act in accordance with visceral reactions all the time. Why is that wrong in this case?

We are repulsed by Isis beheadings and holocaust pictures.
Our sensibilities are shocked into action over reports of famine and war, earthquakes or fires.

Yet we are asked to set aside our consciences when we learn that, since 1973 (Roe vs. Wade), nearly 60 million lives have been deliberately snuffed out, one by one, simply because they are inconvenient. What is the difference between the ISIS sword and the surgeon's knife?

 

[Eagles Wings]

How else but rationally are we to objectively approach the issue?



Of course it's rational and sane.... if the mother wants it removed.

All rational arguments have fallen on deaf ears, quip.

You continue to believe the irrational position that the preborn must be objectified.

The reality is that doctors become killers.

This is spiritual darkness and I am praying you will be persuaded by Christ, unto faith in Him.

Would you consider reading Psalm 139, several times?

 

[George Affleck]

"Why" a woman aborts is outside the fact that it is permissible for her to do so.

No its not. This is only part of the illusory disconnect that is created by thinking subjectively. Subjective thinking has no place in justice.

Motive is always a consideration in murder, rape, theft, and anything we deem to be not permissible.
Similarly, motive also a vital consideration in war, policing, educating our children, medicine, and anything else that we deem to be permissible. Consider that the principle precept for healthcare workers is "Primum non nocere" - first, do no harm. Written on our police cars here are the words; "To serve and protect".
Motive is everything. Without a motive, no laws would be enacted.

If you are suggesting that we disconnect motive from permission in the case of abortion, then I will simply need to disagree. Surely you can see this is not reasonable and simply rhetoric.

 

[quip]

I respect your right to differ and I have always enjoyed our civil discussions.

Likewise. :e4e:

This is correct. My personal convictions cannot be seen as proof that it is wrong and should be changed. It is likewise not proof that abortion is OK based on your version of morality either.

Here's where it's important to note that I'm not arguing by way of personal moral decree. My moral view - being not too far removed from yours - does not dictate a conclusion on the issue. Rather the freedom to determine such freely and privately is what's at stake here.

Regardless, most laws and judgments made by societies have been enacted based on moral principles.
They basically stem from the Golden Rule.

All the more reason to rationally examine the unique circumstance of pregnancy. Is it just and moral to demand women to accept the risks involved in pregnancy against an otherwise undisputed right to do so; against forcing motherhood (its financial burdens and responsibilities) upon a woman...again, by no more than moral decree?

Why we should follow this principle for so many things and yet, on the subject of abortion, negate our sensibilities and refuse to allow moral principles to apply here, is a mystery to me.

Because pregnancy, in relation to rights, is a juxtaposition of two competing interests, which demands thorough examination.

If we could ask a 3 month old baby if he/she would like to be killed, I assume the answer would be no. I similarly assume the answer would be the same for a baby still in the womb. And we do not make it a requirement for someone to answer this question in other cases. (mentally infirm, comma) We simply assume it. It goes to; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

In fact, that statement assumes you do not have to receive a reply from the person in order to make a judgement about how to act in regard to them. It really comes down to; "I would not like to have my life terminated by the arbitrary actions of others so I will treat all other life by the same rule." In addition, I will support laws that reflect this moral principle, especially for the helpless. (I am talking only of humans at this point)

I understand this appeal and the desire to project it upon those without the voice to make it. I further understand that this is just one-half of the equation.

I do see this. Nevertheless, we act in accordance with visceral reactions all the time. Why is that wrong in this case?

We are repulsed by Isis beheadings and holocaust pictures.
Our sensibilities are shocked into action over reports of famine and war, earthquakes or fires.

Yet we are asked to set aside our consciences when we learn that, since 1973 (Roe vs. Wade), nearly 60 million lives have been deliberately snuffed out, one by one, simply because they are inconvenient. What is the difference between the ISIS sword and the surgeon's knife?

The difference is vast. The diffrences are the liberties at stake and how you one exclusive moral theory dictates the freedoms of another. To make a less emotional though no less equal comparision, denying constitutional freedoms cuts broader with the ISIS sword than the surgeon's knife could ever manage to acheive.

