Religion — Page 105

Hell has a much better jukebox than heaven.

Gordon Ramsey is not dead yet.

He might ask for forgiveness and go to heaven instead.

What if he does?

No, misdemeanors and felonies are all equal in the eyes of God’s law.

TV’s Frink said:

Everything counts as murder. Actually, I’m reasonably sure if you think about having a kid and then decide not to, that’s murder too. But don’t worry, as long as they accept Jesus later it’s all good.

I’m not done with this one yet. I have a question that I’ve asked people before and have never gotten a real answer from it, and to be fair it only really applies to people that think birth control is wrong and plan B is wrong. Is it also wrong for a woman to not get pregnant (or try to get pregnant) every nine months. Because happening is that those eggs are being wasted and she’s denying potential beings their right to exist.

I just want to make my own stance clear. Eggs and sperm are wasted all the time, naturally. I don’t think that’s what people are upset about when it comes to abortion. When an egg is fertilized, there is a spark of life. A human child begins growing. If it wasn’t a living human being, it wouldn’t be growing more cells, and it wouldn’t turn into someone like me or yourself. Destroying a fertilized egg/fetus when there are no medical problems causing harm to the child or mother is murder in my book. Anything else is just a strawman.

The rape situation is difficult for me to answer. I still think it’s murder and that it’s wrong to do, but regarding law, I honestly don’t know what’s best. I’ve never been raped, and even if I was I’m a male, so I have no ability to empathize with the psychological affects of birthing a rapists child. At the same time, I think birthing the child would be one way to bring good into the world out of a horrible and traumatic occurrence. Again though, I have no idea how such an idea would sit with the woman in question.

m

Dek Rollins said:

I just want to make my own stance clear. Eggs and sperm are wasted all the time, naturally. I don’t think that’s what people are upset about when it comes to abortion. When an egg is fertilized, there is a spark of life. A human child begins growing. If it wasn’t a living human being, it wouldn’t be growing more cells, and it wouldn’t turn into someone like me or yourself. Destroying a fertilized egg/fetus when there are no medical problems causing harm to the child or mother is murder in my book. Anything else is just a strawman.

What about plan B? Other than that, my question was more geared toward Catholics, who typically are against birth control. It took them forever to even condone condoms for the purpose of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The rape situation is difficult for me to answer. I still think it’s murder and that it’s wrong to do, but regarding law, I honestly don’t know what’s best. I’ve never been raped, and even if I was I’m a male, so I have no ability to empathize with the psychological affects of birthing a rapists child. At the same time, I think birthing the child would be one way to bring good into the world out of a horrible and traumatic occurrence. Again though, I have no idea how such an idea would sit with the woman in question.

Here’s the problem: it’s not just birthing a rapist’s child, it’s carrying it for nine months. I’m going to guess that most abortions of rape pregnancies are very, very early in the pregnancy. (Most abortions in general are that.) I doubt that many, if any to be honest, women have chosen to carry a pregnancy almost to term and then decide at the nine month mark that they can’t have a rapist’s child. To me, to deny that there’s any difference between aborting a viable baby (and it’s fair to call it a baby once it’s viable outside of the womb) and an abortion of a 5-week fetus is totally absurd and dishonest. And by your own admission a pregnant rape victim is “just a strawman,” so I guess I don’t really know why I’m going into this. Also, the Bible, in Numbers 5:22, condones abortion in tests for infidelity so it isn’t even like abortion has anything to do with the Christian religion.

Also, I could tolerate anti-abortion “it’s all murder” people if they at least support very generous welfare-state policies. Oh, and they have to be in favor of comprehensive sex-education in all schools and free birth control and condoms too.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Abortion is such a horrible topic to argue because there is no grey area. You either believe life begins at conception and it’s murder, or you don’t and it’s not.

The latter can be a gray area. I think almost everyone would agree that an abortion of a viable-outside-the-womb, but still unborn child for no real medical reason is “wrong” however you want to define that. Of course, that is a rarity.

