-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
- Thread starter t_BuckeyeScott
- Start date
I've offered no opinion on when I think life begins.
You made a claim about the ancients, the practice of abortion, and whether it was practiced in civilized cultures. I demonstrated your opinion is untrue. That's all.
Upvote
0
MaxBuck
SoCal, Baby!
I'm sure you do, as you've creatively re-written Scripture to suit your desires. But abortion was far from an aberration throughout history, and it was regularly practiced when Jesus walked the earth. So your exegesis is unpersuasive.
The fact Jesus spoke of protecting young, living children cannot be extrapolated into a condemnation of the practice of abortion. There is simply no justification for such an interpretation.
Upvote
0
OK.... I'm bored, I guess....
The way I look at the abortion issue, the question of what is and what is not a human is not important. For my part, I think life begins at conception and I think what Max posted earlier about the fetus effectively being a part of the mothers anatomy is a discussion of viability. Fetus, however, I think is clearly human regardless of one's answer to either of these questions.
Neither determination is important for me in how I think about the problem. It's, in my opinion, simply a matter of justified killing. Of course, people have their own lines of justification. Hell, even you yourself would kill a terrorist, right? You've justified your reason to kill. So, the abortion issue, to my way of thinking pits the rights of the mother (and to an extent also the father) against the rights of the unborn. Is it justified to abort a baby who would have grown up in poverty to a heroin addict? Maybe. Maybe not. People are free to draw their lines of justification as they wish. I have drawn my line. You have drawn yours. So what?
Upvote
0
Muck
Enjoy Every Sandwich
Pointing out that your claim was factually inaccurate is hardly a 'ploy'.
I like your nebulous use of 'mothers'. I'm sure many were doing 'everything they could' to bear children, while others were fervently were looking for a way out because of the circumstances of their life.
You claimed it was 'not a standard cultural practice', and yet the historical record argues otherwise.
It was a topic written about by politicians, historians, scholars, playwrights & humorists. If something is being discussed across the spectrum of society it is almost certainly a huge issue.
So then you have a wonderful opportunity before you. Cite sources supporting your claim. You can prove us wrong. Think how glorious that will be, the hosannas will rain down upon you.
So go ahead, do it. You know you want to.
Oh you poor persecuted fellow you. Why, why you're almost Christlike in your suffering. If the world were more like You; just think what a garden paradise it would be.
You have yet to provide a single piece of data to support that you do in fact know what you're talking about.
Speaking of 'tactics' I doubt it's a coincidence that you choose a specific time frame that is two months later than 90% of abortions are performed....being that you 'know what' you're talking about.
See the problem isn't that people are trying to trip you up or portray you in a bad light. The problem is that you are an endless font of claims without support. When pressed on specific areas where you are known to be wrong, you deflect or try to portray it as a personal issue. It's neither. It's how debate works.
You want respect? Then earn it.
Upvote
0
buckeyegrad
Don't Immanentize the Eschaton
MaxBuck said:
Except, it wasn't accepted among the Jews, who forbid abortion except to save the life of the mother. And, as anyone who is familiar with the Gospels knows, Jesus didn't spend much time talking to gentiles. So, please spare the hyperbole of "re-writing Scripture" when it is clear you either don't know or are ignoring the Jewish history and context of the writings.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Onebuckfan
classof76
When you get a human without a fertilized egg call me .. Life begins at conception case closed. Rationalize and marginalize.. No conception no life.
Upvote
0
Onebuckfan
classof76
Personally I am against abortion but the law states it's legal but killing a fetus destroys a life. Just own it..capital punishment ends life supporters own that. If you support abortion own it don't rationalize it. A frightened uneducated teen girl abandons her newborn and is charged with murder or manslaughter. She should have had an abortion according to the majority but the outcome is the same. Except a girl is in prison.
Upvote
0
I'm not about to hop into that hot mess from the last few pages, so I'll leap off of this much more reasonable discourse:
Is it justified to reclassify what results from conception and condone abortion in order to protect the freedom of sex without accepting the consequences?
That's what the bulk of abortion is about. Sure there are life threatening, dire situations, but most of it is just inconvenience, especially since the alternative of abstaining is now laughed-at as stupid, archaic and unnatural. Reclassifying fetuses as disposable waste obliterates any need for consideration of the rights of the mother against those of the unborn child. It eliminates any need to even consider those rights because it's just an inconvenience (for now).
To be clear, I'm not trying to trivialize the difficulty of unwanted pregnancy. That inconvenience can be life changing and crippling to the future of a young person but that's why you shouldn't be procreating for fun. It's really hard to forego that kind of pleasure but the consequences are severe, particularly for the entities who no longer get any meaningful consideration.
I'd agree with all of that, and we definitely do all have our own lines of justification, sourced in a variety of things that are often self serving. In my experience, it's rarely about mother rights vs unborn rights or about the most dire situations (though those get the majority of the airtime). To me, it's more along these lines:
Is it justified to reclassify what results from conception and condone abortion in order to protect the freedom of sex without accepting the consequences?
That's what the bulk of abortion is about. Sure there are life threatening, dire situations, but most of it is just inconvenience, especially since the alternative of abstaining is now laughed-at as stupid, archaic and unnatural. Reclassifying fetuses as disposable waste obliterates any need for consideration of the rights of the mother against those of the unborn child. It eliminates any need to even consider those rights because it's just an inconvenience (for now).
To be clear, I'm not trying to trivialize the difficulty of unwanted pregnancy. That inconvenience can be life changing and crippling to the future of a young person but that's why you shouldn't be procreating for fun. It's really hard to forego that kind of pleasure but the consequences are severe, particularly for the entities who no longer get any meaningful consideration.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I would observe that those who get abortions are also suffering consequences. To be sure, there are people who use abortion as something of a "soulless birth control" but I don't think those numbers are particularly high. In any event, I would think most people struggle quite a bit with the choice they're making. Being in favor of not prohibiting that one has that choice does not render the actual making of the choice by any one inconsequential to that individual.
This seems to me sort of an after the fact sort of consideration. You're arguing that people should not make the initial choice to have sex because of the severe consequences that may result. But, I have a hard time believing that an absolute prohibition on abortion would greatly reduce the incidence of people having sex for pleasure. And, in your "consequences" paradigm, I think it's important to remember, we're not talking about someone going to prison for 5 years, or something of that nature. We're talking about the consequence of having a baby to raise. That's no small task. And.. my guess is, what would result from an abortion free nation is the orphan industry becoming big money. The incidence of unwanted, and consequently unloved, children would be on the rise. And... then what?
For me, that's something I think the anti-abortion crowd needs to address - I understand the idea that one shouldn't kill their own baby, it sounds cruel and heartless, etc.. But.. what do anti-abortion people intend to do with the unwanted children? It certainly isn't going to be cost free, I might add.
Upvote
0