|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2009 5:36:04 GMT
Except in cases of rape, or if advised so by a doctor because of fatal health risks for the mother or child Why does that make a difference? If you believe that a child becomes a child at conception and has rights, then what matter does it make if that baby was the result of a rape? Surely it is no less a human because its father comitted a rape? Yes, that has always been my view too. I don't happen to believe that an embryo has (or should have) rights, but if it does, it shouldn't matter how it is created. But to some here it seems that those created by rape, or quite deliberately in a laboratory, are dispesible, while those formed as a result of failed contraception must be preserved at all costs.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jun 8, 2009 13:01:42 GMT
There is a hypocrisy in using moral arguments and then slipping the proviso except rape or incest. Well no: if the moral argument holds then it holds under all conditions. If it does not hold under some conditions then it does not hold. It's like a bucket: either holds water or doesn't but it can't have a conditional hole!
Now, I have seen reference to a way out of this but I can't remember what it's called. As might be expected, it's something the Jesuits are keen on. Effectively it's a matter of greater good or worse evil kind of argument - better to allow an abortion than a suicide because then only one life is lost and not both. I don't see how anybody who believes in an immortal soul can bother about abortion: if it's immortal it's just skipped a few years!
|
|
♫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 8, 2009 16:17:48 GMT
There is a hypocrisy in using moral arguments and then slipping the proviso except rape or incest. Well no: if the moral argument holds then it holds under all conditions. If it does not hold under some conditions then it does not hold. It's like a bucket: either holds water or doesn't but it can't have a conditional hole! Now, I have seen reference to a way out of this but I can't remember what it's called. As might be expected, it's something the Jesuits are keen on. Effectively it's a matter of greater good or worse evil kind of argument - better to allow an abortion than a suicide because then only one life is lost and not both. I don't see how anybody who believes in an immortal soul can bother about abortion: if it's immortal it's just skipped a few years! Dearest Retarsed! I've seen this black and white concept of morality before and it can easily be refuted ad absurdum. In criminal justice on another forum this same robotic concept is used to argue that every sentence for say murder should be exactly the same! That's saying for instance the automatic death penalty for every murderer and mitigating and aggravating circumstances are ignored or considered irrelevant.
|
|
♫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 8, 2009 16:23:31 GMT
Except in cases of rape, or if advised so by a doctor because of fatal health risks for the mother or child Why does that make a difference? If you believe that a child becomes a child at conception and has rights, then what matter does it make if that baby was the result of a rape? Surely it is no less a human because its father comitted a rape? I for instance interpret Jesus' parable in Matthew 13 of the good seeds and the bad seeds very literally! The good seeds are those human beings with human souls! The bad seeds have a human form, but the soul of a demon! If a woman is raped by a demon she has absolutely no obligation to bear that demon's child! I see absolutely no conflict in morality here!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2009 16:52:03 GMT
Anna, how on earth would the children born as a result of rape feel if they read 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 8, 2009 17:22:16 GMT
Anna, how on earth would the children born as a result of rape feel if they read that! If the child is born, due to rape, i would judge neither the child or the mother and assume that the child has a human soul, like his/her mother! I'm sure any person would feel hurt, if it's revealed to them that they were born because of a criminal rape! We have to be decisive in life and make decisions and move on! God doesn't expect us to make every call right, but indecisiveness is often even more of a sin!
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jun 9, 2009 0:01:36 GMT
If a woman is raped by a demon she has absolutely no obligation to bear that demon's child! I see absolutely no conflict in morality here! So it is not really about the child as a human then? Surely if you believe that the child becomes a child at conception and that all human life is sacred, then that child is human, irrespective of the child's father? How can a child be less human because of the fact that the child's father is a rapist? Come on either the child is a human being or it is not.
