• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Abortion debate (Split from Obama Thread)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
@Bucklion - Your remark regarding the soul is interesting to me. I am not sure I see the issue the same way you do. We have two possibilities; A) Humans have a soul or, B) Humans do not have a soul.

Addressing B is simple - if there's no soul, then the consequences of aborting a child is irrelevant - at least in terms of the issue of killing a soul (which, I'll get to shortly)

With respect to A, you note that we sure don't know when the soul enters the body. Is it conception? Is it some time later? I have no idea. I doubt anyone can posit an opinion on this that is little more than that person's opinion. But, for me, I don't think it matters if the soul is there from the beginning or if it arrives at some later point (again, for purposes of possibility A, we assume the soul exists).

Killing a soul.... I am not sure how this is even possible. If our souls exist beyond our physical life, then there is really no damage done to the soul whatsoever, I'd think. Obviously we can only speculate on this issue, but if a soul wants to live a physical life that bad, I don't see any reason it would be prevented from entering the form of some other fetus and "trying again" as it were. Indeed, it would have an eternity to do so, assuming we agree the soul is timeless and eternal life is an actual thing in the metaphysical world.

So, I guess for me, the religious objection to abortion gains little to no traction in this instance.

That's not to say a great many don't feel strongly to the contrary, of course. I would be interested, however, in what their answer to the "soul" question(s) is/are and how they differ from the conclusions I've drawn, as I truly can't really contemplate an alternative answer using the terms as I've used them. Which is to say, if the soul is not eternal, then my remarks aren't quite as forceful as they may otherwise seem, for example.
 
Upvote 0
OhioState001 said:
Abortion is highly immoral and unethical and should be illegal. End of story
Click to expand...
Thats_just_your_opinion.jpg
 
Upvote 0
OhioState001 said:
Abortion is highly immoral and unethical and should be illegal. End of story
Click to expand...
So, let's say abortion becomes "illegal".
What happens to the 40-50,000 un-adoptable black and Hispanic babies born every year?
That's 40-50,000 added every year for eternity.
Who pays for their Foster Care"? Till they're 18 years old?
Conservatives don't want to fund Foster Care at it's current under-funded level.
Who pays for their care?
 
Upvote 0
Taosman said:
So, let's say abortion becomes "illegal".
What happens to the 40-50,000 un-adoptable black and Hispanic babies born every year?
That's 40-50,000 added every year foe eternity.
Who pays for their Foster Care"? Till they're 18 years old?
Conservatives don't want to fund Foster Care at it's current under-funded level.
Who pays for their care?
Click to expand...
I just like that Taos admitted that abortion is intended by the left as a means of controlling the black and latino populations....good going!

:roll1:
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
@martinss01 - in reading and researching my response on the Planned Parenthood thread, I read: LINK

FWIW - I agree with your points above completely, and I think if that 50 million number is to be credited, there is a staggering level of unintended consequences which any rational person, engaged in serious debate, must acknowledge and address. Of course a lot of those aborted lives may have enjoyed something approaching a normal life as you, I, or Mili might define that. I can't say what that percentage is. But, it seems to me obvious that there would be a large population which would not enjoy any such life. I would anticipate an increase in homelessness, crime, drug use, more strain on the adoption system, a booming orphanage system, among other things. Admittedly, this is premised on my opinion that a large population of unwanted children will be raised not much unlike children reared in poverty. To say that any individual citizen would not be affected (even forgoing the social program funding issues left unaddressed by so many on the pro-life side who also happen to be conservative when it comes to those programs) by the result of banning abortions strikes me as wholly absurd, considering. I too am curious as to Mili, or like-minded persons response(s).
Click to expand...

Not commenting, just adding an aside. But it would be interesting to see (what I presume to be impossible and not ever available) a bell curve (or curves) on those 50 million with some sort of characteristics ranging from "bad" to "good" situations/opportunities/consequences.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
@Bucklion - Your remark regarding the soul is interesting to me. I am not sure I see the issue the same way you do. We have two possibilities; A) Humans have a soul or, B) Humans do not have a soul.

Addressing B is simple - if there's no soul, then the consequences of aborting a child is irrelevant - at least in terms of the issue of killing a soul (which, I'll get to shortly)

With respect to A, you note that we sure don't know when the soul enters the body. Is it conception? Is it some time later? I have no idea. I doubt anyone can posit an opinion on this that is little more than that person's opinion. But, for me, I don't think it matters if the soul is there from the beginning or if it arrives at some later point (again, for purposes of possibility A, we assume the soul exists).

Killing a soul.... I am not sure how this is even possible. If our souls exist beyond our physical life, then there is really no damage done to the soul whatsoever, I'd think. Obviously we can only speculate on this issue, but if a soul wants to live a physical life that bad, I don't see any reason it would be prevented from entering the form of some other fetus and "trying again" as it were. Indeed, it would have an eternity to do so, assuming we agree the soul is timeless and eternal life is an actual thing in the metaphysical world.

So, I guess for me, the religious objection to abortion gains little to no traction in this instance.

That's not to say a great many don't feel strongly to the contrary, of course. I would be interested, however, in what their answer to the "soul" question(s) is/are and how they differ from the conclusions I've drawn, as I truly can't really contemplate an alternative answer using the terms as I've used them. Which is to say, if the soul is not eternal, then my remarks aren't quite as forceful as they may otherwise seem, for example.
Click to expand...

One word: reincarnation. As unscientific as the soul is, any tangential considerations would have to be in play as well. Once again, just an aside that I'm throwing out there.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
@martinss01

FWIW - I agree with your points above completely, and I think if that 50 million number is to be credited, there is a staggering level of unintended consequences which any rational person, engaged in serious debate, must acknowledge and address.
Click to expand...

I saw a similar stat.

We have aborted more black people than there are living black Americans. So basically through abortion, we have killed over half the potential black people.

Now we need a higher birth rate or immigration to make the demographics work, because you must never ever taper a Ponzi scheme and that is exactly what is happenning demographically.
 
Upvote 0
Taosman said:
So, let's say abortion becomes "illegal".
What happens to the 40-50,000 un-adoptable black and Hispanic babies born every year?
That's 40-50,000 added every year for eternity.
Who pays for their Foster Care"? Till they're 18 years old?
Conservatives don't want to fund Foster Care at it's current under-funded level.
Who pays for their care?
Click to expand...

Fixing adoption and foster care to get the children into the homes of people who want them and out of the hands of the state social workers goes a long way to address this.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad said:
Fixing adoption and foster care to get the children into the homes of people who want them and out of the hands of the state social workers goes a long way to address this.
Click to expand...
Exactly! There will be a price to pay for this social change. A price in tax dollars.
But there is a problem beyond costs.
The people who have the money to adopt are predominately wealthy white couples.
And they naturally want a white baby.
There will never be enough of them. And the "asking price" will go up.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top