Abortion.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well more or less… But I think using the term ‘babies’ is pretty loaded when you are talking about a ball of cells.

Hey, we must only be bigger balls of cells

[Butterbeer]

how so?


... also ... is it just me or is 'stoning to death' apparently 'barbaric' under most definitions regardless of any moral relativism that may pertain to any other moral or social viewpoint we may compare it to?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If justice is about correction and doesn't require a death penalty ever, then why did God's justice demand that Jesus die on the cross?

I didn't say justice was about correction; it manifestly is not. I said punishment should be. I note you also ignore the lightning clarity of Christ's anti-death penalty stance.

Jesus' death was a sacrifice, and an atonement; it is compared to the death penalty only as a metaphor.

Do you see pictures of dying babies on the headlines of every major news service and newspaper, Gwaimir?

Well, let me check a few.

Let's see...nope, I don't. But, wait a minute...I don't see pictures of mangled Iraqis, either.

And another thing is that many people in the US now know people who have committed abortions or have themselves committed abortions. That makes it something they have a harder time condemning.

Many people in the US now know people who have fought in the war in Iraq, too. The same reasoning applies.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I didn't say justice was about correction; it manifestly is not. I said punishment should be. I note you also ignore the lightning clarity of Christ's anti-death penalty stance.

Here's another word from the same God. (Ezekiel 18:4) "For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son-both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die." Then later on in the same chapter, God describes a list of sins (verses 11-13) and concludes by saying, "Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head." The whole chapter lays out the death penalty very effectively as a just punishment for sin. Verse 26: "If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die. In verse 29, the Lord says that this way, his way, is just. Ezekiel 18 should prove for Christians that the death penalty is a just penalty for sin.

God also says in the chapter a similar thing to what he said in the passage you referenced from the New Testament. Verses 31-32 of Ezekiel 18 say: "Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!"

In the same way, Jesus held the just death penalty at bay, giving the woman a chance to repent. Just as he wanted sinners to repent in Ezekiel 18, he wanted them to repent in the New Testament, and he was happy to rescind the death penalty for a sinner who repents. In the same way, he said in Ezekiel 18 that a wicked person that turns from his sins will not die for them. Ezekiel 18 has it all, and it includes and explains in more detail everything you quoted in that New Testament passage. The death penalty is just, (Remember, he was the one who established it in place in the first place, throughout the Pentateuch!) but God also loves mercy. This is all part of his character.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Well, let me check a few.

Let's see...nope, I don't. But, wait a minute...I don't see pictures of mangled Iraqis, either.

As soon as you said that, I checked BBC and CNN and though it's true I didn't see any mangled bodies this time, there were lots of pictures of weeping civilians and pulverized buildings. "Disturbing images" are all over the media on the subject of Iraq, but they are not to be found on the main news channels on the subject of abortion.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Many people in the US now know people who have fought in the war in Iraq, too. The same reasoning applies.

No it certainly does not! People who have friends or family in Iraq have incentive to want them out! My Political Science professor in my class just today said he wants the war over so that the US soldiers he highly respects and loves aren't going to be out there dying for nothing. His care for our soldiers is one of the things that makes him want us to pull out.

Abortion is a totally different story! If you say abortion is murder, you're calling your friend a murderer. That is not easy to do! By being in favor of a pull-out from Iraq, you're protecting the people you love. By being against abortion, you are condemning your friends' actions.

So people have incentive to be against the war and they have incentive to be pro-choice.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

how so?


... also ... is it just me or is 'stoning to death' apparently 'barbaric' under most definitions regardless of any moral relativism that may pertain to any other moral or social viewpoint we may compare it to?

I didn't use that kind of relativism in my post. I'm saying that "an eye for an eye" is true justice, and that's as true now as it was in the past. Exact retribution, getting back in return exactly what you give, is just. Burning alive or drawing and quartering would also be just if the committed crime is horrible enough to warrant their use as a punishment.

That said, let me emphasize to you again that I think our country does very well to blend mercy with justice in its laws. I am very pleased that we do not pay back criminals with exactly what their deeds deserve. Mercy is a most excellent way.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Gaffer, how many times you want to dance around the christmas tree with me?

