Religion?

[Cressida]

This reminds me of a thought experiment I once read about. Imagine that there existed an artificial womb, a way of incubating a fetus at any stage of development and bringing it to term. Imagine that it were possible, if a woman wants an abortion, to simply transfer the fetus to this artificial womb. No death, no pregnancy. The perfect solution, right?

If you think a woman does not have a right to an abortion, ask yourself if you would accept the above solution. If the answer is no, ask yourself why.

Would people really say no to this?  That the woman is forced to carry the baby to term?  Why?  I'd love for someone to come up with a valid reason, even if only playing Devil's Advocate.

So would I. Heart of Tin? VirginiaBob? Got anything?

[VirginiaBob]

This reminds me of a thought experiment I once read about. Imagine that there existed an artificial womb, a way of incubating a fetus at any stage of development and bringing it to term. Imagine that it were possible, if a woman wants an abortion, to simply transfer the fetus to this artificial womb. No death, no pregnancy. The perfect solution, right?

If you think a woman does not have a right to an abortion, ask yourself if you would accept the above solution. If the answer is no, ask yourself why.

Would people really say no to this?  That the woman is forced to carry the baby to term?  Why?  I'd love for someone to come up with a valid reason, even if only playing Devil's Advocate.

So would I. Heart of Tin? VirginiaBob? Got anything?

Haha! You already know my answer:

www.google.com

[Cressida]

This reminds me of a thought experiment I once read about. Imagine that there existed an artificial womb, a way of incubating a fetus at any stage of development and bringing it to term. Imagine that it were possible, if a woman wants an abortion, to simply transfer the fetus to this artificial womb. No death, no pregnancy. The perfect solution, right?

If you think a woman does not have a right to an abortion, ask yourself if you would accept the above solution. If the answer is no, ask yourself why.

Would people really say no to this?  That the woman is forced to carry the baby to term?  Why?  I'd love for someone to come up with a valid reason, even if only playing Devil's Advocate.

So would I. Heart of Tin? VirginiaBob? Got anything?

Haha! You already know my answer:

www.google.com

oh ffs. fine, a different question, one that you cannot possibly answer with your favorite non-answer. Would you accept the solution of the artificial womb as mentioned above, as an alternative to abortion? You personally. Not Google.

[VirginiaBob]

This reminds me of a thought experiment I once read about. Imagine that there existed an artificial womb, a way of incubating a fetus at any stage of development and bringing it to term. Imagine that it were possible, if a woman wants an abortion, to simply transfer the fetus to this artificial womb. No death, no pregnancy. The perfect solution, right?

If you think a woman does not have a right to an abortion, ask yourself if you would accept the above solution. If the answer is no, ask yourself why.

Would people really say no to this?  That the woman is forced to carry the baby to term?  Why?  I'd love for someone to come up with a valid reason, even if only playing Devil's Advocate.

So would I. Heart of Tin? VirginiaBob? Got anything?

Haha! You already know my answer:

www.google.com

oh ffs. fine, a different question, one that you cannot possibly answer with your favorite non-answer. Would you accept the solution of the artificial womb as mentioned above, as an alternative to abortion? You personally. Not Google.

I'm assuming this question is a trap (gotcha!) but yes, assuming it acted exactly like a human womb.  Our current method (the incubator) doesn't quite cut it.  Early Preemies today have very high risks for brain bleeds, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, etc.  No tech we currently have comes close to simulating the womb, but it would be pretty sweet.

[Cressida]

oh ffs. fine, a different question, one that you cannot possibly answer with your favorite non-answer. Would you accept the solution of the artificial womb as mentioned above, as an alternative to abortion? You personally. Not Google.

I'm assuming this question is a trap (gotcha!) but yes, assuming it acted exactly like a human womb.  Our current method (the incubator) doesn't quite cut it.  Early Preemies today have very high risks for brain bleeds, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, etc.  No tech we currently have comes close to simulating the womb, but it would be pretty sweet.

It's not a trap. You have the option of choosing the answer that is logically consistent with your position. Which is what you did, so I will not question you further on this particular point.

[Heart of Tin]

This reminds me of a thought experiment I once read about. Imagine that there existed an artificial womb, a way of incubating a fetus at any stage of development and bringing it to term. Imagine that it were possible, if a woman wants an abortion, to simply transfer the fetus to this artificial womb. No death, no pregnancy. The perfect solution, right?

If you think a woman does not have a right to an abortion, ask yourself if you would accept the above solution. If the answer is no, ask yourself why.

