• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Pro-Choice of Life

el_joven

Banned
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
41
Reaction score
3
Location
NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Being a Christian I do not believe in Abortion for the pure and simple reason, God dosn't make mistakes. Although I am an avid believer in the policy of seperation between church and state. In my mind abortion is obviously murder, however making it illegal will only cause women to revert back to the more desperate measures to abort children. So I propose that abortion should be legalized however if a child wants to have an abortion they should need a parent's consent or a private court hearing. And their should be more criteria needed in deciding rather or not an abortion is legal
 
el_joven said:
Being a Christian

You're new here, so heres a bit of advice. Starting off a statement with "as a christian" doesnt give you the moral highground, in fact it can often turn people off to you. It comes off as sanctimonious.

el_joven said:
I do not believe in Abortion for the pure and simple reason, God dosn't make mistakes.

So tell me, if I understand you correctly, do you honestly believe that my actions are manifestations of god's will and everything I do is a part of his plan, is free will a crock of **** to you?

Human's make mistakes. But im sure its easier to believe that everything you do is purposeful because god doesnt make mistakes.

el_joven said:
So I propose that abortion should be legalized however if a child wants to have an abortion they should need a parent's consent or a private court hearing. And their should be more criteria needed in deciding rather or not an abortion is legal

What sort of criteria? Do you want people to fill out an in depth questionaire on a points system to see if they qualify for an abortion?
 
first off, I know that in any forum I am in, being christian doesn't exactly give me any respect-but at the same time I don't care and if my faith is a reason for my opinion than I will not hide it.

I don't expect you to change faiths but I do believe god knows what you will do before you do it and rather than taking your free will, he changes the situation to help you make the right decision.

As far as criteria go I believe usage of birth controls or condoms could be one, otherwise women can decide to get pregnant however many times they want and I also believe rape or age could be another.
 
I don't have a problem with you identifying that you are a Christian when you post; it states a little of where your opinions are coming from. Remember, though that using the bible and Christianity here may get you slammed as using them as evidence usually doesn't work. Opinion is completely different, however.

I would agree with the infrerence of your OP. Using abortion as birth control is not something I agree with. However, creating more regulations that need court involvement, I believe, would be wasteful of legal resources. In our country, now, people are in court for nearly everything, and this would just be another to clog up our already clogged legal system. Besides, as you said, if a woman wanted an abortion and was denied legally, she'd figure out a way to get it, anyway.

I wish I could offer another solution, but this whole issue is confusing to me and I usually try not to debate it.
 
el_joven,

welcome. You have just thrown yourself to the wolves stating you are a christian and that abortion is wrong because the bible says so.

Mind you, I agree completely. But this place looks at the Bible as something to hold the door open with, not a valid source of factual material.

If you want to hold you own here, the Bible won't be enough. There are those here who are militantly adverse to christianity in specific and religion in general. Having a chance against them will require imperical evidence.

Good luck.
 
el_joven said:
Being a Christian I do not believe in Abortion for the pure and simple reason, God dosn't make mistakes. Although I am an avid believer in the policy of seperation between church and state. In my mind abortion is obviously murder, however making it illegal will only cause women to revert back to the more desperate measures to abort children. So I propose that abortion should be legalized however if a child wants to have an abortion they should need a parent's consent or a private court hearing. And their should be more criteria needed in deciding rather or not an abortion is legal


Now I think it should be left up to the woman. If a man has bedded a "child" then that child has been thrust into the adult world and should decided if she wants to go through the emotional rape again.

As "Christians" we are not judge...just love. Let God have the call on judgment and everything else falls into place. It's a woman's decision of conscience. Let her make it.
 
on being christian- I really don't agree wityh most if any established christian sects. I do believe that I will "throw myself to the wolves"(I'm new to this site but not to forums in general) And I did not say abortion was wrong [legally] I just believe that it is wrong personally. I do't intend to justify my belief nor wave it proudly but neither will I hide it.
 
Where does your personal animosity to 'christian sects' (AKA denominations) come from?

My own are pretty simple. Denominations tend to spend too much time focusing on one tree and not the whole forest. (Everyone else is wrong because they think Adam had a belly button and he couldn't have since he didn't have a mother. THat kind of garbage.)
 
el_joven said:
Being a Christian I do not believe in Abortion for the pure and simple reason, God dosn't make mistakes.
That's not very specific. What is it that you are claiming God said or did, which is therefore not a mistake?

For example, pregnancies are generally not caused by God, they are caused by Mindless Natural Biology. Therefore the existence of the average pregnancy does not inherently involve God. So why should terminating a pregnancy involve any claims about God? And regarding what the Bible has to say about abortion, even preachers have been known to argue both sides of the issue. This implies that despite God not making a mistake, what is written in the Bible about what God supposedly said isn't specific enough.

