The fault line concerning abortion

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by pjohns, Jan 23, 2020.

  1. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    13,491
    Likes Received:
    9,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think so?

    I see the fundamental philosophies behind Judeo-Christianity centered around the exercise of Free Will; choosing and working toward good, as opposed to being coerced into it. Unfortunately, this means people must be free to choose otherwise, or there is no choice.
     
    pjohns likes this.
  2. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    14,676
    Likes Received:
    4,732
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    People with religious affiliations get abortions the records kept on the demographics proves it.
     
  3. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    14,676
    Likes Received:
    4,732
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Christianity was never a sect of Judaism.
     
  4. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    13,491
    Likes Received:
    9,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thats an interesting point. Jesus was a Jew. Its just that the other Jews who didn't believe he was their messiah stayed 'Jews' while those Jews that did believe became known as 'Christians.' It may not have technically been a 'sect', but i think thats a distinction without a difference.

    Maybe its a 'cult' of Judaism? Again though, distinction without a difference.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2020
  5. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    14,905
    Likes Received:
    8,975
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Anti-abortion culture predates Christianity and it is included in the medical tenet of first do no harm.
     
  6. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    14,905
    Likes Received:
    8,975
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If Moses is not the primary teacher and main historical figure, and if the five books of Moses are not given authoritative preference over the other accepted canon books of Judaism, it ain't historical Judaism.
     
  7. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,733
    Likes Received:
    611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "[R]eligious affiliations" are entirely irrelevant here.

    The Judeo-Christian ethic--as established hundreds of years ago--is entirely impervious to what twenty-first-century Americans with "religious affiliations" may do.
     
  8. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    14,676
    Likes Received:
    4,732
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There was never a Christain sect of Judeans. Plus the Jews and Christians are not the only sects of religions in the US.
     
  9. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,733
    Likes Received:
    611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How, exactly, is something about "a Christian sect of Judeans" responsive to the text of mine that you have quoted?
     
  10. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,930
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I don't think that's true at all. Pro-choice isn't really a matter of convenience. To me, the most compelling argument for pro-choice is that the fetus has not achieved consciousness until after almost all abortions occur, and so while a fetus may be human, it is not a human being until it has reached this relatively late stage of development. Pro-life advertisements often talk about how early the heart starts being. The heart is a pump, and not morally relevant except to the extent that it sustains a human being. What makes a person is their mind and capacity for suffering. An embryo just doesn't have that and so has no moral relevance. There are other arguments.

    I suppose I could agree that it's easier to be pro-life when starting with Christian beliefs because you may have other notions about when the soul is inserted or think of the biblical passage about god knowing you before you were born... but I don't think those things are really required to be pro-life. Being pro-life just requires a misunderstanding of what a human being is.
     
  11. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,733
    Likes Received:
    611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Some people--including some doctors--believe that a fetus can feel pain as early as 20 weeks. Although this remains debatable, the fact that it is even possible should not be breezily dismissed.

    See above.

    Actually, being pro-life merely requires a proper understanding of the fact that it is entirely possible that a fetus--which is to say, an unborn child--may, indeed, experience pain.
     
  12. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,930
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yeah 20 weeks at the earliest. When do you think most abortions occur?


    Not possible before 20 weeks at the earliest.
     
  13. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,733
    Likes Received:
    611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is really quite irrelevant.

    None should occur later, unless we are talking about one of the so-called "hard
    cases" (and especially the matter of the life of the mother).
    Okay.

    I agree.

    But please let me remind yoy: This thread is not--NOT!--about whether one opposes or supports abortion. That is a topic for another thread.

    Rather, it is about what the fault line is, exactly, that determines which side people may fall on: pro-life or pro-choice.

    Do you have any comments as concerning the actual topic at hand.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2020
  14. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,203
    Likes Received:
    2,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's an interesting question. If you feel, as many do, that human values like respect for human life, derive from Judeo-Christian teachings, then support for that alternative would make complete sense. But many Americans, including myself, believe in & fully support human values & human rights, & the U.S. Constitution, but don't regard themselves members of that Judeo-Christian system, & not subjective to those teachings.