Would people really say no to this?  That the woman is forced to carry the baby to term?  Why?  I'd love for someone to come up with a valid reason, even if only playing Devil's Advocate.

So would I. Heart of Tin? VirginiaBob? Got anything?

I think this scenario brings up the important issue of who the child belongs to during his or her artificial gestation (likewise who would pay for his or her care) and what would happen to the child after birth. It seems like there would be a significant uptick in the number of potential parent less children. I could see some people opposing this system in favor of abortion.

[arebelspy]

This reminds me of a thought experiment I once read about. Imagine that there existed an artificial womb, a way of incubating a fetus at any stage of development and bringing it to term. Imagine that it were possible, if a woman wants an abortion, to simply transfer the fetus to this artificial womb. No death, no pregnancy. The perfect solution, right?

If you think a woman does not have a right to an abortion, ask yourself if you would accept the above solution. If the answer is no, ask yourself why.

Would people really say no to this?  That the woman is forced to carry the baby to term?  Why?  I'd love for someone to come up with a valid reason, even if only playing Devil's Advocate.

So would I. Heart of Tin? VirginiaBob? Got anything?

I think this scenario brings up the important issue of who the child belongs to during his or her artificial gestation (likewise who would pay for his or her care) and what would happen to the child after birth. It seems like there would be a significant uptick in the number of potential parent less children. I could see some people opposing this system in favor of abortion.

Yes, sure.  I presented another scenario where abortion might be preferrable depending on your thoughts on the fetus and when life begins.  But the question wasn't about abortion or this, it was about would any pro-life people be against this (i.e. forcing a woman to carry it to term versus this).

And I can't see an argument for that, personally.

[Beric01]

This reminds me of a thought experiment I once read about. Imagine that there existed an artificial womb, a way of incubating a fetus at any stage of development and bringing it to term. Imagine that it were possible, if a woman wants an abortion, to simply transfer the fetus to this artificial womb. No death, no pregnancy. The perfect solution, right?

If you think a woman does not have a right to an abortion, ask yourself if you would accept the above solution. If the answer is no, ask yourself why.

Would people really say no to this?  That the woman is forced to carry the baby to term?  Why?  I'd love for someone to come up with a valid reason, even if only playing Devil's Advocate.

So would I. Heart of Tin? VirginiaBob? Got anything?

I think this scenario brings up the important issue of who the child belongs to during his or her artificial gestation (likewise who would pay for his or her care) and what would happen to the child after birth. It seems like there would be a significant uptick in the number of potential parent less children. I could see some people opposing this system in favor of abortion.

Yes, sure.  I presented another scenario where abortion might be preferrable depending on your thoughts on the fetus and when life begins.  But the question wasn't about abortion or this, it was about would any pro-life people be against this (i.e. forcing a woman to carry it to term versus this).

And I can't see an argument for that, personally.

I'm very strongly pro-life (only exception risk of life of the mother), and I don't have a problem with it. Abortion is (in my morality perspective) wrong because it kills a human being. If a human being is not being killed, I don't see a problem with this route assuming it leads to adoption.

Now that we're going along this route - I don't see why abortion belongs in a religion thread. Abortion has nothing to do with religion. I'm agnostic and pro-life. My argument is very simple: human life should be protected. Abortion ends a human life (no discussion of "viability" needed here - a fetus has distinctly human DNA human from conception). Therefore, abortion should not be permitted.

I find it shocking how the lives of animals are somehow more worthy of protection than those of living humans beings.

[Gin1984]

This reminds me of a thought experiment I once read about. Imagine that there existed an artificial womb, a way of incubating a fetus at any stage of development and bringing it to term. Imagine that it were possible, if a woman wants an abortion, to simply transfer the fetus to this artificial womb. No death, no pregnancy. The perfect solution, right?

If you think a woman does not have a right to an abortion, ask yourself if you would accept the above solution. If the answer is no, ask yourself why.

Would people really say no to this?  That the woman is forced to carry the baby to term?  Why?  I'd love for someone to come up with a valid reason, even if only playing Devil's Advocate.

So would I. Heart of Tin? VirginiaBob? Got anything?

I think this scenario brings up the important issue of who the child belongs to during his or her artificial gestation (likewise who would pay for his or her care) and what would happen to the child after birth. It seems like there would be a significant uptick in the number of potential parent less children. I could see some people opposing this system in favor of abortion.