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

I just want to make my own stance clear. Eggs and sperm are wasted all the time, naturally. I don’t think that’s what people are upset about when it comes to abortion. When an egg is fertilized, there is a spark of life. A human child begins growing. If it wasn’t a living human being, it wouldn’t be growing more cells, and it wouldn’t turn into someone like me or yourself. Destroying a fertilized egg/fetus when there are no medical problems causing harm to the child or mother is murder in my book. Anything else is just a strawman.

What about plan B? Other than that, my question was more geared toward Catholics, who typically are against birth control. It took them forever to even condone condoms for the purpose of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The rape situation is difficult for me to answer. I still think it’s murder and that it’s wrong to do, but regarding law, I honestly don’t know what’s best. I’ve never been raped, and even if I was I’m a male, so I have no ability to empathize with the psychological affects of birthing a rapists child. At the same time, I think birthing the child would be one way to bring good into the world out of a horrible and traumatic occurrence. Again though, I have no idea how such an idea would sit with the woman in question.

Here’s the problem: it’s not just birthing a rapist’s child, it’s carrying it for nine months. I’m going to guess that most abortions of rape pregnancies are very, very early in the pregnancy. (Most abortions in general are that.) I doubt that many, if any to be honest, women have chosen to carry a pregnancy almost to term and then decide at the nine month mark that they can’t have a rapist’s child.

I never implied that the woman is choosing to abort after waiting eight months. It was just general.

To me, to deny that there’s any difference between aborting a viable baby (and it’s fair to call it a baby once it’s viable outside of the womb) and an abortion of a 5-week fetus is totally absurd and dishonest.

There is a technical and, I suppose moral, distinction. But, a five-week fetus is still a human child in my mind, so still murder.

And by your own admission a pregnant rape victim is “just a strawman,” so I guess I don’t really know why I’m going into this.

That completely ignores my context to purposefully paint me as unsympathetic towards rape victims. When regarding the argument of whether or not abortion at any stage is murder, anything that relates to other moral situations and not the central argument is a strawman. Bringing up a different moral situation doesn’t argue the idea that aborting a five-week fetus isn’t murder. It’s just confusing the central point.

Also, the Bible, in Numbers 5:22, condones abortion in tests for infidelity so it isn’t even like abortion has anything to do with the Christian religion.

Well, first, it’s hard to say if that would be considered applicable law post-Christ (unless I’m missing something?), and that isn’t the same as rape. It’s not that it has to do with religion (I hate the idea of “religiousness”), I just think that killing a developing child without good reason is morally wrong. And of course different people have different opinions on the definition of “good reason.”

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

I just want to make my own stance clear. Eggs and sperm are wasted all the time, naturally. I don’t think that’s what people are upset about when it comes to abortion. When an egg is fertilized, there is a spark of life. A human child begins growing. If it wasn’t a living human being, it wouldn’t be growing more cells, and it wouldn’t turn into someone like me or yourself. Destroying a fertilized egg/fetus when there are no medical problems causing harm to the child or mother is murder in my book. Anything else is just a strawman.

What about plan B? Other than that, my question was more geared toward Catholics, who typically are against birth control. It took them forever to even condone condoms for the purpose of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The rape situation is difficult for me to answer. I still think it’s murder and that it’s wrong to do, but regarding law, I honestly don’t know what’s best. I’ve never been raped, and even if I was I’m a male, so I have no ability to empathize with the psychological affects of birthing a rapists child. At the same time, I think birthing the child would be one way to bring good into the world out of a horrible and traumatic occurrence. Again though, I have no idea how such an idea would sit with the woman in question.

Here’s the problem: it’s not just birthing a rapist’s child, it’s carrying it for nine months. I’m going to guess that most abortions of rape pregnancies are very, very early in the pregnancy. (Most abortions in general are that.) I doubt that many, if any to be honest, women have chosen to carry a pregnancy almost to term and then decide at the nine month mark that they can’t have a rapist’s child.

I never implied that the woman is choosing to abort after waiting eight months. It was just general.

But they’re all more-or-less the same to you. I’m pointing out how absurd it is to compare these situations.