It's the Intent, as you say. How do you know the intent of putting pics of dead soldiers isn't as rotten as those of a pro-lifer? You said the intent of one was to inform, the other to repel, so I don't see how or why I should re-read your above post. And you say the Gov is keen to "play down" the killing for political reasons. That seems to me the EXACT intent of abortionists as well. I don't see why we shouldn't know the extent of the casualties via pictures of aborted babies. And I don't care how clean they look, either.

"Oh poor sensitivites! I looked at War pics like they were my family album, but dead fetuses just knocks me out ..."

Well, I agree that some of the effects are the same: shock, for example, and making people aware of the consequences of their actions.

However, there are many important differences. The intent is one of them; the nature of the political discource they take place in is another. As you will have noticed, pro-choicers do not think they are killing babies because of how they define when life starts. A key objective of the pro-life argument is to conflate a 24 week foetus with a 12-week one or a 12-second one. These images are a tactic towards that end. If not, what ARE they for?

It's also potentially hypocritical, in that many of pro-lifers, as we've seen, support these practices in certain circumstances.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

However, there are many important differences. The intent is one of them; the nature of the political discource they take place in is another. As you will have noticed, pro-choicers do not think they are killing babies because of how they define when life starts. A key objective of the pro-life argument is to conflate a 24 week foetus with a 12-week one or a 12-second one. These images are a tactic towards that end. If not, what ARE they for?

Gaffer, you're splitting hairs. Both kinds of pictures are presented with two intents: informing and disgusting. Both kinds of pictures accomplish that purpose successfully. The pro-life folk may choose to present pictures of the child who is aborted at the most advanced stage permissible, thus ignoring a significant part of the debate, but when the media presents photos of the destruction without trying to capture also the reasons that we are staying, they also are ignoring the debate and simply showing the ugliest side of what's going on in Iraq right now.

If it should be allowed for media to ignore the debate by only providing pictures of the worst of what's going on in Iraq, it should be allowed for pro-life folk to ignore the debate and show what to many viewers would be the worst of what's going on in abortion.

Neither the media with its pictures nor the pro-lifers with their anti-abortion ad tried to present both sides of the debate. Pictures of war carnage in Iraq definitely don't capture both sides or the entirety of the situation, and neither do pictures of a 24-week old child. Though both kinds of pictures are truthful representations of part of what's going on. If one is to be placed on the headlines of major news stations, the other should be too.

The reason that abortion pictures aren't plastered all over the news service, of course, is not any problem with the photos but rather a problem with the audience. News stations don't want to lose their viewers, and this issue touches many people personally.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It's also potentially hypocritical, in that many of pro-lifers, as we've seen, support these practices in certain circumstances.

And likewise, most anti-war folk in the US would probably be pro-war in "certain circumstances." This doesn't make them hypocritical to their side on this war any more than it's hypocritical for people to be against the practice of abortion in general, but accepting of it in certain circumstances.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Back on topic, I do like how the woman's body is equated with "artificial life support", such as plugging in a dialysis machine or taking a statin to lower cholesterol and stave off heart disease. A male conception of motherhood if ever I saw one!

Get off the sentimental high horse . Medications that provide life support serve the same function as a woman serves her child. One might be mechanical and the other biological, but both accomplish the same purpose: keeping someone alive. The fact that someone needs to be "kept" alive doesn't mean he or she has less right to live than someone who can take care of his or herself.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

While the foetus is clearly human, in the same way that my kidneys are human, it is also a part of its mother's body, right up until it comes out into the world and takes its first breath. So, I would contend that an unborn baby is a different sort of human from a born baby, because it is still one with its mother.

I say that's crazy. The only thing a baby in the mother's womb right before birth has different from a baby who is out of the mother's womb right after birth is a lack of experience. That he or she is getting nutrients from the mother still should not be a justification for killing him or her .

The unborn baby is an alive and intelligent, distinct human being. The first thing that develops and can be detected when a child is conceived is the heartbeat. Thus we know that from the very earliest stage of existence, the child is a separate human. The second thing that comes into existence, the thing that develops right after the heartbeat, is the brain. Those two things are the earliest parts of a person that develop. So right from the beginning we have intelligence (though undoubtedly a far more simplistic intelligence than the child has later, as it develops further) and distinct life revealed by the heartbeat.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I would also point out that almost everybody, even most self-professed "pro-lifers" (since Gwaimir's extreme, though logically consistent view is a minority view), share this fundamental view even though they may argue to the contrary.

