A simple Yes or No with a short explanation.

[26 X World Champs]

the Bible is the moral authority and it is good to use it as a source of wisdom when making decisions......Right IS a matter of individual belief and so is the abortion issue....How do you know what YOU think is right if you don't have anything to base it on such as the bible.

Are you saying that the Bible is the only book ever written that differentiates or talks about good and evil?

Here's a question for you? This planet is billions of years old. Human beings have been on this planet for millions of years, yet the Bible only goes back about 7000 years? How can this be? The Bible says 7k, science says millions. How did mankind survive for millions of years before the Bible?

It just doesn't add up. Many people believe the Bible is a series of novels based on some facts and lots of fiction. That it was written over hundreds of years by many authors and then tied together.

 

[labwitch]

i'm curious, why is it when people run out of valid, rational, logical arguments, they refer to the bible to make a point? it's a book, a history, an ancient one, and what was true and correct then may not necessarily be true and correct now. i said all i wanted to about abortion, i'm merely curious about the direction this argument takes, everywhere and on every site, not just here.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Are you saying that the Bible is the only book ever written that differentiates or talks about good and evil?

Yes, they really do seem to believe that, and they appear to genuinely think they have a monopoly on morality. It's positively delusional.

 

[Fantasea]

Tax evasion is not in any way based on the Ten Commandments.

Tax evasion is not a law. It is the failure to obey a law.

However within the tax laws there are sections which paraphrase the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." Those who evade, or fail to pay, taxes which are lawfully due, are willfully depriving the government of money to which it is entitled. They are misappropriating, or stealing, funds due to the government and may be subjected to penalties.

Some scholars will point out that there is also application of the Fourth Commandment, "Honor thy Father and thy mother.", which in its expanded form, requires obedience to lawful authority.

 

[shuamort]

Tax evasion is not a law. It is the failure to obey a law.

However within the tax laws there are sections which paraphrase the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." Those who evade, or fail to pay, taxes which are lawfully due, are willfully depriving the government of money to which it is entitled. They are misappropriating, or stealing, funds due to the government and may be subjected to penalties.

Some scholars will point out that there is also application of the Fourth Commandment, "Honor thy Father and thy mother.", which in its expanded form, requires obedience to lawful authority.

Syllogistic logic.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Syllogistic logic.

Really? I thought it was just a load of :bs

 

[Fantasea]

i'm curious, why is it when people run out of valid, rational, logical arguments, they refer to the bible to make a point? it's a book, a history, an ancient one, and what was true and correct then may not necessarily be true and correct now. i said all i wanted to about abortion, i'm merely curious about the direction this argument takes, everywhere and on every site, not just here.

Perhaps you will enlighten us with a few examples of 'what was true then' which 'may not necessarily true now'.

 

[Fantasea]

Syllogistic logic.

Yes, thank you. Old Aristotle certainly knew how to sort his onions, although sometimes stuff attributed to him is all Greek to me.

Satisfied?

 

[Fantasea]

Really? I thought it was just a load of :bs

After what Henry VIII did to religion, that's understandable.

 

[Contrarian]

Sorry, I didn't mean to help prove your point. that was pretty crafty of you.There are people that are not able to adopt just as there are people that can't afford to keep the baby.It doesn't mean that they can't have a valid argument against something they feel is morally wrong.If they were aborting while saying aborting is wrong, that's a different story.

I didn't mean to be crafty, I just want people to look at things from other perspectives... but thanks for the compliment!

There are one thing in your statement that strikes me. You are correct in saying that there are certainly those who have moral convictions that are against abortion, but are unable to adopt. I can respect that. The problem comes when these very same people try to impose their beliefs (religious or even scientific) and personal moral standards (yes there are many different standards!) on someone else. That someone also may not be able to take on the responsibility of having a child. Whether I am pro-life or not, does not give me the right to impose my will, beliefs or moral values on someone else. Having a valid arguement is one thing, demanding domain over another person is another. So, yes you can have your opinion... but you cannot force someone to do something against their will unless you are willing to do something about it personally. It's a cop out.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

After what Henry VIII did to religion, that's understandable.

Do you know, I'm officially a Catholic - but thankfully that was just to keep certain relatives happy and I was spared the horrors of religious indoctrination.

Henry III twisted religion to suit his own ends. Nothing has changed, has it?

 

[-jess-]

My Opinion On This...

No, I do not think that abortion should be aloud. An abortion is basically a free ticket out of something that you caused yourself, by either your own carelessness. And even if you tried to protect yourself, it is always a risk, and before having sex I think that you must realize these risks or the whole thing is pointless. My mom got pregnent just a year ago, on accident yet she kept the baby instead of going for an abortion because she felt it was the right thing to do, and I feel this same way because as my personal experience made me realize, right now I would not have my baby sister if my mom had gone through the evil methods of Abortions...
^^^
A quick thought by me...