To me, to deny that there’s any difference between aborting a viable baby (and it’s fair to call it a baby once it’s viable outside of the womb) and an abortion of a 5-week fetus is totally absurd and dishonest.

There is a technical and, I suppose moral, distinction. But, a five-week fetus is still a human child in my mind, so still murder.

Okay, so what about what I said regarding sex-ed, birth control, and the welfare state?

And by your own admission a pregnant rape victim is “just a strawman,” so I guess I don’t really know why I’m going into this.

That completely ignores my context to purposefully paint me as unsympathetic towards rape victims. When regarding the argument of whether or not abortion at any stage is murder, anything that relates to other moral situations and not the central argument is a strawman.

It was your own words and you still say it’s murder so I don’t think it’s that out of context.

Bringing up a different moral situation doesn’t argue the idea that aborting a five-week fetus isn’t murder. It’s just confusing the central point.

It doesn’t confuse anything, it just shows that there’s an obvious difference from case to case. Not all abortions are the same.

Also, the Bible, in Numbers 5:22, condones abortion in tests for infidelity so it isn’t even like abortion has anything to do with the Christian religion.

Well, first, it’s hard to say if that would be considered applicable law post-Christ (unless I’m missing something?), and that isn’t the same as rape. It’s not that it has to do with religion (I hate the idea of “religiousness”), I just think that killing a developing child without good reason is morally wrong. And of course different people have different opinions on the definition of “good reason.”

It’s not the same as rape but it’s still a child. My point was that the only time God’s word ever mentions abortion, it’s condoning it.

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

I just want to make my own stance clear. Eggs and sperm are wasted all the time, naturally. I don’t think that’s what people are upset about when it comes to abortion. When an egg is fertilized, there is a spark of life. A human child begins growing. If it wasn’t a living human being, it wouldn’t be growing more cells, and it wouldn’t turn into someone like me or yourself. Destroying a fertilized egg/fetus when there are no medical problems causing harm to the child or mother is murder in my book. Anything else is just a strawman.

What about plan B? Other than that, my question was more geared toward Catholics, who typically are against birth control. It took them forever to even condone condoms for the purpose of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The rape situation is difficult for me to answer. I still think it’s murder and that it’s wrong to do, but regarding law, I honestly don’t know what’s best. I’ve never been raped, and even if I was I’m a male, so I have no ability to empathize with the psychological affects of birthing a rapists child. At the same time, I think birthing the child would be one way to bring good into the world out of a horrible and traumatic occurrence. Again though, I have no idea how such an idea would sit with the woman in question.

Here’s the problem: it’s not just birthing a rapist’s child, it’s carrying it for nine months. I’m going to guess that most abortions of rape pregnancies are very, very early in the pregnancy. (Most abortions in general are that.) I doubt that many, if any to be honest, women have chosen to carry a pregnancy almost to term and then decide at the nine month mark that they can’t have a rapist’s child.

I never implied that the woman is choosing to abort after waiting eight months. It was just general.

But they’re all more-or-less the same to you. I’m pointing out how absurd it is to compare these situations.

Aborting at eight months is of course a shittier thing to do. They are different situations. But I was simply discussing what I think counts as murder. I can’t say, “both situations are murder, but the five-week fetus is a bit less murder.”

To me, to deny that there’s any difference between aborting a viable baby (and it’s fair to call it a baby once it’s viable outside of the womb) and an abortion of a 5-week fetus is totally absurd and dishonest.

There is a technical and, I suppose moral, distinction. But, a five-week fetus is still a human child in my mind, so still murder.

Okay, so what about what I said regarding sex-ed, birth control, and the welfare state?

And by your own admission a pregnant rape victim is “just a strawman,” so I guess I don’t really know why I’m going into this.

That completely ignores my context to purposefully paint me as unsympathetic towards rape victims. When regarding the argument of whether or not abortion at any stage is murder, anything that relates to other moral situations and not the central argument is a strawman.

It was your own words and you still say it’s murder so I don’t think it’s that out of context.

