If he doesn’t exist, then neither will happen. My money’s on …
I’d complain about how this thread is drifting off-topic, but then I see the title I gave it, so my bad.
There are lots of things I disapprove of…but don’t take action against. There are behaviors, beliefs, activities, entire social sectors, I think are icky.
If I keep this view solely in the privacy of my own mind, and don’t act or speak…then, yeah, I’m still a bigot, but a victimless one.
This is probably true for a fuck of a lot of people. I’m sure there are gobs of “silent racists” out there, people who have personal racist opinions, but who have the grace to try to hide this from view. They’re still racists, they just are doing much less harm to society than the overt KKK members with their flyer-bombardment of suburban neighborhoods in southern California.
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it…
When homosexuals hear that it’s wrong, what they’re being told is this:
You are wrong, you are broken, you shouldn’t love that way, it’s not real or valid love, it’s the wrong person you love, you need to be fixed, and your feelings for the person you love don’t count.
There isn’t always an alternative, even for those who really wanted the baby:
http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/
and here is a woman who died because doctors refused to do a therapeutic abortion even though the fetus was already miscarrying:
It’s even worse in El Salvador:
I believed those concepts when I was a kid going to the baptist church–because I was told they were true.
I’ve had many years since then to experience doubt, unresolvable paradoxes, contradictions, obsolescence, and more.
Nope, the earth being created in 6 days makes no more sense to me than the story of the global flood, the concept of hell, or the blood sacrifice.
Classic response. Brave, brave Sir Robin.
Knock it off.
He did not declare “victory” or call anyone either stupid or damned. He is clearly not going to persuade anyone who does not already agree with him and he is politely declaring that he is finished sparring. There is no purpose to your post.
[ /Moderating ]
My apologies. It was very rude.
Now this is a great comeback response. Well done for showing some humility, Sir. 
And we don’t let children drive, drink alcohol, or have sex. Shouldn’t they have a say in those matters?
And if the fetus has the right to use a woman’s body without her permission. who’s next? A rapist? You can shoot and kill someone who is in your house without your permission for five minutes, but another “person” should be allowed to take over your whole body and life for nine months?
Can you show me a society that outlawed abortion yet treated women equally?
I’m glad I stay out of abortion debates. Both sides have strong points that I respect.
The questions I Look to be answered are pretty simple:
- Is a fetus a person (or an it)?
- If yes, does this mean he or she has rights that should be protected?
- If no, does this mean “it” has no rights, and thus the mother can choose what she wants to do with “it?”
But if you look at some of the cases mentioned in post 425, it’s not so simple after all.
And both sides should be left free to practice their beliefs without being imposed upon by the other.
A “person” is a term of law, not fact. We can legislate yes, or we can legislate no. However, if you permit opinions, my opinion is no, “it” is not a person.
Actually, yes. That’s the genius of the Roe v. Wade decision. It specifies a graduated and incremental role of the government, and the state’s waxing interest in the welfare of the fetus. It proposes that, in the earliest phases of the pregnancy, the state’s role is minimal and the fetus has the fewest protections, given its extremely primitive state of development. In the latest phases of the pregnancy, as the development increases and viability is approached or attained, the government has a greater interest and right to intervene.
This is a classic compromise, with almost Solomonic wisdom. It should serve as a paragon of good rule, something that causes both sides to feel that they have gained some of what they want, even as it causes both sides to feel that they have lost some of what they want.
Per the above, almost no rights in the beginning, and more rights (or, specifically, the interests of others in its protection) during later terms.
My personal view is against this latter, and would afford the fetus zero protection until the bright line of birth and breath. But the Supreme Court found a way to respect everyone’s interests in this case.
The pro-life side should never have vilified Roe v. Wade, but should have celebrated it as one of the best possible answers to a hugely divisive question.
Excuse me, what? Speaking as a pro-lifer, what could I possibly find to celebrate in Roe v. Wade? From our point of view, children one day after conception are as much members of the human family, and as deserving of protection, as children one day after birth. Roe v. Wade, as a ‘compromise’, makes about as much sense as Stephen Douglas’ ‘compromise’ position on slavery.
The only solution I could possibly ‘celebrate’ would be one that banned abortion, with stringent penalties, but made reasonable exceptions for serious medical threats to the mother’s health. No doubt it’s unpleasant to have to bear a child you’d rather not, but those concerns are absolutely trivial compared to the life of a child, and shouldn’t have much weight in how we judge these issues.
Thank you for your post here. You should be a judge, especially the way you think and analyze things so logically.
My personal belief, which I do not claim on solid ground, is that until God breathes the breath of life in the “fetus” it is not a person. I believe that occurs at birth as you believe, but you bring up a great point…the Supreme Court probably did look to compromise this issue to please all parties (even though pro lifers don’t see that as being good for their side).
You’re aware that early Christians generally believed that abortion was murder, that a lot of late first and early second century texts explicitly condemn it, that as far as i can tell none of them seriously disagreed about that, that Basil of Ancyra explicitly said ‘abortion is murder, whether the fetus be formed or unformed’, that his views were upheld at the sixth ecumenical council, and that early Christians generally, at the very least, dated the divine personhood of Jesus Christ starting from his conception, right? Put differently, when John the Baptist did homage to Jesus when he was still in the womb, if John wasn’t a person, then who was doing homage?
I don’t consider myself a particularly ‘orthodox’ Christian, and I don’t agree with you on a lot of the sex stuff (including homosexuality, the moral status of which I’m agnostic about), but abortion, unlike homosexuality, strikes me as an issue on which Christians should have very little ground for disagreeing. Clement of Alexandria mentions personhood starting at conception as an issue on which even orthodox Christians and Gnostics could agree, which should emphasize for you how universal was the agreement on it. (As someone more than a bit sympathetic to the Gnostics, that’s an argument that strongly confirms my conviction that abortion is always killing a baby, no matter how early the stage).
I’m aware of the arguments of this debate, as well as the Christian history, but based on my research, I am not convinced beyond doubt, that life begins at conception. I respect your right to believe such and maybe you are right. Like I previously said, my belief here on this topic is tenuous at best.
May I invite you to ponder this thought experiment (I don’t mean this in any kind of hostile or confrontational way - I just think it’s an interesting question). You are under no obligation to answer me…
You’re a lab technician in a fertility clinic and a fire breaks out and quickly rages out of control. As you exit the building, you find a three-year-old child lying unconscious on the floor. No idea how he got there, but there he is.
You have the following choice:
[ul]
[li]Carry the child to safety as you leave.[/li][li]Rescue a metal canister than contains over 1,000 frozen, fertilised human ova.[/li][/ul]
The fire is out of control and you will certainly not be able to re-enter the building - you actually might not even make it out. You can’t possibly carry both, so which do you choose?
This isn’t a valid argument. If I had the chance to save a 6-yr-old child or a 90-yr-old man, I’d save the child. That doesn’t make killing the 90-yr-old legal. I’m pro-choice, but I can’t sit by and let this pass.
No, not even if it had a billion fertilized human ova. You’re asking for a value judgment, which is a different thing than a legal definition. Perhaps it puts things in perspective a little (“How many fertilized ova would it take to be commensurate with a child?”) but it doesn’t answer the question, and only sheds a dim light on the subject.
I’d probably save the single 6-yr-old over 1000 90-yr-olds. That doesn’t make the 90-yr-olds undeserving of the legal status of human.
None of which has anything to do with Christians defending their stance against homosexuality.