 

[DontForgetMe]

Simple and short

Its a Womens Right To Choose God Gave them the power to make life
who are we as men to say yes or no .... Sexist ***holes

 

[-jess-]

It's not my fault I am a male, you are the one who is acting sexist, saying we can't know anything just because of our gender. My mom was a wreck thinking about the abortion, but she finally got the bigger picture, and realized as I see that it is wrong to kill something that you created on your own free will... :comp:

 

[Urethra Franklin]

My Opinion On This...

No, I do not think that abortion should be aloud^^^
...

No, it's better when it's quiet rather than aloud. But I do think it should be allowed.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

No, it's better when it's quiet rather than aloud. But I do think it should be allowed.

Urethra, you are one evil bitch.

But I have to confess that the same thought crossed my mind!

 

[labwitch]

No, it's better when it's quiet rather than aloud. But I do think it should be allowed.

urethra, i think i really like you! between you me and the nurse, evil bitches could rule!

 

[Contrarian]

Jess, the enlightened answer was contained in your response and you didn't even see it... You Mother had the right to CHOOSE>> If for some reason, she felt she could not care for another child, lets say her health, the economic state of the family, a personal tragedy or whatever... she had the ability to agonize over the choice. It is also important to realize that most women would likewise take such a choice VERY SERIOUSLY. Despite what some people in this forum think, there isn't wholesale, uninhibited slaughter of babies in the streets. There are those who have emotional, religious or even scientific beliefs as to why abortion should not be permitted. On the other side there are those who don't share those beliefs. The point is no one person should be allowed to force another person into making a decision about their own body. Hell, I also believe we should allow doctor assisted suicide. It's YOUR BODY, who should tell you that you MUST suffer inorder to die "naturally".... What do you think of that Naughty, since you are directly involved in this type of work?... you little Catholic, you.

 

[Fantasea]

I didn't mean to be crafty, I just want people to look at things from other perspectives... but thanks for the compliment!

There are one thing in your statement that strikes me. You are correct in saying that there are certainly those who have moral convictions that are against abortion, but are unable to adopt. I can respect that. The problem comes when these very same people try to impose their beliefs (religious or even scientific) and personal moral standards (yes there are many different standards!) on someone else. That someone also may not be able to take on the responsibility of having a child. Whether I am pro-life or not, does not give me the right to impose my will, beliefs or moral values on someone else. Having a valid arguement is one thing, demanding domain over another person is another. So, yes you can have your opinion... but you cannot force someone to do something against their will unless you are willing to do something about it personally. It's a cop out.

As I have previously observed in this thread:

1. Religion has nothing to do with abortion. It is purely a secular question. At stake is the life of a human. Be it Christian, Jew, Muslim, or athiest is of no import. That abortion kills a human child is the only consideration.

2. 'Imposing beliefs' is an incorrect analysis of the question. It is akin to folks in the 1860s whose attitude toward slavery was, "While I would never choose to own a slave, I really don't care if you choose to own them." Slavery was intrinsically wrong because it gave one human the arbitrary and capricious right of life or death over another human. Abortion is intrinsically wrong for the same reason. Abortion gives one human the arbitrary and capricious right of life or death over another human.

3. On can rationalize anything. The fact, according to published statistics is that the vast majority of abortions occur in order to avoid embarrassment or because of inconvenient timing.

4. Forcing someone to permit a child to live? What hogwash.

 

[Fantasea]

Do you know, I'm officially a Catholic - but thankfully that was just to keep certain relatives happy and I was spared the horrors of religious indoctrination.

Henry III twisted religion to suit his own ends. Nothing has changed, has it?

Who asked you? The status of your religious circumstances are your own business and certainly none of mine.

By the way, there is no such thing as an 'official' Catholic. One is either a practicing Catholic, which means one who has been baptized and is in full communion with the Church, or a lapsed Catholic, which means one who has been baptized but has fallen away from the Church.

My reference to Henry VIII was to simply show the lengths to which baptized Catholics sometimes go when they get a case of the uncontrollable 'hots'.

'Hank 8' is simply one of the better known among the millions who have succumbed to the temptations of the flesh.

 

[Fantasea]

Simple and short

Its a Womens Right To Choose God Gave them the power to make life
who are we as men to say yes or no .... Sexist ***holes

I can't wait to read your response to post #393.

 

[Fantasea]

there isn't wholesale, uninhibited slaughter of babies in the streets.

That's true. However, I would venture that most folks would consider the number of nearly fifty million US abortions since Roe v. Wade as wholesale, uninhibited slaughter of babies in the abortion mills which have sprung up as the solution to the social problem of pregnancies which would be embarrassing, or have occurred at an inconvenient time.