 

[glassjester]

Of course it's rational and sane.... if the mother wants it removed.

That's the justification for removing the child? Anything a person wants removed, needs to be removed by a doctor? Quip, that makes no sense.

What if she wants her arms removed? Or her eyes? Or her heart?

 

[glassjester]

It's a moot point. You agreed earlier that the seemingly preferential treatment of the mother does not necessarily imply unequal value.

You'll need a different argument.

Care to address, Quip?

 

[glassjester]

If you are suggesting that we disconnect motive from permission in the case of abortion, then I will simply need to disagree. Surely you can see this is not reasonable and simply rhetoric.

There's that special pleading again.

 

[quip]

All rational arguments have fallen on deaf ears, quip.

Yes, that seems to be what I'm up against...at least in the majority of most cases.

 

[quip]

No its not. This is only part of the illusory disconnect that is created by thinking subjectively. Subjective thinking has no place in justice.

Unless justice - examined - concludes choice as moral and just ...by way of.
All the more need for rational objective deliberation.

 

[glassjester]

When medically possible the doctor's priority is always to secure the mother's life in such cases.

It's a moot point. You agreed earlier that the seemingly preferential treatment of the mother does not necessarily imply unequal value.

You'll need a different argument.

That's the justification for removing the child? Anything a person wants removed, needs to be removed by a doctor? Quip, that makes no sense.

What if she wants her arms removed? Or her eyes? Or her heart?

Care to address, Quip?

Guess not...

 

[ok doser]

i'd like to see him answer this one:

What makes one life more valuable over another?

 

[glassjester]

Or this...

If you are suggesting that we disconnect motive from permission in the case of abortion, then I will simply need to disagree. Surely you can see this is not reasonable and simply rhetoric.

 

[George Affleck]

Here's where it's important to note that I'm not arguing by way of personal moral decree. My moral view - being not too far removed from yours - does not dictate a conclusion on the issue. Rather the freedom to determine such freely and privately is what's at stake here.

In principle, acting freely is not simply to choose a means to a given end. To act freely is to choose the end itself, for its own sake. To pass a law that facilitates that freedom is to choose to validate the end result. In this sense, freedom and morality are not only inter-related, they become the same thing.

Although this may not be clear to some in the case of abortion, all we need do is examine other laws to find this is so. Murder, rape, theft...these are all illegal due to our decision to see them as immoral. If we thought they were morally acceptable, we would have no reason to restrict individual freedom to engage in such activities.

To pass a law that deliberately encourages some individuals to formulate a specific type of morality that denies life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to another human being is unconstitutional. It denies access to the protection of the constitution, in this case, to the human being still growing in the womb. It denies access to protection, birth, life, education, marriage, a family...etc.

All the more reason to rationally examine the unique circumstance of pregnancy. Is it just and moral to demand women to accept the risks involved in pregnancy against an otherwise undisputed right to do so; against forcing motherhood (its financial burdens and responsibilities) upon a woman...again, by no more than moral decree?

First, I am surprised that you would even try to get that one past me. lol. Tell me where the judicial system would be if we toss individual responsibility for actions out the window. Pregnancy does not happen without the reality of risks, financial burdens and responsibilities being common knowledge beforehand. In regard to laws in general, we actually pass another law that states; "Ignorance of the the law is no excuse". In this case, ignorance of responsibility is no excuse.
You are also guilty of...how did you put it? "...rely highly upon emotional appeal... short on practical, rational examination."
You deliberately left out the responsibility of the father in all this and tried to bring an emotional appeal to the plight of the woman. In the majority of cases, his responsibility can, legally, be brought to bear more heavily than that of the mother if the practical, rational will is present to do so.

Because pregnancy, in relation to rights, is a juxtaposition of two competing interests, which demands thorough examination.

I fail to see how making murder-for-hire legal to solve one person's inconvenience advances our society in any direction other than downward.

I understand this appeal and the desire to project it upon those without the voice to make it. I further understand that this is just one-half of the equation.

Incorrect. Solving one half of the problem is what we have now - abortion. And in order to do so we need to end a life. What we are proposing is saving both. I call that a win-win. Consider the tax revenue generated by 60 million taxpayers who are not here since 1973 and how far that could go towards supporting the so-called plight of the poor women who are "forced into motherhood (its financial burdens and responsibilities)".