    I don't know the answer to your question. I'm not sure there is a definitive one. Subjectively, I feel uncomfortable with the premise of that being the "fault line." But I admit the possibility--even probability--of it being true for many.
     
    pjohns likes this.
  15. Annelle Bissette

    Annelle Bissette Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2016
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Abortion is never a good practice, someone should think millions time before doing this.
     
    pjohns likes this.
  16. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,512
    Likes Received:
    4,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It often seems that way. (although there are small exceptions)

    Belief in God can really shape one's worldview.

    And it goes far beyond and is much deeper than just simply a religious law proscribing abortion as "bad", like many secular pro-choicers might suppose.

    This is a complicated subject and we could have a whole separate thread specifically devoted to it, so I will not go into that connection here.


    Assuming we are only talking about Christianity and Judaism, those with a Judeo-Christian worldview are more likely believe that government should be underpinned by Judeo-Christian values not because those values are Judeo-Christian values, but because their values and morality are very much influenced by their worldview. And of course it just happens to be no coincidence that the values they believe should be underpinned in government should be (but not always) the same values in their religion, because many of the values in the religion were shaped by the same type of worldview.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2020
    pjohns likes this.
  17. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,512
    Likes Received:
    4,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But I would point out, those who are secular and pro-choice are seeking to impose their values virtually just as much as those who are religious and militantly pro-life (as much as they do not like to see themselves that way).
    Since mother and baby are sharing the same body (so to speak), there will never be absolute free choice and non-interference.
    (Even if you give the mother choice, she is still interfering with the rights/choice of the fetus, and you are still interfering with the choice of others to try to uphold fetal rights by taking away her choice)
    There is not really any neutral ground in this battle.
     
    pjohns likes this.
  18. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,863
    Likes Received:
    15,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, you are correct, Pro-Choicers have values like freedom and liberty for ALL, even women , and wish to impose them for all.....Anti-Choicers obviously don't.





    The fetus has no rights.



    The fetus has no rights.


    No, and the only right side is the side of all persons having the same rights....and no one having more rights than others.....that is what Anti-Choicers want...
     
  19. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,863
    Likes Received:
    15,126
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Yes, if a pregnant woman doesn't want and/or can't afford a kid then abortion is a good option....

    If a woman's health/life are in danger from a pregnancy then abortion can be a good practice.
     
  20. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,512
    Likes Received:
    4,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But we are not talking about that here.

    Seems like you are trying to deflect with rare exceptions.

    Let me ask you this: Where do rights come from?
    Are they from God, or just an invention of humans?
    Do you believe rights can be changed at the stroke of a pen with a new law, or are they innate?

    And finally, the obvious question:
    You argue we should respect "women's rights", but what is the basis for that?
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2020
  21. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,863
    Likes Received:
    15,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    If a woman's health/life are in danger from a pregnancy then abortion can be a good practice.


    Hardly...ALL pregnancies carry the risk of death and all compromise the woman's health.





    Let me ask you this (and add it to the looooonnnng list of questions you have never answered)

    WHY should women's rights, or how they got them, be different from anyone else's ???
     
  22. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,512
    Likes Received:
    4,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what's so important for people to understand. When pro-choicers are talking about pregnancy "posing a danger to the woman's life", many of them are talking about ALL pregnancies.
     
  23. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,512
    Likes Received:
    4,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let me ask you this: WHY should women's rights be different from fetal rights?


    (That is a rhetorical question and you don't need to try to answer it in this thread, FoxHastings)
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2020
  24. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,863
    Likes Received:
    15,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    Hardly...ALL pregnancies carry the risk of death and all compromise the woman's health.




    That's because , ""ALL pregnancies carry the risk of death and all compromise the woman's health.""
     
  25. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,863
    Likes Received:
    15,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    Let me ask you this ...(and add it to the looooonnnng list of questions you have never answered) :) :)

    WHY should women's rights, or how they got them, be different from anyone else's ???




    Because women are born people and fetuses have no rights....are you implying you don't want women to have rights either ?

    See how I answered YOUR questions but you ALWAYS seem INCAPABLE of answering mine....


    WHY should women's rights, or how they got them, be different from anyone else's ???
     

Share This Page