The child is obviously united with the mother through a biological cord that provides life support.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I have witnessed two childbirths, seen them open their eyes for the first time and take their first breaths. (Arien, you have been on the sharp end, IIRC!) Babies undergo a qualitative change in the process, believe me!

My mother has given birth to five living children and has had three miscarriages. She does not believe you for an instant, so why should I?

Besides, you can't possibly have seen them while they were in the womb, in the same way that you could see them after they came out. So you wouldn't be in a position to make a comparison. And even if you could, it would be a purely visual comparison.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Hey, we must only be bigger balls of cells

No. We are dimorphed fully developed self sustaining organisms. A Quantum jump from a ball of cells.

[Spock]

OK, let's settle down a bit and remove some of yourselves from your height prone equines.

[Lief Erikson]

Sorry .

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Here's another word from the same God. (Ezekiel 18:4) "For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son-both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die." Then later on in the same chapter, God describes a list of sins (verses 11-13) and concludes by saying, "Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head." The whole chapter lays out the death penalty very effectively as a just punishment for sin. Verse 26: "If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die. In verse 29, the Lord says that this way, his way, is just. Ezekiel 18 should prove for Christians that the death penalty is a just penalty for sin.

God also says in the chapter a similar thing to what he said in the passage you referenced from the New Testament. Verses 31-32 of Ezekiel 18 say: "Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!"

In the same way, Jesus held the just death penalty at bay, giving the woman a chance to repent. Just as he wanted sinners to repent in Ezekiel 18, he wanted them to repent in the New Testament, and he was happy to rescind the death penalty for a sinner who repents. In the same way, he said in Ezekiel 18 that a wicked person that turns from his sins will not die for them. Ezekiel 18 has it all, and it includes and explains in more detail everything you quoted in that New Testament passage. The death penalty is just, (Remember, he was the one who established it in place in the first place, throughout the Pentateuch!) but God also loves mercy. This is all part of his character.

As soon as you said that, I checked BBC and CNN and though it's true I didn't see any mangled bodies this time, there were lots of pictures of weeping civilians and pulverized buildings. "Disturbing images" are all over the media on the subject of Iraq, but they are not to be found on the main news channels on the subject of abortion.

No it certainly does not! People who have friends or family in Iraq have incentive to want them out! My Political Science professor in my class just today said he wants the war over so that the US soldiers he highly respects and loves aren't going to be out there dying for nothing. His care for our soldiers is one of the things that makes him want us to pull out.

Abortion is a totally different story! If you say abortion is murder, you're calling your friend a murderer. That is not easy to do! By being in favor of a pull-out from Iraq, you're protecting the people you love. By being against abortion, you are condemning your friends' actions.

So people have incentive to be against the war and they have incentive to be pro-choice.

Moving to a religion thread...

[Lief Erikson]

Good idea .

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Then I forgot to actually do so. Go me.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

No. We are dimorphed fully developed self sustaining organisms. A Quantum jump from a ball of cells.

Ah , and who let you Morph, IRex?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If it should be allowed for media to ignore the debate by only providing pictures of the worst of what's going on in Iraq, it should be allowed for pro-life folk to ignore the debate and show what to many viewers would be the worst of what's going on in abortion.

I can see your point of course. However, you've confused intent with effect there. They do both have the effect of "informing and disgusting", however the use of abortion images is primarily to do the latter, and in so doing, shock people into submission. The intent of war images is primarily the former.

Frankly, I've had enough batting that one around so if you can't see the difference we'll just have to let it lie. Do you think there are any differences or are they just exactly the same?


And likewise, most anti-war folk in the US would probably be pro-war in "certain circumstances." This doesn't make them hypocritical to their side on this war any more than it's hypocritical for people to be against the practice of abortion in general, but accepting of it in certain circumstances.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Get off the sentimental high horse . Medications that provide life support serve the same function as a woman serves her child.

I shall tell my wife the next time she's nipping my head to do the dishes.

Actually, I won't cos a) I'll get a kick in the nuts and b) she'll just go "well, doing the dishes doesn't sustain the life of a foetus, so I ain't doing it"

However, I think you have nicely illustrated one of the consequences of the "pro-life" position: that of "woman as approved receptacle".

