How about the people who silently protest, and yet find their Right to do so curtailed by an overzealous court?
I'm not sure what you mean about this, care to elaborate? I haven't heard of any court rulings that would prevent people from protesting?
There was an article in a Toronto paper not too long ago about a Grandmother who has been to jail for violating court orders that prevent her from silently protesting outside an abortion clinic. She makes no comments to visitors to the clinic, merely stands outside all day with a sign which states her opposition to abortion and prays quietly. The clinic staff say they feel "threatened" by this old woman, thus the court orders restricting her Rights.
Perhaps not, but there is usually plenty of "tsk tsking" behind her back if she does. And I am sure the anti-smoking zealots will get there eventually. Nothing the nanny-staters like better than curtailing ones Rights.
And I"m sure many tsks come from the religious and non religious alike.
given that there is ample ability for women and men to prevent pregnancy beforehand, should the Law not take that into account and side with the more "defenseless" of the two people involved in the abortion equation?
No birth control is 100% preventative. Condoms break, pills falter, etc etc. And I have a feeling that arguing for birth control is against some pointy-hat directives.
No, birth control is not 100% effective, but it is better than nothing, and certainly better than killing an unborn child, which as a medical procedure is no walk in the park. And yes, the Catholic Church does not like Birth Control, but there are exceptions, and I for one would certainly choose the lesser of two evils in this instance.
You haven't heard of it and neither have I, but don't you think the Religious Right would love to make this a law if they could get away with it? I'm sure we haven't heard of it only because we don't listen to the places it is said. EDIT: in looking up a link for my next point I found this. Hate to say I told you so, but... This law makes Stand Your Ground look like the Magna Carta.
This does not surprise me in any fashion.
Mark
The last bolded item makes it seem like there is supposed to be more.
I got lost between the bolded and non-bolded is all . . .
but now that you're back, how about this point . . .
All else being equal, should Laws not protect the party less able to defend/speak for itself?
And, to take it a step further, why aren't all those wonderful lefties, who so dearly love the idea of "giving voice to the voiceless", actually stepping up for those who truly have no voice? Who are the hypocrites?
We get that you do not think that an unborn child should have Rights. That is fine. Others disagree with you. A compelling argument can be made that the unborn are in every respect (save one) as much a human being as you or I. Given that, and given that there is ample ability for women and men to prevent pregnancy beforehand, should the Law not take that into account and side with the more "defenseless" of the two people involved in the abortion equation?
I got lost between the bolded and non-bolded is all . . .
but now that you're back, how about this point . . .
All else being equal, should Laws not protect the party less able to defend/speak for itself?
And, to take it a step further, why aren't all those wonderful lefties, who so dearly love the idea of "giving voice to the voiceless", actually stepping up for those who truly have no voice? Who are the hypocrites?
Not saying this tag applies to Mark.
Again, as far as I'm concerned, this is a fetus, not a person / child / party less able to defend. BigMike there drew a parallel to not considering women / minorities people in the past, and that gave me pause to ponder... we'll see what if anything I come up with.
As for "giving voice" to a fetus, you also have to consider imposing will on someone that is a fully recognized person. The girl who is pregnant feels it will ruin her life, or that she will ruin its life, or for whatever reason doesn't want a child. How can someone justify putting her freedoms on a lower tier? The argument of pre-pregnancy steps doesn't count - as mentioned, it's not 100%.
Let's say it's a potentially dangerous pregnancy and the woman wants to terminate just to protect her own life? When can she do this? 5% chance of fatality? 10%? 20%? 50%? etc etc... we can throw back and forth "what ifs" for days on end. My perceived best argument is the fact that I'm basing my opinions on - to the best of my knowledge - the most current science and my own personal stance. The religious folks base it on a book about a dude 2000 years ago or some other book / teachings. Teachings that likely originated several centuries or millennium ago, and the world is not the same. I prefer myself.
How old do you have to be to go to hell/heaven? If life begins at conception when are you responsible for yourself. Do children who die in childbirth go to heaven having not heard the 'word'? How about 10 year olds? 15? How about someone who never was exposed to Christianity?
Again, as far as I'm concerned, this is a fetus, not a person / child / party less able to defend. BigMike there drew a parallel to not considering women / minorities people in the past, and that gave me pause to ponder... we'll see what if anything I come up with.
Fair enough . . .
As for "giving voice" to a fetus, you also have to consider imposing will on someone that is a fully recognized person. The girl who is pregnant feels it will ruin her life, or that she will ruin its life, or for whatever reason doesn't want a child. How can someone justify putting her freedoms on a lower tier?
And to me, unfettered abortion is "imposing will" on a defenseless human being. So, I would go with the imposition that does not result in death for one of the two parties.