You might now point to the Commandment, "Thou shalt not murder", but this leaves the word "murder" undefined -- and it is quite logical that "killing a human" is an inadequate definition! For example, suppose a flying saucer landed near you and an ugly alien pilot climbed down and you shot it. Would that be murder? What if you hadn't shot it, and allowed alien to introduce itself? Suppose it announced that it greatly enjoyed Earthly Christian broadcasts, and had come to be baptized? Would your alternative shooting of it have been murder, then? I therefore submit that murder involves killing an intellect, and the existiential form of that intellect does not matter in the least. And as a corollary, not-murder is the killing of any organism which does not have an intellect, which includes trees and food animals and unborn humans. Simple.
 
To start off I have no animosity but instead just do not agree with them (If you would really like me to elaborate I will in another thread.

To FutureIncoming, I never have and never will cite the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment" in defense of pro-life. Go read Exodus 21:22,23.

As far as I am concerned pregnancies are still chance and so God has control over them.

I'm not going to answer to the alien thing because as a Christian I believe if there is an intelligent being out there I still as man have dominion.
 
Pro choicers believe that the fetus isn't alive, and thus it isn't murder to perform an abortion. Pro lifers believe that the entity within the womb is alive. As neither side is willing to except the other's, reasonable debate is thrown up to God's will, the lack of God, and debates on who has the best standards of morality.
 
el_joven said:
Go read Exodus 21:22,23.
I have some familiarity with that. However, it seems appropriate to see the surrounding context:
Moses said:
(It is widely claimed that Moses wrote the first five books, including Exodus, right?)
Chapter 20, Verse 1: And God spake all these words, saying,
The Ten Commandments immediately follow that verse, and more verses directly flow into Chapter 21, all supposedly being words that God spake.

But consider the statement, "It is widely claimed that Moses wrote Exodus." That is either a true statement, or it isn't. If it isn't, then we have the situation of a third party claiming that Moses claimed that God spake various words. Well, have you ever played a game called, I think, "telephone"? A bunch of people sit in a circle and a message is whispered from one person to the next, and back to the first. The fun is in comparing the "before" and "after" versions of the message. With two levels of claims in the situation above, the possibility that Moses did not write Exodus, don't you think there should be some doubts about the accuracy of those claims, about what God supposedly spake?

Of course, the alternative possibility, that Moses did write Exodus, leaves us with, "Do we believe him or not?" Where is the evidence to support those claims about what God supposedly spake? In the Bible, there are just more claims, and nothing else! I suggest you do some searching of not-so-distant history, and study how Hitler mesmerized 1930s Germany, just by making claims. So what is the technical difference between Moses' claims and Hitler's claims, if there is no supporting evidence for either ("God said such and such" vs "all Jews are bad people")?

One obvious fact about some of those books is that Moses was creating a "theocracy", which is government of the people by the preachers and for the preachers -- and Moses was the top-dog beneficiary of that theocracy. And from that perspective, everything Moses wrote becomes suspect, a political conflict-of-interest thing.

Now, getting specifically to Exodus 21:22-23, those versus have been interpreted as saying that if a woman is harmed, "an eye for an eye" can be the punishment, but if a fetus is harmed, an arbitrary fine can be set. I personally focus on that word "arbitrary"; the verses state that the woman's husband can set the fine, and it doesn't say how much or how little. Which obviously means to me, if the husband approves of abortion, then the fine could easily be zero, right?

As a Christian you supposedly claim that God specified what was written in Exodus 21:22-23. And I already wrote in my last message that preachers have been known to argue both sides of the interpretation of things attributed to God. You can find much of the above interpretation quite easily on the Internet, by preachers. Just as I can easily find an alternate and more restrictive interpretation, by other preachers. Which just goes to show:
FutureIncoming said:
despite God not making a mistake, what is written in the Bible about what God supposedly said isn't specific enough.
 
Last edited:
el_joven said:
as a Christian I believe if there is an intelligent being out there I still as man have dominion.
You better believe something else, because in this case you are quite wrong to hold that particular belief.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
There is nothing in that about dominion over extraterrestrial (not-of-this-earth) life forms. And the limitation of dominion, to the earth, is repeated in some of the verses that follow, but I don't need to quote them here. I'm sure you can look them up for yourself.
 
quite right but I I the alien comes to earth it is then a 'creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth' anyways, I still wouldn't shoot it unless it tried to harm me......................................[?hold-up am I really debating this as though it matters?] anyways...

