|
Post by Liberator on Jun 5, 2009 2:22:59 GMT
There is also a religious paradox. I should keep this separate because not everybody believes in it (and I don't think I do). It runs that at some stage a fetus becomes 'ensouled', old language 'quickened'. Many religious believers will say that before that time there is only a kind of tumour, but at a certain stage it develops or perhaps attracts, or creates from universal 'spirituality' a 'soul'. A lot of this stuff is not originally Christian but they developed it from earlier speculations that we might consider combine psychology with metaphysics and we think developed from Plato. Personally, I see 'soul' as meaning 'emotions', 'spirit' as 'animation'. We have close parallels today in 'games' like 'Second Life': the 'body' you choose as avatar, the 'soul' is how you choose to ruin it, but the 'spirit' the mind sitting behind thinking about running the game at all. We may be the first people in fifteen centuries with an idea of different psychological levels.
But the conventional objection to abortion is that it kills a potential person. So? What is this 'person'? Why should it not be 'killed'? Most anti-abortionists are far more ready to kill than the liberals they put down as 'hypocrites' because they reject killing what they accept as human beings.
So we must assume that the anti-abortionist believes in an ensoulment that no religion has ever agreed upon. The Old Testament goes to the ultimate extreme that even Rome balks at, in condemning Onan because he tortured himself with coitus interruptus and aborted his child before it could even be 'planted'! Understanding at that time was that the woman fertilised the man's seed.
If an eternal soul becomes somehow 'trapped' in a fetus, what does killing that fetus do except to liberate it back from birth? Some 'heretics' believing in the evil of 'creation' approved of contraceptions and abortion sparing 'souls' the torment of being forced into incarnation. I might not take it so literally but I agree with their general ideal.
There is always a 'moral' hypocrisy under extremists in the abortion discussion (which is here more a legal one than a moral). You could say that abortion opponents are motivated by the 'god' [imagined moral belief system] of tradional vindictiveness, abortion sympathisers split between those wanting women to de-feminise themselves to fit the world made to exploit men, and those who don't want that world but do feel that a woman should control what happens inside her own body.
Let's appeal to 'Nature'. We can disagrewe with exactly how we see it, but abortion is common. In a very few animals, rabbits for one, the female digests her own embryoes. But in Australia, marsupials have a double birth. As embryoes they crawl after a few days to the pouch external womb and gestate there. If the mother is threatened, she will throw the 'joey' from her external womb to save herself and less dependent young. If it's good enough for kangeroos, why don't religious fanatics believing God made kangeroos think it good enough for us?
I can believe that that is animal and we are better. It's just that 'better' means to me, more caring, less animal 'individuality', more female, less feminist.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2009 6:57:11 GMT
That is a really interesting post, ratarsed - though you couldn't resist poppin in the "f" word right at the end, could you? Dealing with your last point I also think we can learn about ourselves from animals; but I believe in evolution, and I suspect that many abortionists are creationists, who would proably reject that idea.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jun 5, 2009 7:22:15 GMT
If a child becomes human at conception, should every miscarriage be investigated under the same rules for the deaths of born people?
If a child becomes human at conception, should pregnant women who smoke or drink or ski (or whatever) be prosecuted for reckless endangerment?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jun 5, 2009 9:40:45 GMT
On the other hand, as a firm supporter of 'situation ethics,' I believe that we have to take tough decisions in life. Yes, that is why, on balance, I prefer to leave the chioce with only people who are able to make the tough decisions. That is the people who will be most affected by the rammifications of those decisions. It is easy for us sitting here double guessing what these women go through, we are not living their lives. So I am pro chioce, but as a society we have to support that chioce. The best way to ensure that abortions are not carried out, is to make sure women are given the options to bring up a child in a healthy environment.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2009 19:56:08 GMT
If a child becomes human at conception, should every miscarriage be investigated under the same rules for the deaths of born people? If a child becomes human at conception, should pregnant women who smoke or drink or ski (or whatever) be prosecuted for reckless endangerment? Thank your lucky stars that people have not cottoned onto the fact that our unfertilised eggs are just as alive as the fertilised ones. We might be faced with an obligation to have unprotected sex at every possible opportunity to maximise their chances of survival. Well, you might, anyway. I'm past all that!