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I say that's crazy. The only thing a baby in the mother's womb right before birth has different from a baby who is out of the mother's womb right after birth is a lack of experience. That he or she is getting nutrients from the mother still should not be a justification for killing him or her .

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that abortion should be legal right up until the last minute. I AM saying that there IS a rather big difference between a baby before and after birth.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The unborn baby is an alive and intelligent, distinct human being. The first thing that develops and can be detected when a child is conceived is the heartbeat. Thus we know that from the very earliest stage of existence, the child is a separate human. The second thing that comes into existence, the thing that develops right after the heartbeat, is the brain. Those two things are the earliest parts of a person that develop. So right from the beginning we have intelligence (though undoubtedly a far more simplistic intelligence than the child has later, as it develops further) and distinct life revealed by the heartbeat.

Sorry, Lief, those aren't correct and are vast oversimplifications. You are making too many assumptions there. For one thing, you seem to have assumed that I think it would be OK to have an abortion right up until childbirth. That is not the case. I was pointing out that there is a very, very important transition there....

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I can see your point of course. However, you've confused intent with effect there. They do both have the effect of "informing and disgusting", however the use of abortion images is primarily to do the latter, and in so doing, shock people into submission. The intent of war images is primarily the former.

Frankly, I've had enough batting that one around so if you can't see the difference we'll just have to let it lie. Do you think there are any differences or are they just exactly the same?

You know, I think you're right that the pro-life group had more of an intent to disgust than those who presented the war photos did. But actually, I think that they felt a far keener desire to inform than those who presented the war photos did too. The pro-life folk have an agenda, as you have correctly noted. That doesn't mean that what they presented isn't a valid news item, however. They wanted very much to inform (as well as disgust, but if other things are allowed presented at maximum disgust level, that shouldn't matter), whereas the media may have wanted less personally to inform and disgust with the war in Iraq.

You know, it's very much a matter of how the ad would impact its viewers. If it was an ad of children dying in Darfur, the picture would be more acceptable. People can protest here all they want about Darfur without getting a crossword from anyone, and the news service wouldn't have any problem with that either. However, they wouldn't present pictures on abortion because it's way too sensitive to the public. It's not a PC issue. And that is the real difference between the war photos and the photos of abortion.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

And likewise, most anti-war folk in the US would probably be pro-war in "certain circumstances." This doesn't make them hypocritical to their side on this war any more than it's hypocritical for people to be against the practice of abortion in general, but accepting of it in certain circumstances.

True.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I shall tell my wife the next time she's nipping my head to do the dishes.

Huh? Bugsquat .

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Actually, I won't cos a) I'll get a kick in the nuts and b) she'll just go "well, doing the dishes doesn't sustain the life of a foetus, so I ain't doing it"

I don't get it. I'm not saying a woman is merely a biological machine . I believe human beings are much more than that, partly because we have souls and spirits, and transcend mere biology in our personalities and in who we are. "Who we are," however, doesn't affect the machinery of baby-supporting that takes place in a mother's womb. Our bodies are highly, highly sophisticated biological machines, you know. I believe we are much more than that as well.

But as far as the baby is concerned, the mother acts in the same way toward it as the life support system works toward anyone else. That doesn't mean that the woman is only a life support system, but it is true that her body functions in that way as well. That is part of what it does.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

However, I think you have nicely illustrated one of the consequences of the "pro-life" position: that of "woman as approved receptacle".

I think that you are making a false division of issues, saying that either a woman is a biological machine or she transcends it, but she can't function as a biological machine in some ways and transcend it in others.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that abortion should be legal right up until the last minute. I AM saying that there IS a rather big difference between a baby before and after birth.

The only difference that I can see is a difference in the baby's level of experience.

Also, if you don't think that abortion should be legal right up to the last minute, then how does the baby's being in the womb make a difference to you? Does the baby's being in the womb make a difference to it only up to a certain week? If so, what week? And why do you choose that week? And why do you have the right to choose that week?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Sorry, Lief, those aren't correct and are vast oversimplifications. You are making too many assumptions there. For one thing, you seem to have assumed that I think it would be OK to have an abortion right up until childbirth. That is not the case. I was pointing out that there is a very, very important transition there....

