Civilization and human matters aren't important though. A wise person is just spending a blink of an eye in this world, which is vanity and illusion. All that matters is beyond this world. The only thing of consequence that can happen in a lifetime is that a person throws away the love of God that he was born with. It's not ethical to risk a baby's soul like that for such an illusory return as civilization or humanism.

People don't "Support abortion" People support pro choice. The GOP will continue to feel the pain from being anti-gay and pro-life.

inb4 ppl take this as how I vote

Do you really believe this tripe...or do you just play the internet idiot?

If a baby is miscarried or aborted, doesn't it go to Jesus? Are you saying the baby souls in Jesus' hand can't love him because they were never given a chance to be apart from him and autonomous?

label it how you want to...it doesn't change the end results.

I don't really understand the point of the" trolliness?" to your responses. Maybe you're just stirring the pot a little which is fine, I have no problem with it.

People aren't just throwing away the love of God but also the love for God which is what he desires. God has unconditional love for everyone so your attempted argument is invalid.

Yea I know. It will continue to keep new people from joining the GOP.

Aquinas, first among equals has answered your objection.

First, any life requires we first answer what is a "good life." You are presumptively not a bot. If you exist, you have obviously NOT chosen to self negate. You are existing towards some good. Thus, your existence negates your premise.

Both Aquinas and Aristotle argued to avoid bad and do good. Important here because while end states differ, the process is shared (this importantly removes post corporal reward.) Different reasons, but the same end.

Both Aristotle and Thomas argue for the power of human agency. You are making a converse claim, namely that a mother holds the power to negate another's claim to agency. A powerful, if completely unproven statement.

This is a function of cognitive dissonance.

Pro choice is allowing abortion.

I am smart, but I don't presume to speak for Jesus.

You are mixing two fundamental questions, one theological (the fate of the unborn) and the ethical requirement of human agency (a robustly human question independent of religion.)

We can only speak to the latter. What are the requirements of a good life?

Whatever you want to call it. It's just another reason many young people won't vote R. Along with the anti gay bull shit.

It's sad that that liberals succeeded chasing ethics out of the public square under the rubric of the "separation of church and state."

We've had multiple generations of people unable coherently create ethical argument, and we call it "freedom." JMO.

All I know is, three women friends who had abortions suffered emotionally crippling distress after they had the "cells" removed from their body. The emotional pain still haunts them years and decades later. Why such guilt if it was not taking a life?

Religious beliefs aside, isn't it a moral person's and society's responsibility to protect those who are defenseless? And who is more defenseless than a child in the womb?

Since a person cannot be the property of another person then how can a moral society condone one person choosing to terminate the life of another person?

Gotta be.  


But since I never miss an abortion of an abortion thread ( ), OP, you can't reason with the god squad.  

Pro-choice, and fuck anyone who wants to control other peoples bodies because of their brainwashed beliefs...

Holy fuck. That's an evil bitch.

Why would you bother to argue from a position of the Christian theology when you clearly have no understanding of what that theology teaches?  

What is it about this place that sees the people who know the least about something speaking with authority on issues they clearly do not understand?







Edit: I will be shocked if this isn't mentioned so I will go ahead and address it:   there are numerous examples of people being ordered to kill children (usually in conjunction with the sacking of new territory) or children dying at the hands of God in some act or another (the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Flood, Abraham ordered to sacrifice his son, the punishments inflicted upon the Egyptians, Joshua's wars, the state of Israel at war with other nations, Job's afflictions, etc).   The books of the Bible are pretty darn violent.  

Here are some of them:



Those are just the highlights; there are lots and lots more.   So, with all that in mind, do you see any patters emerging here regarding children?

While not absolute, blessed people tend to be blessed with children (Abraham, Job, etc) and the sinners who have displeased God tend to have their children taken from them (often violently).  

"fuck anyone who wants to control other peoples bodies because of their brainwashed beliefs"

I agree completely with that statement, fuck pro choice and the left's brainwashing of women to control and kill a babies body.

Good for you sweetheart

that argument, taken quickly to its logical ends, is that murder to anyone is fine.

the inability of the godless to understand that opposing infanticide isn't a specifically religious stand is why atheists are rightfully mocked.

If they do that makeup companies won't be able to buy it for use in their products.