|
|
|
Post by mindy on Jun 9, 2009 1:49:39 GMT
If a woman is raped by a demon she has absolutely no obligation to bear that demon's child! I see absolutely no conflict in morality here! So it is not really about the child as a human then? Surely if you believe that the child becomes a child at conception and that all human life is sacred, then that child is human, irrespective of the child's father? How can a child be less human because of the fact that the child's father is a rapist? Come on either the child is a human being or it is not. Yes, obviously it IS! But not a human being made out of love, attraction or even lust, a human being made from a ruthless crime. And a woman who is actually the victim of such a horrendous act should not have to feel obligated to carry a pregnancy full term because of something horrible that happened to her, that she didn't even willingly do. That's TOTALLY different than getting pregnant because you allowed it to happen! If you didn't allow it to happen, but it happened by a forceful act, then it shouldn't have happened at all.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2009 5:27:32 GMT
Mindy, a human being created by rape - or test tube - is no less a human being than one created by love or mutual lust. That is the point some of us are trying to make.
If you base an anti-abortion argument purely on the premise that if a woman consents to sex she should suffer the consequences of pregnancy (for whatever reason), that is very different to saying that the embryo or foetus has "rights".
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jun 9, 2009 6:46:49 GMT
In a perfect society, no child should suffer from poverty or discriomination. No woman should find her pregnancy a 'problem' because it would accept that both sexes are equal and women fo this pregnancy thing that men cannot. sorry to raise it, but I know from experience of trying to support women's equality, that the most ferocious opposition to preven t any change to 'men' or 'society' comes from self-styled 'feminists'. There are always those who use immediate concerns to sell out to greater - in the USA,it is red-neck opposition to Federal control over State denial of rights, in Britain it is manipulating support for the likes of UKIP and BNP to suppress strong protection against corporate world domination.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 9, 2009 8:18:36 GMT
You should indeed be 'sorry' to 'raise it', ratarsed, because you have no such 'experience' to raise.
And please don't equate feminism with 'the likes of UKIP and BNP'.
Is it any wonder I have to keep intervening to correct the nonsense you write?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jun 9, 2009 9:20:53 GMT
Yes, obviously it IS! But not a human being made out of love, attraction or even lust, a human being made from a ruthless crime. But does that make the foetus any less of a child, by your own criteria? The anti abortionist argument is centred on a couple of points including the medical development of the embryo. They argue that an embryo with, for example, a functioning heart, a nervous system or a reaction to stimulus. Surely, if such criteria are the basis for determining life, then the manner of the conception is simply not relevant. You could not argue that a child’s heart is less developed because of the intentions or the motivation of the father. And a woman who is actually the victim of such a horrendous act should not have to feel obligated to carry a pregnancy full term because of something horrible that happened to her, that she didn't even willingly do. That's TOTALLY different than getting pregnant because you allowed it to happen! If you didn't allow it to happen, but it happened by a forceful act, then it shouldn't have happened at all. This is the crux of the matter. This whole debate is not about the welfare of the child, this is about punishing, and controlling the body of the ‘woman’ (never the men BTW) for her immoral behaviour. You cannot argue that life begins at conception, and then suggest a list of moral exceptions. You either accept the case for abortion or you do not. A moral code you wish to impose on other based on our own legitimate beliefs. You should live your life according to your own moral code and I for one will applaud you on that, but what gives you the moral authority to decide how others live their life?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2009 9:50:54 GMT
That's an excellent post, RV. I'm uneasy about suggesting that all the "antis" here want to control women's bodies, but deep down somewhere seems to be a belief that somehow the destiny of a woman who chooses sex is in childbirth, whether that is her intention or not. The callousness of some here in their dismissal of the distress that an unplanned pregnancy can cause is sometimes mind-boggling.