Let's say it's a potentially dangerous pregnancy and the woman wants to terminate just to protect her own life? When can she do this? 5% chance of fatality? 10%? 20%? 50%? etc etc... we can throw back and forth "what ifs" for days on end. My perceived best argument is the fact that I'm basing my opinions on - to the best of my knowledge - the most current science and my own personal stance. The religious folks base it on a book about a dude 2000 years ago or some other book / teachings. Teachings that likely originated several centuries or millennium ago, and the world is not the same. I prefer myself.
Mark
Your "perceived best argument" is that the unborn are not "people", and that "killing" them is no different morally than swatting a mosquito. I respectfully disagree.
No, I do not think abortion should be illegal. I simply think that abortion "on demand" is immoral. I think the current situation is untenable. I further believe that being the only industrialized nation on this planet with zero statutes surrounding this issue is ridiculous. The fact that our political "leaders" are too gutless to even have a discussion similar to this one is pathetic.
How old do you have to be to go to hell/heaven? If life begins at conception when are you responsible for yourself. Do children who die in childbirth go to heaven having not heard the 'word'? How about 10 year olds? 15? How about someone who never was exposed to Christianity?
Should abortion be illegal? Anyone?
I think any age limit discussion is nearly pointless, because we really have no idea. Let's say the cutoff limit is 5 years old - what happens with mentally challenged adults who function at age 4? Or even just immature 6 year olds?
I think the Catholic church has a teaching on this but I don't know it.
Abortion illegal? Tough one, but probably not. It does harm another (the only standard we should use as to whether or not something is a crime) but the person getting the abortion is hardly a risk to society at large. So what would the consequence be? Jail time? I should hope not. Fines? Many women getting abortions are in poverty or close to it as it is. The other thing is that by making it illegal, it becomes so much more dangerous to women than it is now. Trading the lives of women for unborn children isn't right either.
As for "giving voice" to a fetus, you also have to consider imposing will on someone that is a fully recognized person. The girl who is pregnant feels it will ruin her life, or that she will ruin its life, or for whatever reason doesn't want a child. How can someone justify putting her freedoms on a lower tier? The argument of pre-pregnancy steps doesn't count - as mentioned, it's not 100%.
Mark
"Ruin her life" hardly . . . but an abortion does end the life growing inside her.
Actions have consequences, except it seems when it comes to pregnancy. And we who object to the entire process are forced to pay for it. No thanks. If I/we are being expected to foot the bill, we should damn well be able to have some say in the process.
"Ruin her life" hardly . . . but an abortion does end the life growing inside her.
Actions have consequences, except it seems when it comes to pregnancy. And we who object to the entire process are forced to pay for it. No thanks. If I/we are being expected to foot the bill, we should damn well be able to have some say in the process.
Religious and atheist alike foot the bill. Abortion is the cheaper option than a potential lifetime of assistance. Shall we do the math?
Of course that anyone is forced to pay for either the abortion or the assistance is immoral.
But we will do the math. Let us assume x < y.
Abortion cost: $x + killing a person who cannot defend themselves.
Assistance cost: $y
All we have to do now to figure out what the monetary value of a human life is. Should be no problem for us - anyone want to start a new thread?
Back to definition. Fetus is not a person. So in my eyes....
Abortion cost:
$x (FWIW, in 'Murica in 2001 - quick google search - average cost was $468).
Cost of assistance:
Child Tax Benefit ($100 / m / kid under six in ON).
+ Tax credits
+ Subsidization of daycare
+ Any extraneous assistance a person may draw in their lives
- Any contributions (taxes and such).
Now, PLEASE NOTE that if anyone pulls the "you could abort the next Einstein / Gandhi / Hulk Hogan" card, I will slap you next time I see you.
Let's even say that the last two end up being a push, and don't have much justification for that since I don't care to be up googling all night. Suffice it to say, for the discussion, let's try to eliminate the unknown, but if you're interested, there is an article arguing for the end of government subsidies for children. (The Case Against Having Kids)
Having said all that, the baby bonus alone covers the cost of abortion in less than six months.
I agree. We need more people on the planet. We must hasten the extreme weather apocalyptic events that the Christian right will so gloriously believe was the act of god and had nothing to do with them denying the science of Global Warming. Anything to finally try and put an ounce of correctness into their support of ignorance, racism and pedophilia.
Amen.
PS -- tldr for the most part.
Also -- abortion clinics are fine, just not too close to mah Chinese foods.
All we have to do now to figure out what the monetary value of a human life is. Should be no problem for us - anyone want to start a new thread?
The value of a human life:
There are about 7 billion humans.
There is a well known easy and popular way of making more.