In my twenties I was pro choice. I didn't like or want kids. I couldn't care for my own needs and would've been a curse to a child. I knew there were people that wanted to adopt but I also saw how many non-infants don't get adopted. There are unwanted children all over the world dying of abuse and starvation daily. Why bring another life into the world when we are not caring for the ones already here.  All that I could think of was relating it to the sad situation at the animal shelters. Thousands of animals passed over so people can get the "cute" babies they think they want only to dump them back off a couple years later.

At 40 a new friend and I were out for a beer and got into long deep conversation.  He talked a lot about his son and the love and pride it gave him. I talked mostly of regrets and how I would do things differently if I had another chance. He had made similar mistakes in his youth but said he wouldn't change a thing or else he wouldn't be where he was and he loved his life. He died later that night.

That changed me. That was last year. My son was born in January. He was the first baby I've ever touched or held. I was scared shitless. I Still am.at times. I've grown to love him more than I thought was possible. The mistakes of my youth do haunt me when I look at him and wonder about the child that isn't here.

Ah, I think I see why you're still not getting it.   You think women primarily have abortions for reasons other than resource scarcity, and you some how got the notion that that includes eating the child.

I never said that humans eat their young.  I said humans and animals kill their offspring out of resource scarcity, real or perceived, after someone in this thread made the bold claim that animals do not kill their offspring.

Humans in the Western world abort their children primarily because of resource scarcity.

Stopped reading after that.

All I need to know is that OP really doesn't give a shit about his question.



ETA:

And he hasn't been back.

Go figure.

wrong...the vast majority of abortions  [nearly all] are committed simply for convenience.

Just ask the doctors or the blobs of tissue:

The purpose of life is to experience and reciprocate love.

Love requires free agency.  Most importantly, enough agency to make the willing choice to make sacrifices for others, among other things.

Which is the more loving, self-sacrificial action?  To kill your child?  Or to care for them?

You've already connected all the other dots.

Consider this, money, time and effort are all limited resources.  Each of has a different amount of these things, a different perception of what is available, and different perception of the value of each of those things.  

What you call convenience is a matter of resource allocation.  Thus, neither of us is incorrect.

If you don't believe that that is the case, give me one example of abortion solely for the sake of convenience that isn't a question of resource allocation.

"I wanna fuck like a bunny...but I don't want the responsibility that comes with such behavior"

Attending to those responsibilities entail the expenditure of limited resources, such as time and money, do they not?

Resource scarcity, in the animal kingdom, is basically speaking about at least one of two different things:  

(1) The scarcity of immediate resources needed to live such as the nutrients and sustenance that keeps us alive.   Animals eat their newborn for this reason all the time.  This is even touched upon in one of the sources you referenced in one of your previous posts.



I am not aware of any examples from history of new born babies being killed and eaten immediately after birth to provide immediate relief from malnutrition.   Did it happen?  Possibly but I am not aware of any cases.  

There are, however, a hand full of examples from history where young children and infants were cannibalized.  One of the more famous examples involves Roman soldiers during the sacking of Jerusalem under Titus when they walked into a house and found a half roasted infant on a spit.   I cannot recall if the child was murdered or if it died of natural causes.   I do recall the Romans were particularly mortified at this find which is saying something given that the Romans themselves committed infanticide.

Historically, human beings have gone out of their way to do anything they could before resorting to killing and/or eating their young even to the point where people have chosen to die themselves rather than engage in the gruesome task.  

With that said, there are numerous examples of infanticide for other reasons unrelated to resource allocation that go all the way back to antiquity including a variety of reasons ranging from warfare to "I just don't want it."  

(2)  The scarcity of resources in the environment in general.   In this case the baby or the parents could die from a lack of resources due to the child exceeding the carrying capacity of the existing environment however there is no immediate threat of death.     In humans this is often conveyed through the concept of overpopulation and has been formally adopted by a few countries such as China and India (with China taking more extreme measures to address the issue).

This argument is nonsense as the world has the resources, currently, to feed the people we have (corruption and misallocations of existing resources not withstanding).  

That argument used in the Western world (such as the United States) is even worse as there are people, groups, and businesses lining up with the resources to take, care for, and raise those children if only the people would give birth and hand them over.  

If a woman gives birth in the USA and does not have the resources to care for that child and that child is on the brink of death, there are people standing by willing to take that child to provide those resources.

Even worse there are programs at the Federal, State, and sometimes local level that exist to provide for people just like that woman who take YOUR money and MY MONEY to ensure she has the resources to care for that child.