My suspicion is that people's hostility is based on a seed of belief , often with a religious base, that is passed on through various cultures. There may or may not be logic behind it, but it is hard for people to shake off once it has taken hold.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jun 9, 2009 11:13:48 GMT
I'm uneasy about suggesting that all the "antis" here want to control women's bodies. But scratch the surface behind the argumenet and it is the the usual statements that come out: "SHE should have..." "SHE is a..." "Her action have..." "SHE needs to..." "Her imoral..." Look at the posts on this thread and count the statements that relate to female behaviour, rather than the welfare of the child. Sooner or later, it always ends up condemning the woman rather than the welfare of the child.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2009 11:49:35 GMT
There are certainly a good many of those, RV, but I don't want to lump all the anti=abortionists together. I deliberately chose to look at IVF because it is at the opposite end of the spectrum to rape. Anna has said that the eggs implanted in a woman are not embryos, but they have, none the less, began the process of cell division. Multiple "eggs" (or embryos") are implanted and some or all do not survive. If so many survive that a multiple pregnanacy looks likely , some are then removed - The following is a Catholic viewpoint which you may or may not share, but I have no reason to doubt what they say about the process of IVF IVF is a laboratory technique by which human embryos are conceived in a petri dish which contains a culture medium. The woman is given hormones which stimulate her ovaries to produce up to 30 or more oocyte (ova). These are retrieved by inserting a needle into the ovaries via the vagina with ultrasound guidance. These oocyte are mixed with sperm. The sperm is obtained by masturbation and is usually donated by the husband. If the husband is infertile however, the sperm may be obtained from another man. If the women is infertile, likewise, the oocyte may be obtained from another woman, whose ovaries have been similarly stimulated. The embryos thus conceived are usually allowed to grow up to the four-to-eight-cell stage over three to four days, at which time some of the embryos are implanted in the woman's uterus.
----------------------------------------------------------- Because of the availability of new culture media, it has recently become possible to let the embryos grow for up to seven days, by which time, only the most vigorous survive. This reduces the number of embryos implanted and increases the number of successful implantations, while also reducing the number of multiple pregnancies. Note that most embryos (up to 19 out of 20), conceived in IVF clinics eventually die. If they are not implanted, they are either "donated" for research, in which case they are killed, or they are kept in cold storage in very low temperatures after which most are disposed of, or eventually die. Since frequently several embryos are implanted at one time, multiple pregnancies occur. Not infrequently, early in pregnancy, some of these embryos are killed by injection of potassium chloride into the embryo's heart. This procedure is euphemistically called "fetal reduction."
The article continues.
|
|
♫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 14:40:44 GMT
If a woman is raped by a demon she has absolutely no obligation to bear that demon's child! I see absolutely no conflict in morality here! So it is not really about the child as a human then? Surely if you believe that the child becomes a child at conception and that all human life is sacred, then that child is human, irrespective of the child's father? How can a child be less human because of the fact that the child's father is a rapist? Come on either the child is a human being or it is not. First off RV, I'm not a fetishistic worshipper of the human form! It's our God given soul that makes us beautiful, not the outer appearance! As the Jesus says in Matthew 13 there are the "good seeds" and the "bad seeds and both possess a human form. No one here is allknowing and i oppose the "absolutists" on both sides, who claim to know more than is possible. Our dear Pastor Johannes Lerle, who i spoke of on another thread would accuse me of advocating murder here and supporting the "Babycaust". I stand my ground however and oppose the kill for money, convenience and comfort other side as well. If a woman is raped and inseminated by some demonic criminal she should pray for guidance and do what her heart tells her to do.. the morning after pill is a preferred option, but if the woman feels compelled to accept the pregnancy then i will assume the child will not "do the lusts of his father" as Christ spoke of, concerning certain hell bound criminals. In the US it's INNOCENT, until PROVEN GUILTY! No RV i can't scientically prove what you're questioning, but i believe in spiritual guidance, if your heart is open to it!
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jun 9, 2009 21:00:45 GMT
As the Jesus says in Matthew 13 there are the "good seeds" and the "bad seeds and both possess a human form. Surely any woman willing to contemplate having an abortion would automatically render her a ‘bad seed’ by the same criteria, thus making her spawn ‘open season’? Why do you assume only the male is capable of evil acts? Surely the female could be this ‘demon spirit too? If a woman is raped and inseminated by some demonic criminal she should pray for guidance and do what her heart tells her to do So what if any woman prays for guidance under any circumstances and the answer she gets is ‘abort the child’? Surely you accept that all this talk about “demonic criminals” in human form may be part of sincerely held belief, but cannot form part of a rational debate on social policy?