The difference is vast. The differences are the liberties at stake and how you one exclusive moral theory dictates the freedoms of another. To make a less emotional though no less equal comparison, denying constitutional freedoms cuts broader with the ISIS sword than the surgeon's knife could ever manage to achieve.

Most make the mistake of thinking that the moral pronouncements of the Bible are restrictive. This conclusion is predictable, but short sighted. The moral pronouncements of the Bible actually facilitate freedom for all.

The message of the Bible, with respect to freedom, is that none of us are free unless the Son makes us free. We are in bondage to serving ourselves continuously until we come to the point of being released from that servitude and are re-united with our Creator. It is only then that we are liberated to act morally. Liberty = morality.

 

[quip]

In principle, acting freely is not simply to choose a means to a given end. To act freely is to choose the end itself, for its own sake. To pass a law that facilitates that freedom is to choose to validate the end result. In this sense, freedom and morality are not only inter-related, they become the same thing.

I agree. Thus, when given a proper examination, the choice to abort, or not, is within the moral purview of the mother.

Although this may not be clear to some in the case of abortion, all we need do is examine other laws to find this is so. Murder, rape, theft...these are all illegal due to our decision to see them as immoral. If we thought they were morally acceptable, we would have no reason to restrict individual freedom to engage in such activities.

Other such law don't and can't parallel the circumstance involved in the choice to abort. A knee-jerk comparison of the two is specious at best.

To pass a law that deliberately encourages some individuals to formulate a specific type of morality that denies life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to another human being is unconstitutional. It denies access to the protection of the constitution, in this case, to the human being still growing in the womb. It denies access to protection, birth, life, education, marriage, a family...etc.

Asserting one theory of life at the expense another is (in an effort to restrict rights), likewise, unconstitutional. Hence, the dilemma and hence, the necessity for thorough examination.

First, I am surprised that you would even try to get that one past me. lol. Tell me where the judicial system would be if we toss individual responsibility for actions out the window. Pregnancy does not happen without the reality of risks, financial burdens and responsibilities being common knowledge beforehand. In regard to laws in general, we actually pass another law that states; "Ignorance of the the law is no excuse". In this case, ignorance of responsibility is no excuse.

This is morally prescriptive plea. It's no argument against the common right to ameliorate any risks brought upon you ..even ones wrought by your own action.

You are also guilty of...how did you put it? "...rely highly upon emotional appeal... short on practical, rational examination."
You deliberately left out the responsibility of the father in all this and tried to bring an emotional appeal to the plight of the woman. In the majority of cases, his responsibility can, legally, be brought to bear more heavily than that of the mother if the practical, rational will is present to do so.

The father has only a tertiary/supportive role in a woman's decision to abort.

I'm not sure how the rest is even relevant.

I fail to see how making murder-for-hire legal to solve one person's inconvenience advances our society in any direction other than downward.

Appeal to consequence.

Incorrect. Solving one half of the problem is what we have now - abortion. And in order to do so we need to end a life. What we are proposing is saving both. I call that a win-win.

Saving both would be optimal..though in an abortion scenario - where a woman has an undesired pregnancy - highly naive.

Consider the tax revenue generated by 60 million taxpayers who are not here since 1973 and how far that could go towards supporting the so-called plight of the poor women who are "forced into motherhood (its financial burdens and responsibilities)".

Interesting consequences abound. One such study showed that the downward trend for crime is a direct consequence of abortion since the Roe/Wade ruling. I only offer this as a counter example to show that it's a weak argument for proscibing abortion...or vice versa.

Most make the mistake of thinking that the moral pronouncements of the Bible are restrictive. This conclusion is predictable, but short sighted. The moral pronouncements of the Bible actually facilitate freedom for all.

The message of the Bible, with respect to freedom, is that none of us are free unless the Son makes us free. We are in bondage to serving ourselves continuously until we come to the point of being released from that servitude and are re-united with our Creator. It is only then that we are liberated to act morally. Liberty = morality.

That doesn't concern me nor the argument at large.

It simply presumes one theory of life...among many.