Therefore there are no abortions in the Western world and certainly not in the USA that are related to resources.   Now you may have a person who has an abortion and uses that argument for justification however simply saying "I am not ready for it" is not a legitimate argument in my opinion and certainly isn't related to the issue of the abundance of resources or the lack thereof.

You are pregnant with a child and that child is a girl.   You want a boy.   You abort the baby, not because of a question of resources, but based upon the sex of the baby.  

Just want to get in before the thread is aborted.

I'm not trying to be trolly. The tipsy OP made a thread about some of his musings and I'm just following in the spirit of it with musings of my own.

If God loves everyone so much that all will go to heaven even if they reject him, then yes, my questions are answered. I'm asking in the context of a world where the unborn go to heaven and if one rejects God, one is denied heaven upon death.

I agree.  That would be an instance of killing a child that does not involve any resource allocation.  That is an example of pure selfishness.

[Insert 3,000 word response here just to say I agree]

You're making an argument based on emotion, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if you cannot exclude emotional attachments for just a moment, you'll never see that abortion is nearly 100% about resource allocation.  It's not as simple and direct as a link as you seem to want to be forcing it into, but it is the basis.

Let's bear in mind that we got to this point, because somebody wrote something to the effect of,"humans are awful, not even animals kill their young."  I was simply trying to refute that specious notion by pointing out that not only do animals kill their young, they do it primarily for the same reason humans primarily do it, resource allocation.

Aristotle is irrelevent because he's a heathen. It seems to me that Aquinas was just trying to make the best of what he had, what we all have, which is a life on earth. Since suicide is a sin, it's not an option, so anyone trying to be good and please god and grow is doing the right thing.

How does a mother not hold the power to negate another's claim to agency? You can argue that she doesn't have the right, but she certainly has the power. God holds the same power, but chooses not to exercise it because it doesn't suit his purposes to do so.

ETA: I'm no fan of abortion, but I'm not a hard line pro-life guy either.

I'm assuming the unborn go straight to heaven. Assume with me for the purpose of this argument. If they don't, then my argument completely falls apart.

My argument is that agency isn't necessary. That a creature devoid of will doesn't love god any less and that the meaning of existence (whether there is "life" in the corporeal sense) is to be close to god and love him and be loved by him in heaven. That will and agency bring no good and only bad  and incarnation is a risk and a curse to the soul who must slog through this vale of tears separated from his creator and possibly lose sight of him and be damned for all eternity.

My friends who've had abortions are/were fine. My friend who miscarried had horrible guilt over it. I don't think that how a handful of individuals feel about something is a good indicator of whether it's ok or not ok. Some people feel ok taking a life, some people are torn up over things that aren't their fault.

She's discussing philosophical arguments in a thread about philosophical arguments. Don't get your panties in a twist.

Can you condense that into your point or argument? I can see that God wants us to have children and that he loves children and he wants us to protect them. I'm saying that this runs counter to their salvation though, assuming unborn dead go to heaven, of course.

If I were to murder a man, I might be sending him to hell the day before he would have found Jesus. Definitely not fine.

If I were to murder an unborn baby, I might go to hell, but that baby would go to heaven. Isn't that fine for the baby?

And if you'll google my name and "abortion" you'll find plenty of secular arguments.

I am not sure where it happened however I believe something was lost in translation here (which may be my fault).  I am not ignoring what you wrote (I just deleted another hefty post) however I want to go a different direction starting at the beginning to ensure we are on the same page.

Earlier, you made this claim:  "They do it for the same reason humans do it - resource scarcity, real or perceived "

Can you please provide an example of a human being having an abortion due to the issue of resource scarcity (real or perceived) and then describe the lack of resources justifying or used to justify that abortion?

I need a baseline here because I think you and I are operating off of two different perspectives regarding resource management.  

Did you see the parts where God ordered the killing of children?

Did you see the parts where the death of children or the lack of child birth is sometimes used as a punishment from God on certain parties?

Can you post any reference to any scripture that definitively states that unborn children are saved and go to heaven?

Furthermore can you provide an argument AGAINST mandatory abortions for all people seeing as allowing people to live would, apparently, allow the people the chance to suffer for all eternity when there could be a guaranteed ticket to paradise for all eternity?

Oddly enough, I would say I fall into the same category.  

Yes.

Yes.

No. I'm just using the common Christian belief that aborted or miscarried babies go to Jesus.

I cannot. If I had the power to do that, and believed that I was saving the unborn from the risk of damnation, shouldn't I mandate abortion?