|
|
♫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 21:41:07 GMT
As the Jesus says in Matthew 13 there are the "good seeds" and the "bad seeds and both possess a human form. Surely any woman willing to contemplate having an abortion would automatically render her a ‘bad seed’ by the same criteria, thus making her spawn ‘open season’? Why do you assume only the male is capable of evil acts? Surely the female could be this ‘demon spirit too? If a woman is raped and inseminated by some demonic criminal she should pray for guidance and do what her heart tells her to do So what if any woman prays for guidance under any circumstances and the answer she gets is ‘abort the child’? Surely you accept that all this talk about “demonic criminals” in human form may be part of sincerely held belief, but cannot form part of a rational debate on social policy? Dearest RV! On another forum i put up a very controversial thread: "Deciding over Life and Death", using the Titanic as an example. In some respects life on this planet is like the sinking Titanic. Anyone on the sinking Titanic fiting the description "demonic criminal" wouldn't have gotten a seat on the life boats-certainly not with someone like me deciding.. If i made a bad call, but believed in my heart i'm right, well i'm probably just as innocent as the referee making a wrong call in a football gamme. Intellectuals and Moralists often say "No one has the right to decide over life and death!" With this logic there would have been no survivors on the Titanic because no one would have prevented the panicking passangers from storming the life boats, overfilling and sinking them.. Absolutist principles may work as a mathematical equasion, but they don't work on planet Earth!
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jun 10, 2009 2:27:25 GMT
The religious argument holds or does not hold, like any other without reference to other criteria. If a woman has the right to choice following demonic rape then she has the same freedom of choice under all conditions. If she owes obligation to life within her taking precedence following contraceptive failure, then she does so following any conception. When the basis of argument is about whether the foetus has rights or not, then how it got there is irrelevant. The danger is of going backwards to a form of punishing the 'child' for the manner of its conception.
Of course the real problem here is that society does not support women's right to exercise their reproductive ability, because 'society' is largely designed for and around men, who cannot face this issue. Therefore, the emphasis is on getting women to conform to the established 'masculine' model, not on changing the model. If it were any other kind of 'interference' there would be no argument. Supposing it were to say that women's cycle affects their moods, so to avoid mood influences on their work, women should be encouraged to be hysterectomised? Or men pay far too much attention to sexy women, so eunuchs should be preferred for serious employment?
If there is an argument for the foetus, then mode of conception is irrelevant. If there is an argument for the woman, then let's be sure that it really is for any real woman, and not an excuse to force women into the same subservience that men were earlier at a time when women could not be as reliably divested of personal commitment to children before corporate exploitation.
What we need always, in these discussions about how to make women fit the demands expected of men, is to question those demands upon men and the assumption that anything 'feminine' is a problem, the exception to be controlled, instead of the conventions based on men as the problem and in need of change and re-evaluation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2009 5:03:23 GMT
This, of course, is the crucial point. It amazes me how women manage to love a child they have conceived as a result of rape, but they do.
Anna, the "good seed, bad seed" argument doesn't hold water either; a rapist may have a loving partner somewhere, unaware of his criminal acts, and the child she bears from love comes from the same man with - biologically at least - the same seed.
There are plenty of men and women who lie and deceive their partners, and the children born of such trickery are of no less worth than others.
I'm no scholar, but I've just re-read Matthew 13 and the parable of the seed. Applying it to rapists is I suppose a possible interpretion but personally I think it is stretching the analogy too far. It certainly wasn't how it was explained in my gels' school, and neither does this interpretation leap from the pages of my Bible!
But the parable of the feast does remind me of why I feel uncomfortable about IVF: "ask the poor, the crippled and lame, and so find happiness." (Luke 14: 12)
Anna criticised those who have abortions as doing so for "money, convenience and comfort." I don't think she is right, but leaving this aside, I have often felt that IVF is a self-indulgent way to satisfy a desire to have children. There are many needy children already born, awaiting a home; why not consider adopting one of those?
|
|