If you look at my post I am a pro choicer i just support anti- abortion public interest groups and help clinics that can help women make the right decision(and I mean 'the right decision' as an ambiguous term meaning a term she will not forget). I also support a man's involvement in the decision(when safely possible).

on that note I pose a question: A woman makes a one night mistake and has the choice whether or not to have the baby but a man that makes the same mistake-his future is in the hands of the woman. Should a man have the right to not pay child support if he supports or asks for an abortion?
 
el_joven said:
I pose a question: A woman makes a one night mistake and has the choice whether or not to have the baby but a man that makes the same mistake-his future is in the hands of the woman. Should a man have the right to not pay child support if he supports or asks for an abortion?
There are a couple things wrong with the wording of your question. First, an unborn human does not qualify for the descriptor "baby", until it is born. Remember "Don't count your chicks before they are hatched?" It applies to babies/births, too, because of the possiblity of miscarriages.

Second, the word "mistake" depends on the mind-set of the involved parties. There are four possibilities when a pregnancy happens. Both might want it, neither might want it, or one or the other only might want it. Only those who don't want a pregnancy are likely to consider it to be a mistake.

As you know, birth control is the best method of avoiding this mistake, but almost as important is for the two persons to communicate, before-hand, about the possibilities. Especially for the man, the biggest mistake could be to not find out in advance, that the woman wants to become pregnant, OR would refuse to abort. And if the man does acquire accurate information, and the birth control fails, then your question becomes most relevant. Note that in this specific case, the man knows in advance that an unwanted-by-him pregnancy could very likely lead to child-support payments. The woman should get a signed statement from him. Then if he risked it and the unwanted result happens, he cannot be allowed to wiggle out. Couldn't he instead have sought a woman who would be willing to abort, if an unwanted pregnancy happens? I'd recommend he get a signed statement from her, so that she, if she changes her mind, can't have any right to request child-support from him. See, I have tried to be fair. Either way, somebody does not wiggle out of a mutual advance agreement.
 
el_joven said:
In my mind abortion is obviously murder, however making it illegal will only cause women to revert back to the more desperate measures to abort children.

I've never understood this line of thinking. in any circumstance other than abortion, if a person gets injured or dies in a murder attempt against someone else, then it is simply their own damn fault and no one has any sympathy for them.
 
el_joven said:
I'm not going to answer to the alien thing because as a Christian I believe if there is an intelligent being out there I still as man have dominion.

And so....if this alien life has superior weaponry, you Die. As do I because of your arrogance....thanks for that.
 
haha^

star-My line of thinking isn't that it isn't the aborter's fault but that I'd rather their be fewer deaths no matter what.

Future-I said mistake because unless it applies in the circumstance in which I described. And reread your own last paragraph tell me who in their right mind signs papers before [spontaneous] sex as to what will be done if impregnation occurs.
 
el_joven said:
Future-I said mistake because unless it applies in the circumstance in which I described. And reread your own last paragraph tell me who in their right mind signs papers before [spontaneous] sex as to what will be done if impregnation occurs.
Well, you are neglecting the "relationship" thing. Most women prefer their sexual activities inside a relationship, and my comments about getting signed papers involves that situation more than any other. Because it seems to me that a woman who accepts spontaneous sex outside of a steady relationship, then that woman likely will not be wanting to become pregnant, and also will be likely to seek abortion if that happens. I say this because of the "nest building" aspect of femal psychology. Many many women do not want children until after they have obtained a sense of security about their future. Obviously this security is lacking in a spontaneous-sex situation. Which means abortion is more acceptable to them, and this makes your original question moot, because you were asking about what the man could do if the woman wanted to give birth.

I am aware of variations on the themes described here. There is the "gold digger" who would get pregnant to hook a man. I think that if this scenario is proved to be the case, then the woman should lose custody of the child, but the man should pay child support, and perhaps have custody (he can afford it, else wouldn't have been a gold-digger target). And the woman's losing custody ought to lead to fewer instances of gold-digging....

Then there is the 1940s Kinsey Report, in which (so I've heard) about 10% of births that were blood-typed were found to have a type incompatible with their supposed fathers. This situation often takes care of itself, since the supposed father usually either doesn't know and pays child support as if it was his own kid, or does know and doesn't care. In the situation where a relationship breaks up messily because of the affair, the situation still sometimes takes care of itself, as the woman and her lover are then free to form a long term relationship that naturally would include child support. In the next-level possibility, it could be important for details to come out about how the affair happened. Was the woman having affairs frequently? Or was she weak under the influence of a high-pressure male? In the first case I'd half-expect the woman to accept an abortion, and probably not deserve child-support if she didn't*, and in the second case the man definitely should pay child-support.

Have I covered enough possibilities that maybe you are happy now?