In perspective, the number of fifty million is greater than the entire population of England at its most recent census.

 

[Contrarian]

No matter how many times we go over this issue, one thing is absolutely clear. There will be no agreement on the fundamentals involved. People for the most part are set in there ways. I for one have broaded my view on abortion thanks in large part to your arguements. I could not make the personal choice to terminate a pregnancy unless the womans life was at stake or some similar tragedy. But I could not tell someone else what they must do, and I have to defend the rights of women exercising their legal rights in this free nation.

You continually come up with claims such as your comment: "One can rationalize anything. The fact, according to published statistics is that the vast majority of abortions occur in order to avoid embarrassment or because of inconvenient timing."

Frankly, you are guilty of your own acquisation. You are right. YOU can rationalize anything. You have brought forward claims that are obviously slanted to fit your agenda. Everyone does it, and you're no different, but don't cast stones (ooops, alittle christian humor!) at others for doing what you do.

Do I buy into all that you have said?.. obviously not. Do I buy into the Republican crafted slavery (code) arguement?.. nice try, but to use your term, "hogwash" packaged in selective hypocracy. Do I buy your comment that religion has nothing to do with abortion positions?.. not really (what a surprise!). They have a great deal to do with the entire agenda including but not limited to the parameters surrounding the time life begins etc etc etc. But I do agree that it is a major problem that needs more direct attention. The fact that the Pro Life administration has failed to put more resources, and I mean BIG BUCKS behind this to provide support for babies born and in need of adoption or institutional care (what a horror) indicates to me that it either (1) isn't as important to them as it is to you - just a political convenience that they can use to rally votes from guys like you... OR (2) they are hypocrits and won't commit the dollars needed to fund support for pregnant Moms; money incentives to women who don't abort; free adoptions (no legal costs etc), deep tax incentives for people adopting, allowing gays to adopt (what a crime against nature that would be! Oh my), free medical care for all "rescued" babies...whatever it would take to drop that rate dramatically. They simply like to talk about it, yet the do nothing to fix the problem (sound familiar?)

Through all these threads I haven't heard ANYONE come up with any viable plan or alternative to mitigate this problem. You personally refuse to do you bit and adopt a few babies... Most Republicans (and many Dems) would freak out at the evolution of a quasy "socialist" system to support and care for those who were "rescued". Hell, Bush is trying to figure out social security for old people... he can't deal with millions of unwanted babies too! One of the easiest answers also hits a brick wall with your crowd...I have also heard the nonsensical conservative christian drivel over birth control information and distribution to young people because that might give them "impure" thoughts. I hate to break it to you Fant... you don't have to "give" them anything... THEY HAVE THEM ALREADY, and isn't it better to prevent the genetic interlude before anyone has to debate the issue of it being a "baby" at conception? Get over it! People have sex! Lots of it, and sometimes accidents happen in the heat of passion. Just ask a priest or a tele-evangalist... sometimes they "sin" too.

You have some very salient points and honorable intentions, but you need to pack you puritanical mindset and leave it in the past, and offer some MODERN solutions rather than trying to mandate other peoples behavior. Because it's never going to happen.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

'Hank 8' is simply one of the better known among the millions who have succumbed to the temptations of the flesh.

Billions, honey! Having sex is a basic human drive, like hunger and thirst. People WILL have sex (yes, even those who aren't married), and teenagers WILL have sex.

You oppose abortion and you also oppose adequate sex education. That, as our beloved Contrarian has suggested elsewhere, is a rediculous stance.

Fantasea, you really need to grow up and start thinking for yourself instead of spewing out the same tired old arguments which, despite your frequent protests to the contrary, appear to be entirely based on your religious beliefs.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Hell, I also believe we should allow doctor assisted suicide. It's YOUR BODY, who should tell you that you MUST suffer inorder to die "naturally".... What do you think of that Naughty, since you are directly involved in this type of work?... you little Catholic, you.

I absolutely agree with that.

There are many people out there who's suffering (be it physical or non-physical) simply cannot be ended other thn by death.
Thanks to advances in palliative care (which is my specialty) those people are fewer in number than they used to be, but it does still happen, and always will. There are some kinds of suffering for which there simply are no solutions.

Currently the best we can do, when all else fails, is to heavily sedate people. This makes them look comfortable and peaceful, but who knows if they really are?

Altough the duty of ending a patient's life would probably fall on a doctor, it would require a nurse to be with the patient and the family while (s)he died. I would have no problem in doing this!

A thread specific for this topic might be appropriate, but I'm off on a long weekend trip to Paris first thing tomorrow and haven't got time. Anyone want to start it?