Yes, sure.  I presented another scenario where abortion might be preferrable depending on your thoughts on the fetus and when life begins.  But the question wasn't about abortion or this, it was about would any pro-life people be against this (i.e. forcing a woman to carry it to term versus this).

And I can't see an argument for that, personally.

I'm very strongly pro-life (only exception risk of life of the mother), and I don't have a problem with it. Abortion is (in my morality perspective) wrong because it kills a human being. If a human being is not being killed, I don't see a problem with this route assuming it leads to adoption.

Now that we're going along this route - I don't see why abortion belongs in a religion thread. Abortion has nothing to do with religion. I'm agnostic and pro-life. My argument is very simple: human life should be protected. Abortion ends a human life (no discussion of "viability" needed here - a fetus has distinctly human DNA human from conception). Therefore, abortion should not be permitted.

I find it shocking how the lives of animals are somehow more worthy of protection than those of living humans beings.

I worked on fetal rats and they were used for their neurons.  A fetal human is given more protection than a fetal rat, so that is not true.

 So what do you think about aborting a fetus that has medical issues that cause the neural tube not to close (so would die upon removal from the womb) or one in which the CNS did not develop so upon birth the child would be declared brain dead?  And you day human life should be protected, so should we require that all healthy corpses be used to keep ill people alive?  Or require people to give blood, bone marrow etc, if not, how is that different than requiring the mother to be used as host against her will?  And, it has to be life, not serious and permanent damage?  Wow, if someone was attacking me and causing the same damage my daughter caused as a fetus, I would have legally been allowed to defend myself to the death, so how is that different?

[Beric01]

So what do you think about aborting a fetus that has medical issues that cause the neural tube not to close (so would die upon removal from the womb) or one in which the CNS did not develop so upon birth the child would be declared brain dead?

Abortion = kills a human being. So no. Also why I oppose euthanasia.

And you day human life should be protected, so should we require that all healthy corpses be used to keep ill people alive?  Or require people to give blood, bone marrow etc, if not, how is that different than requiring the mother to be used as host against her will?

I see we're getting really technical here. My word "protected" meant to not be killed, not to force people to save others. Unless you're talking about rape, the pregnancy was not against the woman's will (see below) - she could have abstained.

And, it has to be life, not serious and permanent damage?  Wow, if someone was attacking me and causing the same damage my daughter caused as a fetus, I would have legally been allowed to defend myself to the death, so how is that different?

I'm going to break this apart. First, let's remove rape - 99% of all abortions are due to consensual sex. By having sex (even with protection), you partook in activity that carried a risk of becoming pregnant, thus creating a human life. You are therefore responsible for its consequences if a new human life is produced. Ending an innocent human life simply because you believed you were unlikely to create it is no excuse.

Rape - many pro-choice people are divided on this. Remember, it's very unlikely - less than 1% of abortions. I'm opposed to it, simply because it's ending an human life. At the same time, I can understand the other side - no consent was given. IMO too many people get caught up in discussion of this issue while ignoring the other 99% of abortions. Let's not get so caught up on it here.

[Gin1984]

So what do you think about aborting a fetus that has medical issues that cause the neural tube not to close (so would die upon removal from the womb) or one in which the CNS did not develop so upon birth the child would be declared brain dead?

Abortion = kills a human being. So no. Also why I oppose euthanasia.

And you day human life should be protected, so should we require that all healthy corpses be used to keep ill people alive?  Or require people to give blood, bone marrow etc, if not, how is that different than requiring the mother to be used as host against her will?

I see we're getting really technical here. My word "protected" meant to not be killed, not to force people to save others. Unless you're talking about rape, the pregnancy was not against the woman's will (see below) - she could have abstained.

And, it has to be life, not serious and permanent damage?  Wow, if someone was attacking me and causing the same damage my daughter caused as a fetus, I would have legally been allowed to defend myself to the death, so how is that different?

I'm going to break this apart. First, let's remove rape - 99% of all abortions are due to consensual sex. By having sex (even with protection), you partook in activity that carried a risk of becoming pregnant, thus creating a human life. You are therefore responsible for its consequences if a new human life is produced. Ending an innocent human life simply because you believed you were unlikely to create it is no excuse.

Rape - many pro-choice people are divided on this. Remember, it's very unlikely - less than 1% of abortions. I'm opposed to it, simply because it's ending an human life. At the same time, I can understand the other side - no consent was given. IMO too many people get caught up in discussion of this issue while ignoring the other 99% of abortions. Let's not get so caught up on it here.

