Abortion debate (Split from Obama Thread)

[Bucklion]

You're certainly entitled to your beliefs.
Just that there is a limit bye Constitutional law how far they go.

Now that is deep.

 

[MaxBuck]

You have the wrong Michael Gorman. You want Michael J. Gorman, who has a PhD in New Testament Studies from Princeton Divinity and who was a student of Bruce Metzger (many scholars consider Metzger the foremost authority on the New Testament in the English speaking world over the last 50 years).

Here is the book I am referring to:

He also has a good one on the question of abortion in the modern church. If you read that, you'll find in the last chapter that he is actually quite liberal on most social issues (e.g. anti-capital punishment and pro-gun control), but he is against abortion due to its grounding in Christian teachings from the very beginning, which itself is borrowed from the Jewish opinion on the matter.

Regarding the historic Jewish opinion on abortion: the muddy areas where there was debate was on issues related to accidental (i.e. pregnant woman harmed during a physical attack) and therapeutic (i.e. save the life of the mother) abortions. When it came to elective abortions, it was uniform (in the sense that we do not have evidence of a contrary opinion) that it was a sin and almost always considered murder.

grad, I realize I have not thanked you for the Christmas gift you gave me in referring me to these texts. I can't promise you I'll read them in the immediate future, but please accept my appreciation for this information.

Wishing you and yours the most blessed of Christmases.

 

[MaxBuck]

Abortion in Judaism - David Schiff
Abortion in Jewish Law - Rachel Biale
Birth Control in Jewish Law: Marital Relations, Contraception, and Abortion as set Forth in the Classic Texts of Jewish Law - David Michael Feldman
When Life is in the Balance: Life and Death Decisions in the Light of the Jewish Tradition - Barry D. Cytron, Earl Schwartz
Law and Theology in Judaism - David Novak

As I've thanked buckeyegrad for his reference material on the historical and theological views on abortion, thank you, too, Muck. Plenty of reading material to get to sometime in the New Year. Happy Holidays to you.

 

[martinss01]

Religion aside, the killing of a being that could still survive if removed from the womb is tantamount is murder...period.

its easy to say "though shalt not kill that unborn child". its hard to say, "i will take the responsibility for that child and its future seeing as the parent (as it were) clearly can not and or will not". the only conversation we ever seem to have when it comes to abortion is about the mother decisions and the childs "right to life". no one ever talks about the fact that said child has to actually live the childhood they are born into. then, if they are lucky enough, an actual life of some form afterwards. no one seems to give two shits about what that kid may or may not have to go through in living this life that is being forced on them. yes, its absolutely true that it takes a conscious act on at least one persons part (generally two) to make a baby whether that is their ultimate intent or not. but im not entirely certain anyone ever asks to be born either. i certainly don't recall signing a "right to life" contract at conception and i have yet to locate any refund system....

i know its hard for some people to acknowledge. but there are things in this world worse than death. certainly worse things than having never been born.

Fuck that "reproductive rights" [Mark May]. No one can tell a woman, "You will get pregnant", or, "You will not get pregnant". That is solely her choice.

*blinks*

1 in 3 women will be raped in their lifetime. seeing as how all of them are certainly on birth control as they were expecting the rape to occur and the perps use condoms 100% of the time and because both of those methods are 100% guaranteed and full proof in everyway..........

However, once pregnant and once the fetus has reached a certain stage of development then she should have no choice in "terminating" the pregnancy other than by giving birth. Aborting a baby at, say, eight months, is no different than killing it postpartum.

its interesting, we license people to drive. something that can have the consequence of killing and or ruining dozens of peoples lives. but we don't license people to reproduce. which can have the consequence of destroying the lives of entire generations of people. while i question my fair share of the bible. the thought that the sins of the father are visited upon 7 generations imo has a significant degree of truth to it. which is a large part of my decision to not breed. the sins of my father and now those of mine end here. no child deserves the shithole that was my childhood. maybe some disagree... i don't know. *shrug* maybe every child deserves the shithole that was my childhood. beats me, but i refuse to demand another person go through what i had to just so i can avoid a guilty conscience.