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 5, 2009 21:07:20 GMT
That is a really interesting post, ratarsed - though you couldn't resist poppin in the "f" word right at the end, could you? Dealing with your last point I also think we can learn about ourselves from animals; but I believe in evolution, and I suspect that many abortionists are creationists, who would proably reject that idea. Speaking of animals there have been a number of trials in Germany against animal rights activists, who compare experiments on animals and slaughterhouses with the holocaust. A recent ruling by a German court has made it clear that anyone making this comparison is breaking the law in Germany. www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3693116,00.html
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jun 6, 2009 9:12:05 GMT
If a child becomes human at conception, should every miscarriage be investigated under the same rules for the deaths of born people? If a child becomes human at conception, should pregnant women who smoke or drink or ski (or whatever) be prosecuted for reckless endangerment? Thank your lucky stars that people have not cottoned onto the fact that our unfertilised eggs are just as alive as the fertilised ones. We might be faced with an obligation to have unprotected sex at every possible opportunity to maximise their chances of survival. Well, you might, anyway. I'm past all that! I'm 43 with fibroids . . I hope I'd be excused. Lol!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2009 15:40:08 GMT
That advert was deliberately provocative, I think and designed to give offence, so deserves to be banned. However I think that the suffering of the Jewish people in the holocaust has more in common with cruelty to sentient animals than with abortion.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jun 7, 2009 23:37:34 GMT
If a child becomes human at conception, should every miscarriage be investigated under the same rules for the deaths of born people? If a child becomes human at conception, should pregnant women who smoke or drink or ski (or whatever) be prosecuted for reckless endangerment? Well here's the other side of that: I think I have heard of severely disabled people suing for being born when the parents knew their condition as well. Miscarriage at a stage too early to be noticed is far commoner than generally known. That warps the anti-abortion argument, as does that medical statistics did not used to distinguish natural from induced abortion. I don't like possibilities of abortion leading to the view that if you can't afford it, get rid of it, your job is to work not indulge yourself with children as an excuse to provide support. In particular I remember being told that the only people exempted from employment in the USSR were married women. For all Trotsky's short-lived abolition of the family, it's obvious now what a hold traditional morality kept and any single woman wanting a child could bloody well do her duty to the State first or get married. I don't see our attitude to Welfare Spongers as any different and neither did the Yanks in the same coach as me - they all applauded when Intourist quoted St. Paul out of context (so what - St. Paul is always quoted out of context) with "Those who do not work shall not eat". I just happen to prefer the eating to the working just for the sake of it. Then again, you should see the total loony-toons against Obama as a stooge in the American eugenics effort to exterminate their black population, including by abortion. (Actually I would not put such a policy beyond some of their more extreme nutters, just that Obama has damn-all to do with it). I think I copied it somewhere here. Skylark, I hope you meant anti-abortionists are Creationists. Actually, few people are pro-abortion and most pro- choice actually anti- abortion: if you must, you must, but better to remove the need. But Creationists go far beyond more fossilised animals prowling around the planet has room for. They were all vegetarians as well! Human knowledge of Good and Evil not only buggered the human race but the whole of Creation too! Which, when you think about it, makes no sense whatsoever: the god of morality cursed the whole of Creation because human beings learnt morality? More like a morality tale that Intelligence can see that 'Creation' falls far short of anything we can consider 'moral' enough for us.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jun 8, 2009 0:07:33 GMT
Ratarsed, I am anti-abortion (or, as I prefer to call myself, pro-life) but I am certainly NOT a Creationist.
I am a Christian but I believe that God works through evolution.
My opposition to abortion except in specific cases where there is good reason for allowing one is based on respect for human life.
As a gypsy, I have to tell you that the Romanies are fiercely opposed to abortion and I am considered too pro-choice by some of my Roma sisters and brothers.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2009 5:42:48 GMT
ratarsed, I can't find my post which refers to this but if I said that creationists were pro-abortion I must have been having a bad day!