What other incorrect assumptions was I making in that statement?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think that you are making a false division of issues, saying that either a woman is a biological machine or she transcends it, but she can't function as a biological machine in some ways and transcend it in others.

I see what you are saying here, but I could argue that it is you who is making the false division, by treating the foetus as if it is not part of a woman's body.

That is a really important crux of this issue, since the logical conclusion of a pro-life stance is strong regulation over women's bodies.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Also, if you don't think that abortion should be legal right up to the last minute, then how does the baby's being in the womb make a difference to you? Does the baby's being in the womb make a difference to it only up to a certain week? If so, what week? And why do you choose that week? And why do you have the right to choose that week?

What other incorrect assumptions was I making in that statement?

I raised the "still in the womb" point to illustrate that the point that baby is still a part of its mother's body right up till the last minute and therefore is a different kind of thing from a born baby.

Dunno on the latest possible date thing. I would cede that to a suitably qualified group of experts to make a recommendation.

EDIT: oh, you asked about assumptions. Those that I think are assumptions are underlined in the quote below; the ones that I think are factually incorrect are bolded (sorry to be a wanker about this but you did ask ):

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The unborn baby is an alive and intelligent, distinct human being. The first thing that develops and can be detected when a child is conceived is the heartbeat. Thus we know that from the very earliest stage of existence, the child is a separate human. The second thing that comes into existence, the thing that develops right after the heartbeat, is the brain. Those two things are the earliest parts of a person that develop. So right from the beginning we have intelligence (though undoubtedly a far more simplistic intelligence than the child has later, as it develops further) and distinct life revealed by the heartbeat.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I see what you are saying here, but I could argue that it is you who is making the false division, by treating the foetus as if it is not part of a woman's body.

It has its own brain and heartbeat, and thus has a life of its own. It is its own separate person, even though it lives off of the mother. The union between mother and child at that stage comes from the umbilical cord. That is a union, but that union is just a biological life support system.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

That is a really important crux of this issue, since the logical conclusion of a pro-life stance is strong regulation over women's bodies.

Only if she's planning to commit murder . We already have laws in place anyway that regulate against people's bodies when those people are planning murder. Handcuffs, prison walls, etc. Preventing abortion by regulation doesn't mean we get to use that as a precedent for withdrawing other freedoms from women. This is because this law wouldn't be about the woman's rights but about the baby's rights.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I raised the "still in the womb" point to illustrate that the point that baby is still a part of its mother's body right up till the last minute and therefore is a different kind of thing from a born baby.

Only by the umbilical cord. Sure, there is a union there, but it's not like a merging of two souls or something. It's just another way of eating and getting the bloods and fluids to survive. It is not only like life support- it is life support. Only biological rather than mechanical. Though the biology too is highly sophitiscated machinery. More sophisticated than the mechanical, and made of biological tissue rather than metal and plastic and all those other gadgets, but still the same in purpose and function.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

EDIT: oh, you asked about assumptions. Those that I think are assumptions are underlined in the quote below; the ones that I think are factually incorrect are bolded (sorry to be a wanker about this but you did ask ):

I did ask . Thanks for responding. The things that you underlined are largely based on disbelieving the things in bold, I think. The things that are in bold are claims I heard from a young pro-life gentleman who performed a skit on the subject of abortion with several other people from a drama group. That particular gentleman had been involved in an affair with a woman, and the consequence was a child. The woman had an abortion without telling him, which made him feel utterly terrible when he found out. I think that this is what threw him into learning what he could about abortion.

After watching his skit, I questioned him on the subject and heard from him what I've just told you about the heartbeat and brain being the first things detected. I know that to make it solid evidence though, I'll have to do research and find a source of greater reliability.

[Nurvingiel]

Development of the Fetus, from the BC Health Guide website:

First Trimester
http://www.bchealthguide.org/kbase/t...97814/sec7.htm

Second Trimester
http://www.bchealthguide.org/kbase/t...97814/sec8.htm

Third Trimester
http://www.bchealthguide.org/kbase/t...97814/sec9.htm

These handy links include illustrations.



Something I didn't know before is that the embryo is called a fetus after nine weeks. It is roughly one inch long.

[Butterbeer]

I wonder what Lief has to say .... wotcha Lief

*wonders why Lief is so pissed at me ... *

best, BB