Adding more humans will have a negative effect on the environment.
The stability of an ecosystem varies with the square root of the biodiversity.
According to the WHO the planet can support at max about 1.5 to 3 billion humans at an average USA standard of living or about 18 billion people at an Indian standard of living.
An even more inconvenient truth than global warming is: There are too many humans.
Only if you do not factor in things like advancements in crop yields, heartiness of said foodstuffs, and the fact that global warming, while increasing desertification in some areas of the world is actually greening sub-Saharan Africa.
Only if you do not factor in things like advancements in crop yields, heartiness of said foodstuffs, and the fact that global warming, while increasing desertification in some areas of the world is actually greening sub-Saharan Africa.
Increasing crop yields is a bad thing.
Starvation was the main factor in controlling human populations.
More humans is a bad thing.
There are too many humans.
Good things are things like banning DDT. That kills more humans per year than Hitler did. (45million?)
Cliff notes version on the the "Age of Accountability"
God only executes this judgment on those who have the natural capacity to see His glory and understand His will, and refuse to embrace it as their treasure. Infants, I believe, do not yet have that capacity; and therefore, in God's inscrutable or mysterious way, He brings them under the forgiving blood of His Son.
See Romans 1:16-32
Don't have time for a long a long explanation, but this covers it in a nutshell.
Cliff notes version on the the "Age of Accountability"
God only executes this judgment on those who have the natural capacity to see His glory and understand His will, and refuse to embrace it as their treasure. Infants, I believe, do not yet have that capacity; and therefore, in God's inscrutable or mysterious way, He brings them under the forgiving blood of His Son.
See Romans 1:16-32
Don't have time for a long a long explanation, but this covers it in a nutshell.
Prophet22
Not looking for any explanation....just an age. 5?15?18? How about someone born in ethiopia who is 18?
Where is the homophobia, Mark. Are you saying it is not possible for a gay man, or lesbian woman to embrace God?
Seems pretty narrow minded, if you ask me.
it's OK Mark. Only gays who know God deserve death/hell. The ones who don't know God are fine. Unfotunately you and I deserve death..New Testament and all.
Romans 1:32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Not looking for any explanation....just an age. 5?15?18? How about someone born in ethiopia who is 18?
My explanation is the age and the answer to this question. - "who have the natural capacity to see His glory and understand His will", You know the answer, you seemed well versed in the NT, you have made a decision not to accept the truth that it is teaching.
You can't go anywhere on the earth that Romans 1 doesn't cover. And there is more than Romans. Read Psalms, start in chapter 19. It sounds like your trying to pick a fight with God for the things He has given to us to better understand Him and just don't like what it says. One day you will get your wish to explain your position to Him.
Comments
The last bolded item makes it seem like there is supposed to be more.
There is more in my post responding to Mark's post but he didn't respond in this post to that post in its entirety. Which is all good.
What did I not respond to precisely?
Mark
but now that you're back, how about this point . . .
All else being equal, should Laws not protect the party less able to defend/speak for itself?
And, to take it a step further, why aren't all those wonderful lefties, who so dearly love the idea of "giving voice to the voiceless", actually stepping up for those who truly have no voice? Who are the hypocrites?
Not saying this tag applies to Mark.
Again, as far as I'm concerned, this is a fetus, not a person / child / party less able to defend. BigMike there drew a parallel to not considering women / minorities people in the past, and that gave me pause to ponder... we'll see what if anything I come up with.
As for "giving voice" to a fetus, you also have to consider imposing will on someone that is a fully recognized person. The girl who is pregnant feels it will ruin her life, or that she will ruin its life, or for whatever reason doesn't want a child. How can someone justify putting her freedoms on a lower tier? The argument of pre-pregnancy steps doesn't count - as mentioned, it's not 100%.
Let's say it's a potentially dangerous pregnancy and the woman wants to terminate just to protect her own life? When can she do this? 5% chance of fatality? 10%? 20%? 50%? etc etc... we can throw back and forth "what ifs" for days on end. My perceived best argument is the fact that I'm basing my opinions on - to the best of my knowledge - the most current science and my own personal stance. The religious folks base it on a book about a dude 2000 years ago or some other book / teachings. Teachings that likely originated several centuries or millennium ago, and the world is not the same. I prefer myself.
Mark
Should abortion be illegal? Anyone?
Your "perceived best argument" is that the unborn are not "people", and that "killing" them is no different morally than swatting a mosquito. I respectfully disagree.
No, I do not think abortion should be illegal. I simply think that abortion "on demand" is immoral. I think the current situation is untenable. I further believe that being the only industrialized nation on this planet with zero statutes surrounding this issue is ridiculous. The fact that our political "leaders" are too gutless to even have a discussion similar to this one is pathetic.