you want to get rid of abortion? do the following
1. clamp all male children at birth. removal requires a license to allow said male to have children and must be renewed yearly.
2. birth control is mandatory after the age of 10 for both boys and girls (yes there is a male pill).
3. make counseling (from a therapist, NOT some religious advisor or other assorted advisor with absolutely no medical credentials) required before and after an abortion.
4. if you choose to have an abortion you are sterilized unless there are mitigating circumstances - should the pregnancy be the result of rape or related crime or legit medical concerns of some fashion.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

its easy to say "though shalt not kill that unborn child". its hard to say, "i will take the responsibility for that child and its future seeing as the parent (as it were) clearly can not and or will not". the only conversation we ever seem to have when it comes to abortion is about the mother decisions and the childs "right to life". no one ever talks about the fact that said child has to actually live the childhood they are born into.

So, just because a kid may have a tough life it's OK to kill it before it's born. Gotcha...

its interesting, we license people to drive. something that can have the consequence of killing and or ruining dozens of peoples lives. but we don't license people to reproduce. which can have the consequence of destroying the lives of entire generations of people.

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around how issuing drivers licenses and abortion are related in any way...

 

[Buckeneye]

So, just because a kid may have a tough life it's OK to kill it before it's born. Gotcha..

I could take a walk around any Walmart around 2am to see some of these shitbag 'parents' and their even worse off spring whom will no doubt be (and have become) equally as trashy.

This really opened my eyes to perhaps not all people should be having kids. Bitter, logical, cold, calculating... but its the truth.

 

[jwinslow]

I could take a walk around any Walmart around 2am to see some of these [Mark May]bag 'parents' and their even worse off spring whom will no doubt be (and have become) equally as trashy.

This really opened my eyes to perhaps not all people should be having kids. Bitter, logical, cold, calculating... but its the truth.

Lots of people shouldn't be having kids, and that includes a lot of run of the mill bad parents who wouldn't make the "people at Walmart" lists. That doesn't justify terminating the kids before or after they are born.

You would have to kill a significant portion of the population when applying that backwards logic.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I say again, it's really not as simple as saying things like "Just because the kid will have a tough life it's ok to kill him or her before s/he is born?" Of course killing an unborn child is among those things most horrible to contemplate. But, as I said earlier - and which has not been really answered yet.... What do pro lifers propose to do with all the unwanted children that will result? Without an adequate answer to the question, in my IMO, prolifers are really speaking about some fantasy world that simply does not exist. Compounding the issue, for me anyway, is that most pro lifers are also strongly against tax funded social programs.

 

[Buckeneye]

Lots of people shouldn't be having kids, and that includes a lot of run of the mill bad parents who wouldn't make the "people at Walmart" lists. That doesn't justify terminating the kids before or after they are born.

You would have to kill a significant portion of the population when applying that backwards logic.

Would we have to kill anyone of our current populace? Or perhaps....'encourage' (for lack of a better word) aborting fetuses within the proper term limits for many people that shouldn't have kids right now, if ever. Encourage, let alone damning them for their choice. I can't begin to express how fucked up some of the kids that have heroin addicts as parents have become that I've personally seen grow from youth to young adult.

We talk about sanctity of life all the time, but truth be told, I find it far more abhorrent to bring a child into this world, giving them essentially zero shot at life meanwhile having them exposed to such psychological and physical damage that in turn contributes to the cycle of insanity upon the next generation.

 

[jwinslow]

Would we have to kill anyone of our current populace?

They should have been killed if that's the approach. Whether that termination should take place before or after birth depends on your belief system and how you package that termination.

Or perhaps....'encourage' (for lack of a better word) aborting fetuses within the proper term limits for many people that shouldn't have kids right now, if ever. Encourage, let alone damning them for their choice. I can't begin to express how fucked up some of the kids that have heroin addicts as parents have become that I've personally seen grow from youth to young adult.

Oh I totally get that (and have seen the latter first hand). The problem is, the abortion debate always races to the extreme, rape, drug or poverty stricken situations, etc. That's a factor in all of this, but the opposite of what I'm touching upon here. There are a crapload of parents who are absolutely terrible in seemingly stable, healthy homes, and most of those situations aren't instantly identifiable as rotten like your hypotheticals. If raising them in terrible family situations is cause for terminating impending life, then more thought should have been given to terminating tens of millions of children that were raised in bad family situations. That gets us into the rapidly approaching slippery slope of ethics defined by outcome assumptions.