Thank you for explaining your point of view so clearly.  However, I think you missed my last point.  Just by virtue of being pregnant their can be damage to the mother.  For example, I knew a few women who got so sick they ended up in the hospital getting IV fluids, two of which passed out at work because of it, one who actually hit her head during it.  My daughter damaged my womb while I was pregnant and caused internal bleeding, which would have killed me, if it had not been caught.  Things like that, damage but not 100% of death. Damage the law considers risk of death and therefore if some stranger did it, one could defend themselves including causing the other to die.  Or damage that will cause permanent injury.  In those kind of cases, are you still well she consented to sex, so the damage was a risk she consented to?  Am I understanding that right? 

[arebelspy]

Thank you, Beric01, for answering questions genuinely, from your viewpoint.  I appreciate it.

[VirginiaBob]

Once again, it appears that we are back to splitting hairs again focusing the discussion on the 0.1% of abortions that are due to risks to mothers life and the 1% that are due to risks to mothers health ( see above link for stats).  Without these outliers along with rapes and incest, 98% of abortions are for convenience. 

Discussions have been along these lines: person A:  let's say you were raped by your grandpa and got pregnant?  Is it ok to have an abortion?  Person B: yes.  Person A: thus proving that abortion is a good thing, case closed.

[arebelspy]

Once again, it appears that we are back to splitting hairs again focusing the discussion on the 0.1% of abortions that are due to risks to mothers life and the 1% that are due to risks to mothers health ( see above link for stats).  Without these outliers along with rapes and incest, 98% of abortions are for convenience. 

Discussions have been along these lines: person A:  let's say you were raped by your grandpa and got pregnant?  Is it ok to have an abortion?  Person B: yes.  Person A: thus proving that abortion is a good thing, case closed.

www.google.com

[VirginiaBob]

Once again, it appears that we are back to splitting hairs again focusing the discussion on the 0.1% of abortions that are due to risks to mothers life and the 1% that are due to risks to mothers health ( see above link for stats).  Without these outliers along with rapes and incest, 98% of abortions are for convenience. 

Discussions have been along these lines: person A:  let's say you were raped by your grandpa and got pregnant?  Is it ok to have an abortion?  Person B: yes.  Person A: thus proving that abortion is a good thing, case closed.

www.google.com

Lol! 

[Cressida]

Discussions have been along these lines: person A:  let's say you were raped by your grandpa and got pregnant?  Is it ok to have an abortion?  Person B: yes.  Person A: thus proving that abortion is a good thing, case closed.

nobody said this. try to argue honestly.

[Cressida]

also: Gin, I'd have given up in a rage long before this if I were you. You have my admiration.

[Cressida]

99% of all abortions are due to consensual sex. By having sex (even with protection), you partook in activity that carried a risk of becoming pregnant, thus creating a human life. You are therefore responsible for its consequences if a new human life is produced.

I'm not going to engage you on the substance of this. I'm only going to tell you that women* find this position, especially when expressed by men, to be extraordinarily judgmental and offensive. If that's how you want to come across to women, by all means continue to say stuff like this. Whether you are right or wrong doesn't alter the truth of what I just told you.

*with the exception of a few crotchety old conservative women, but I'm guessing you're not interested in impressing such.

[Pooperman]

This thread is like the topic itself. It just won't go away. Seriously, I don't want to be reminded of it every day. You guys are great n all...

[GuitarStv]

I don't think you can classify the mother as the entirety of the fetus's environment.  The fetus can't reproduce inside the mother, nor can it complete development in the mother.  Parasites can do both in their environments.

Not all parasites fall into such a limited definition. Consider the parasitoid wasp. Female wasps oviposit eggs directly into arthropods like caterpillars. The egg hatches into larva which feed on their host until pupation. Sometimes the wasp pupates within the arthropod, but regardless, the adult will live and reproduce outside the host.

Aaah! The parasitoid wasp! Another example of the twisted ingenuity of our heavenly engineer!

Hmm, should have thought of that.

I used to work at a place that bred these wasps (Tricogramma) and then sold them to farmers as a biological pest control.  Horrible job by the way . . . I was in charge of wheeling cart after cart of moths each day into a heat chamber to euthanize them after we had collected their eggs.  Then shoveling their little corpses into a compost container.  Gave me a teeny tiny perspective on what some of the worst parts of WWII must have been like.

Sorry, getting a little off topic there. . .

[sol]

Sorry, getting a little off topic there. . .

This a thread about religion that has strayed into abortion on a financial website.  Being "off topic" should be the least of your worries.

Man I love pancakes.