*There is one situation which ought to be anathema to a stable Society, and that is the case where people have kids that they can't afford to raise themselves, and expect Society to provide child-support. These parents are cuckholding Society in exactly the same way that a married woman who has another man's child is cuckholding her husband. If the latter is to be loathed, then so is the former. And so I have attached this note via (*) to the situation above, where an affair-prone woman might think she has perogatives if she decides to carry a resulting pregnancy to term. But actually she would just be gold-digging....
 
There is something that I missed, to which I think a response is warranted.
FutureIncoming said:
pregnancies are generally not caused by God, they are caused by Mindless Natural Biology. Therefore the existence of the average pregnancy does not inherently involve God. So why should terminating a pregnancy involve any claims about God?
el_joven said:
As far as I am concerned pregnancies are still chance and so God has control over them.
Ah, but just because God could influence whether or not a fertilized ovum happens to encounter a womb (after which implantation might occur), that does not automatically mean either (A) God actually does influence any of them, or (B) God influences every single one of them. What is your basis for assuming that just because God can do a certain thing, God actually/always does that thing?
 
I did not say he controls all or any of them. I said he has control over them meaning he can choose whther or not to use that control
 
el_joven said:
As far as I am concerned pregnancies are still chance and so God has control over them.
FutureIncoming said:
What is your basis for assuming that just because God can do a certain thing, God actually/always does that thing?
el_joven said:
I did not say he controls all or any of them. I said he has control over them meaning he can choose whther or not to use that control
That's like saying you have control over pedestrians on a sidewalk, because you can choose whether or not to run over them with your car. Your logic is flawed; you only have control over yourself, and God has equal control over God. This is a "rights" issue. Would you say that just because you can pull the trigger of a gun and thus shoot someone, you have the right to do it? What about lightning bolts and their random pathways? God presumably has control over that, too, but that doesn't mean God has ever directly used it to execute someone. Heh, we can probably name a bunch of people whose death-by-directed-lightning would have been beneficial to thousands or millions of other people. The implication is that God does not consider it right to cause such deaths.... So, why should God consider it right to exercise power over the random events that lead to a pregnancy, especially if the way it would affect someone's life is unwanted, just because God can? One of my own fundamental ideas is that if God exists, and if God made the physical Universe, then all the randomness at the foundations of the Universe is there in order to make it unpredictable and not-boring, to God. It would be self-defeating of that goal, for God to interfere with that randomness.... Meanwhile, our Free Will is itself another aspect of the fundamental randomness of the Universe (if it cannot be random, then it is pre-determined and not Free; Free Will could not be said to exist). There is no rationale that can let us think that one random event, such as leads to pregnancy, is inherently more important than another random event, such as leads to Choice. There may be a rationale that the result of one random event, such as pregnancy, is more important than various other possible results of random events, such as Choice leading to abortion, but so far no pro-lifer has presented such a rationale, in today's overpopulated world, that is not contaminated with prejudice and/or hypocrisy.
 
This is an interesting question. If we did make abortion illegal, then women would go into back alleys and get abortions which would make things worse. However, we made murder illegal and people are still killing, does that mean that murder shouldn't be illegal? If something is wrong, then it needs to be made illegal-no matter how inconvenient it may be. I am all about personal freedoms, but not when one is harming another.
 
moolanus said:
If something is wrong, then it needs to be made illegal-no matter how inconvenient it may be.
GENERALLY AGREED. But who decides whether or not something is wrong, and why? YOU want to claim that abortion is wrong, but you have not presented any valid basis for the claim. Just prejudice, that somehow numerous-unwanted-mindless-animal "human life" is more important or special than equally numerous-unwanted-mindless-animal "rat life".

The only thing special about humans, compared to other animals, is their minds. So it logically figures that humans lacking minds are not special. Simple.

(For anyone so inclined, that last paragraph could be repeated replacing "minds" with "souls" and still be accurate. Think about it!)

When you can provide an Objective reason to show that unwanted-numerous-mindless/soulless humans are special, similar to the way minded/ensoulled humans are special, then and only then would it be wrong to kill them, as we kill unwanted rats.
 
This is an interesting question. If we did make abortion illegal, then women would go into back alleys and get abortions which would make things worse. However, we made murder illegal and people are still killing, does that mean that murder shouldn't be illegal? If something is wrong, then it needs to be made illegal-no matter how inconvenient it may be. I am all about personal freedoms, but not when one is harming another.

Murder is illegal because it causes chaos in society, not because it is "wrong" The purpose of government is solely to maintain order in society, not to determine right from wrong or to attempt to enforce one idea of right or wrong. Does abortion disrupt order in society?
 
Back
Top Bottom