You’re still confusing the point I was making. I’m talking about what I consider to be murder. The extraneous circumstances that may make the murder more or less morally sound don’t make a difference to the fact that I believe it is murder. When you referenced me calling unrelated arguments about the abortion issue ‘strawmen’ you phrased it in a way to clearly paint me in a bad moral light for not sympathizing with pregnant rape victims. Rape victims are not strawmen in the general abortion debate. Referencing rape situations, or any other non-medical circumstance, when I am simply discussing what I define as murder, is a strawman argument. That’s why I said “anything else.”

Bringing up a different moral situation doesn’t argue the idea that aborting a five-week fetus isn’t murder. It’s just confusing the central point.

It doesn’t confuse anything, it just shows that there’s an obvious difference from case to case. Not all abortions are the same.

And I have never argued to the contrary, which shows that you are still either confusing what I’m talking about.

Also, the Bible, in Numbers 5:22, condones abortion in tests for infidelity so it isn’t even like abortion has anything to do with the Christian religion.

Well, first, it’s hard to say if that would be considered applicable law post-Christ (unless I’m missing something?), and that isn’t the same as rape. It’s not that it has to do with religion (I hate the idea of “religiousness”), I just think that killing a developing child without good reason is morally wrong. And of course different people have different opinions on the definition of “good reason.”

It’s not the same as rape but it’s still a child. My point was that the only time God’s word ever mentions abortion, it’s condoning it.

Like I said, who knows if that law was still supposedly applicable post-Christ. There were a lot of religious old testament laws that had extremely harsh punishments for sinful actions.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Abortion is such a horrible topic to argue because there is no grey area. You either believe life begins at conception and it’s murder, or you don’t and it’s not.

I think it’s a grey issue for me. Cause I know I am fine with someone taking a morning after pill for example but I’m not ok with an abortion of a baby when it is a day from being born. There is a point along the way where it becomes not ok and I still don’t quite know where that point is for me. Hence, the fact that I consider myself still undecided.

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:
It’s not the same as rape but it’s still a child. My point was that the only time God’s word ever mentions abortion, it’s condoning it.

Like I said, who knows if that law was still supposedly applicable post-Christ. There were a lot of religious old testament laws that had extremely harsh punishments for sinful actions.

The morality is not the same and it isn’t a punishment. It isn’t like the New Testament condemns abortion, so that would replace the Old Testament prescription. It isn’t alluded to anywhere in the Bible except for when it’s condoned at least in that circumstance.

Also:

moviefreakedmind said:

Okay, so what about what I said regarding sex-ed, birth control, and the welfare state?

darthrush said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Abortion is such a horrible topic to argue because there is no grey area. You either believe life begins at conception and it’s murder, or you don’t and it’s not.

I think it’s a grey issue for me. Cause I know I am fine with someone taking a morning after pill for example but I’m not ok with an abortion of a baby when it is a day from being born. There is a point along the way where it becomes not ok and I still don’t quite know where that point is for me. Hence, the fact that I consider myself still undecided.

I say when and if it’s viable outside the womb. That’s a good one.

moviefreakedmind said:

darthrush said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Abortion is such a horrible topic to argue because there is no grey area. You either believe life begins at conception and it’s murder, or you don’t and it’s not.

I think it’s a grey issue for me. Cause I know I am fine with someone taking a morning after pill for example but I’m not ok with an abortion of a baby when it is a day from being born. There is a point along the way where it becomes not ok and I still don’t quite know where that point is for me. Hence, the fact that I consider myself still undecided.

I say when and if it’s viable outside the womb. That’s a good one.

That sounds like a good argument to me. One counter argument I have heard is that this is not a good criteria for when you should be able to have an abortion, since if someone is on life support, we don’t give the right to someone to kill them. It’s somewhat similar since the burden of keeping that person on life support is still money from a person. It’s a sacrifice for someone and the question is whether the people sacrificing for that life support should be allowed to terminate that support. Just food for thought and I hope that wasn’t complete gibberish.

EDIT: I kind of like the idea of the checkpoint being when the baby can feel pain. I still need to look more into it.