We talk about sanctity of life all the time, but truth be told, I find it far more abhorrent to bring a child into this world, giving them essentially zero shot at life meanwhile having them exposed to such psychological and physical damage that in turn contributes to the cycle of insanity upon the next generation.

Where exactly is the line to judge this though?

That's why many of us treat it as a black and white subject. There's life and termination of it. There are ways to rationalize and justify it , but in the end, it's ending life based on assumptions about the outcome for the child but especially the inconvenience and difficulty (which is severe) for the people who were procreating recklessly.

 

[jwinslow]

I say again, it's really not as simple as saying things like "Just because the kid will have a tough life it's ok to kill him or her before s/he is born?" Of course killing an unborn child is among those things most horrible to contemplate. But, as I said earlier - and which has not been really answered yet.... What do pro lifers propose to do with all the unwanted children that will result? Without an adequate answer to the question, in my IMO, prolifers are really speaking about some fantasy world that simply does not exist. Compounding the issue, for me anyway, is that most pro lifers are also strongly against tax funded social programs.

Don't have sex without the intention of creating children, but that gets in the way of fun, self and typical humanity, so that's viewed as unrealistic and not fair.

To answer your question, it stinks, but there are a lot of terrible situations in society and life. Wiping them off the face of the earth is not a legitimate solution.

Without an adequate answer to the question, in my IMO, prolifers are really speaking about some fantasy world that simply does not exist. Compounding the issue, for me anyway, is that most pro lifers are also stronglyagainst tax funded social programs.

I'm all for improving the adoption and support systems. I don't have nearly enough knowledge about the system nor wisdom to try and solve that mess, though.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Don't have sex without the intention of creating children, but that gets in the way of fun, self and typical humanity, so that's viewed as unrealistic and not fair.

What about people who have sex without the intention of having a child who use birth control but end up getting pregnant anyway? I know someone who got a gal who had an IUD in pregnant. That's less than 1% likely. And yet, despite taking every precaution but abstinence they ended up having to chose whether to have the baby or not. These people were in their mid to late 30s, professionals, etc.. Not idiotic kids looking for pleasure.

To answer your question, it stinks, but there are a lot of terrible situations in society and life. Wiping them off the face of the earth is not a legitimate solution.

Why not? Quite the contrary, if history and reality are any indication, it's been quite a viable solution for ... well... certainly since a few thousand years ago, and I'm guessing a lot longer.

I'm all for improving the adoption and support systems. I don't have nearly enough knowledge about the system nor wisdom to try and solve that mess, though.

Fair enough.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

We talk about sanctity of life all the time, but truth be told, I find it far more abhorrent to bring a child into this world, giving them essentially zero shot at life meanwhile having them exposed to such psychological and physical damage that in turn contributes to the cycle of insanity upon the next generation.

Where exactly is the line to judge this though?

According to Oliver Wendell Holmes, in terms of forced sterilization, the 3rd generation is the line. See, Buck v. Bell ("Three generations of imbeciles are enough.")

 

[jwinslow]

What about people who have sex without the intention of having a child who use birth control but end up getting pregnant anyway? I know someone who got a gal who had an IUD in pregnant. That's less than 1% likely. And yet, despite taking every precaution but abstinence they ended up having to chose whether to have the baby or not. These people were in their mid to late 30s, professionals, etc.. Not idiotic kids looking for pleasure.

Sex creates babies. We like to separate that reality from the act because of how wonderful it feels but that's what's happening. You're sending your procreation seed into the baby growing station. And I agree it's not just kids looking for pleasure. I'll still want to have sex with my wife late in our marriage when we're too old for kids. If I don't have a vasectomy and continue crossing my fingers, I have to live with the possibility that I might create life.

Why not? Quite the contrary, if history and reality are any indication, it's been quite a viable solution for ... well... certainly since a few thousand years ago, and I'm guessing a lot longer.

Why is it not a solution to terminate life in situations that are ugly? I'm not just talking about unseen faces inside of wombs. That kind of mentality is dangerous especially because of how convenient it is compared to the alternative.

 

[jwinslow]

According to Oliver Wendell Holmes, in terms of forced sterilization, the 3rd generation is the line. See, Buck v. Bell ("Three generations of imbeciles are enough.")

So third generation UM families cannot procreate?