I think any age limit discussion is nearly pointless, because we really have no idea. Let's say the cutoff limit is 5 years old - what happens with mentally challenged adults who function at age 4? Or even just immature 6 year olds?
I think the Catholic church has a teaching on this but I don't know it.
The bible does speak to the issue of those not exposed to Christianity.
Abortion illegal? Tough one, but probably not. It does harm another (the only standard we should use as to whether or not something is a crime) but the person getting the abortion is hardly a risk to society at large. So what would the consequence be? Jail time? I should hope not. Fines? Many women getting abortions are in poverty or close to it as it is. The other thing is that by making it illegal, it becomes so much more dangerous to women than it is now. Trading the lives of women for unborn children isn't right either.
"Ruin her life" hardly . . . but an abortion does end the life growing inside her.
Actions have consequences, except it seems when it comes to pregnancy. And we who object to the entire process are forced to pay for it. No thanks. If I/we are being expected to foot the bill, we should damn well be able to have some say in the process.
Religious and atheist alike foot the bill. Abortion is the cheaper option than a potential lifetime of assistance. Shall we do the math?
Mark
Of course that anyone is forced to pay for either the abortion or the assistance is immoral.
But we will do the math. Let us assume x < y.
Abortion cost: $x + killing a person who cannot defend themselves.
Assistance cost: $y
All we have to do now to figure out what the monetary value of a human life is. Should be no problem for us - anyone want to start a new thread?
Which one? I answered your question re: should abortion be illegal.
I answered it too. Not satisfactorily?
Back to definition. Fetus is not a person. So in my eyes....
Abortion cost:
$x (FWIW, in 'Murica in 2001 - quick google search - average cost was $468).
Cost of assistance:
Child Tax Benefit ($100 / m / kid under six in ON).
+ Tax credits
+ Subsidization of daycare
+ Any extraneous assistance a person may draw in their lives
- Any contributions (taxes and such).
Now, PLEASE NOTE that if anyone pulls the "you could abort the next Einstein / Gandhi / Hulk Hogan" card, I will slap you next time I see you.
Let's even say that the last two end up being a push, and don't have much justification for that since I don't care to be up googling all night. Suffice it to say, for the discussion, let's try to eliminate the unknown, but if you're interested, there is an article arguing for the end of government subsidies for children. (The Case Against Having Kids)
Having said all that, the baby bonus alone covers the cost of abortion in less than six months.
Mark
Amen.
PS -- tldr for the most part.
Also -- abortion clinics are fine, just not too close to mah Chinese foods.
The value of a human life:
There are about 7 billion humans.
There is a well known easy and popular way of making more.
Adding more humans will have a negative effect on the environment.
The stability of an ecosystem varies with the square root of the biodiversity.
According to the WHO the planet can support at max about 1.5 to 3 billion humans at an average USA standard of living or about 18 billion people at an Indian standard of living.
An even more inconvenient truth than global warming is: There are too many humans.
Increasing crop yields is a bad thing.
Starvation was the main factor in controlling human populations.
More humans is a bad thing.
There are too many humans.
Good things are things like banning DDT. That kills more humans per year than Hitler did. (45million?)
Where do you start your "cull"? Is it a case of population control for thee, but not for we? Or are you thinking about a Logan's Run kind of deal?
Cliff notes version on the the "Age of Accountability"
God only executes this judgment on those who have the natural capacity to see His glory and understand His will, and refuse to embrace it as their treasure. Infants, I believe, do not yet have that capacity; and therefore, in God's inscrutable or mysterious way, He brings them under the forgiving blood of His Son.
See Romans 1:16-32
Don't have time for a long a long explanation, but this covers it in a nutshell.
Prophet22
Props for equally hating on the lesbians and gay men though... however, giving over to a debased mind sounds like a good plan for the long weekend...
Mark
Seems pretty narrow minded, if you ask me.
Not looking for any explanation....just an age. 5?15?18? How about someone born in ethiopia who is 18?
it's OK Mark. Only gays who know God deserve death/hell. The ones who don't know God are fine. Unfotunately you and I deserve death..New Testament and all.
Romans 1:32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
My explanation is the age and the answer to this question. - "who have the natural capacity to see His glory and understand His will", You know the answer, you seemed well versed in the NT, you have made a decision not to accept the truth that it is teaching.
You can't go anywhere on the earth that Romans 1 doesn't cover. And there is more than Romans. Read Psalms, start in chapter 19. It sounds like your trying to pick a fight with God for the things He has given to us to better understand Him and just don't like what it says. One day you will get your wish to explain your position to Him.
Prophet22