[Cheddar Stacker]

Hmm, should have thought of that.

I used to work at a place that bred these wasps (Tricogramma) and then sold them to farmers as a biological pest control.  Horrible job by the way . . . I was in charge of wheeling cart after cart of moths each day into a heat chamber to euthanize them after we had collected their eggs.  Then shoveling their little corpses into a compost container.  Gave me a teeny tiny perspective on what some of the worst parts of WWII must have been like.

Sorry, getting a little off topic there. . .

This thread has been off topic for a long time, and that is the first interesting thing I've read here in a while. Thanks for sharing.

[DoubleDown]

99% of all abortions are due to consensual sex. By having sex (even with protection), you partook in activity that carried a risk of becoming pregnant, thus creating a human life. You are therefore responsible for its consequences if a new human life is produced.

I'm not going to engage you on the substance of this. I'm only going to tell you that women* find this position, especially when expressed by men, to be extraordinarily judgmental and offensive. If that's how you want to come across to women, by all means continue to say stuff like this. Whether you are right or wrong doesn't alter the truth of what I just told you.

*with the exception of a few crotchety old conservative women, but I'm guessing you're not interested in impressing such.

Hey now! You speak for all women, and those women who do not agree with you must be crotchety old conservative women? I'd say you've likely managed to offend a lot of men and women both with that statement. I have no doubt there are millions of non-crotchety and young women that disagree with your position.

[Cressida]

I never said anything about agreeing with me. The passage I quoted carries an implication that women (and only women) who have sex are doing something that is inherently punishable. You don't have to be pro-choice to find that very objectionable.

Also: I don't see where you find offense to men in my comment.

[FIPurpose]

I never said anything about agreeing with me. The passage I quoted carries an implication that women (and only women) who have sex are doing something that is inherently punishable. You don't have to be pro-choice to find that very objectionable.

Also: I don't see where you find offense to men in my comment.

Because saying that simply because a man is not the one who carries a pregnancy that he has no say in moral or ethical debate about the topic? That is insulting. If anything the law is working against paternal rights. As far as I understand it here is how the law works:

Mother wants to abort baby:
  allowed

Mother wants to keep baby:
  Can force child support on father.

Father wants to abort baby:
  Is forced into child support

Father wants to keep baby:
  ignored

A pregnancy is a very emotional and important time for 2 people, and to ignore half of what created that pregnancy is ignoring half the issue.

[Gin1984]

I never said anything about agreeing with me. The passage I quoted carries an implication that women (and only women) who have sex are doing something that is inherently punishable. You don't have to be pro-choice to find that very objectionable.

Also: I don't see where you find offense to men in my comment.

Because saying that simply because a man is not the one who carries a pregnancy that he has no say in moral or ethical debate about the topic? That is insulting. If anything the law is working against paternal rights. As far as I understand it here is how the law works:

Mother wants to abort baby:
  allowed

Mother wants to keep baby:
  Can force child support on father.

Father wants to abort baby:
  Is forced into child support

Father wants to keep baby:
  ignored

A pregnancy is a very emotional and important time for 2 people, and to ignore half of what created that pregnancy is ignoring half the issue.

Which is why, though I am pro-choice, if someone was able to invent a portable womb I would not have a problem with requiring the woman to have the surgery to move the fetus as long as the surgery was not more dangerous than the abortion.  However, that is still, in some ways, a Christian idea because medically if an adult is brain dead they are dead, but a fetus prior to 20 weeks is also "brain dead" because the neurons are not finished developing, on average, so why should it be saved? 
But it still boils down to, we don't require anyone else to damage their body, even in a limited way such as giving blood to save a life, so how can we require a woman to damage her body for the potential of life?  Which btw, stillborns are 1/260 of pregnancies in the US and known miscarriages are 15-20%.

[Cressida]

I never said anything about agreeing with me. The passage I quoted carries an implication that women (and only women) who have sex are doing something that is inherently punishable. You don't have to be pro-choice to find that very objectionable.

Also: I don't see where you find offense to men in my comment.

Because saying that simply because a man is not the one who carries a pregnancy that he has no say in moral or ethical debate about the topic?

I Didn't Say That. jesus, people. I said that implying that women's sexual activity is inherently punishable is offensive.

It's easy to argue against bad arguments that no one has made, but it's not very helpful.

[VirginiaBob]

I never said anything about agreeing with me. The passage I quoted carries an implication that women (and only women) who have sex are doing something that is inherently punishable. You don't have to be pro-choice to find that very objectionable.