Creationists are likely (I suspect) to be anti-abortion; that doesn't of course rule out others from holding this view.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jun 8, 2009 12:53:17 GMT
Ratarsed, I am anti-abortion (or, as I prefer to call myself, pro-life) but I am certainly NOT a Creationist. I am a Christian but I believe that God works through evolution. My opposition to abortion except in specific cases where there is good reason for allowing one is based on respect for human life. As a gypsy, I have to tell you that the Romanies are fiercely opposed to abortion and I am considered too pro-choice by some of my Roma sisters and brothers. That's their choice but for some people, if it's not all their way it's all the other. 'pro-abortion' is as much campaigner propaganda as 'pro-life' (if you don't agree you are 'anti-life' or 'pro-death' and it isn't just 'choice'). Creationists really are a rare modern American phenomenon. None of the recognised churches has any problems with evolution. I can imagine though that Creationists probably oppose abortion on any terms as much as they seem hostile to everything else except their god-given right to shoot anybody who actually has been born. I recognise the arguments. Don't particularly agree with them but I don't have much time for people who dismiss them as just men wanting control over women's fertility - if that were the case, abortion would be mandatory! I'm all for choice but I'm even more for doing as much as possible to make the choice unnecessary. One thing I would like to see that I'm sure is or soon will be possible, is to treat abortion more as premature delivery and keep it alive if possible. There's usually people willing to adopt a baby somewhere. If early enough, there might one day be the possibility of a transplant. We are not a child-firendly or even a people-friendly society but we are getting a whole lot better than we used to be. Not as good as the Latins though.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 9, 2009 14:57:26 GMT
Unfortunately there is little about Johannes Lerle's trial and conviction in English. In my half hour talk with him a number of years ago we seemed to gravitate to the points where we disagreed, but i held my ground! Despite our disagreements i still see him as one of the good guys. www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2211 QUOTE: Secularist Europe Silences Pro-Lifers and Creationists From the desk of Paul Belien on Sat, 2007-06-23 18:53 Last week, a German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for “Volksverhetzung” (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust. Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe’s official ideology. The European governments are asked to fight the expression of creationist opinions, such as young earth and intelligent design theories. According to the Council of Europe these theories are “undemocratic” and “a threat to human rights.” Without legalized abortion the number of German children would increase annually by at least 150,000 – which is the number of legal abortions in birth dearth Germany. Pastor Johannes Lerle compared the killing of the unborn to the killing of the Jews in Auschwitz during the Second World War. On 14 June, a court in Erlangen ruled that, in doing so, the pastor had “incited the people” because his statement was a denial of the holocaust of the Jews in Nazi-Germany. Hence, Herr Lerle was sentenced to one year in jail. Earlier, he had already spent eight months in jail for calling abortionists “professional killers” – an allegation which the court ruled to be slanderous because, according to the court, the unborn are not humans. Other German courts convicted pro-lifers for saying that “in abortion clinics, life unworthy of living is being killed,” because this terminology evoked Hitler’s euthanasia program, which used the same language. In 2005, a German pro-lifer, Günter Annen, was sentenced to 50 days in jail for saying “Stop unjust [rechtswidrige] abortions in [medical] practice,” because, according to the court, the expression “unjust” is understood by laymen as meaning illegal, which abortions are not. Volksverhetzung is a crime which the Nazis often invoked against their enemies and which contemporary Germany also uses to intimidate homeschoolers. Soon, the German authorities will be able to use the same charge against people who question Darwin’s evolution theory.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 9, 2009 15:09:15 GMT
Anti-abortionist activist Günter Annen was involved in another "high profile case". He was also prosecuted in Germany for comparing the Holocaust with the Babycaust! www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2259 QUOTE: A German appeals court convicted a man for calling abortion “murder.” Klaus Günter Annen, a father of two, runs a Web site where he asks people to pray for “doctors planning an abortion murder.” On a separate Web page he lists German gynecologists who perform abortions. Last Thursday, the Oberlandesgericht in Karlsruhe stated that since abortionists do nothing illegal, no one is allowed — not even in an indirect way — to call them murderers.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jun 10, 2009 2:33:27 GMT
I agree really with a girlfriend of 1980 who was then running British Mensa's Women in society group "Abortion is a male crime". Pregnancy is something women do. 'Society' is based on exploiting men. So the argument is always about how to fit women in to the same exploitation and values as men. It is never about changing those values, or society, or men. The greatest opposition to such a change, and greatest believers in supremacy of 'masculinity' and contempt for all things associated with women call themselves 'feminists'. Of course there are other 'feminists' who've thought quite differently, just as not all 'Communists' agreed with Stalin. But we know what Stalin did to them. These 'feminists' do it to men and women who disagree with their glorification of conservative traditionally 'masculine' values.
|
|