Also: I don't see where you find offense to men in my comment.

Because saying that simply because a man is not the one who carries a pregnancy that he has no say in moral or ethical debate about the topic?

I Didn't Say That. jesus, people. I said that implying that women's sexual activity is inherently punishable is offensive.

It's easy to argue against bad arguments that no one has made, but it's not very helpful.

But you kind of did the same thing by twisting his quote into a bad argument that no one has made.  He never said (or implied) that women who have sex should be punished.  Per your own words, that is not very helpful.

[Rickk]

I Didn't Say That. jesus, people. I said that implying that women's sexual activity is inherently punishable is offensive.

I think you need to re-read what you are responding to:
Quote from: Beric01 on October 22, 2014, 05:52:35 PM
99% of all abortions are due to consensual sex. By having sex (even with protection), you partook in activity that carried a risk of becoming pregnant, thus creating a human life. You are therefore responsible for its consequences if a new human life is produced.

No one said that babies are a punishment for sex.  It was clear that they said that babies are a consequence of sex.
You are the only one who has jumped to the conclusion that babies are punishment.

[VirginiaBob]

I Didn't Say That. jesus, people. I said that implying that women's sexual activity is inherently punishable is offensive.

I think you need to re-read what you are responding to:
Quote from: Beric01 on October 22, 2014, 05:52:35 PM
99% of all abortions are due to consensual sex. By having sex (even with protection), you partook in activity that carried a risk of becoming pregnant, thus creating a human life. You are therefore responsible for its consequences if a new human life is produced.

No one said that babies are a punishment for sex.  It was clear that they said that babies are a consequence of sex.
You are the only one who has jumped to the conclusion that babies are punishment.

+1, exactly

[Cressida]

I Didn't Say That. jesus, people. I said that implying that women's sexual activity is inherently punishable is offensive.

I think you need to re-read what you are responding to:
Quote from: Beric01 on October 22, 2014, 05:52:35 PM
99% of all abortions are due to consensual sex. By having sex (even with protection), you partook in activity that carried a risk of becoming pregnant, thus creating a human life. You are therefore responsible for its consequences if a new human life is produced.

No one said that babies are a punishment for sex.  It was clear that they said that babies are a consequence of sex.
You are the only one who has jumped to the conclusion that babies are punishment.

No, that's not what I mean. It's subtler than that. It's the part of the statement that says "by having sex you incurred a risk." It doesn't even matter what the risk is; that formulation, of itself, implies that women are doing something they shouldn't. I'm not the one doing the implying. The statement does its own implying.

[arebelspy]

It doesn't even matter what the risk is; that formulation, of itself, implies that women are doing something they shouldn't. I'm not the one doing the implying. The statement does its own implying.

Yeah, I would never read or think of it that way, personally.  You're the one doing the inferring, IMO.

I don't read "risk" as "you are doing something you shouldn't."

Example: I invest in the stock market.  Market goes down, I lose some money.  That's part of the risk I took.  But that doesn't imply I did something I shouldn't be doing.

Driving has risks.  You take those risks when you drive.  You could do everything right, but things still turn out wrong.

So I wouldn't read that sentence as saying "women's sexual activity is inherently punishable is offensive" - you inferred that, but I would never get that from a sentence of "pregnancy is a risk of having sex."

[HappyRock]

I'm very strongly pro-life (only exception risk of life of the mother), and I don't have a problem with it. Abortion is (in my morality perspective) wrong because it kills a human being. If a human being is not being killed, I don't see a problem with this route assuming it leads to adoption.

Now that we're going along this route - I don't see why abortion belongs in a religion thread. Abortion has nothing to do with religion. I'm agnostic and pro-life. My argument is very simple: human life should be protected. Abortion ends a human life (no discussion of "viability" needed here - a fetus has distinctly human DNA human from conception). Therefore, abortion should not be permitted.

I find it shocking how the lives of animals are somehow more worthy of protection than those of living humans beings.

You have to consider that most of the life that would have been created would have been in bad living conditions growing up (Thus the reason for the parent(s) to get an abortion in the first place).

This could result in them growing up to be involved in crime, in poverty, uneducated, etc. As a whole this could be worse off for our species and world.

I agree that human life should be valued, but as a civilization we want all of our people to grow up in the best situations they can. If a teenage girl gets pregnant, she is less likely to offer this best individual situation.

For most people, human life is very easy to create but it is also very hard to grow and raise. It seems illogical for me to believe every accidental pregnancy SHOULD happen (Which would mean no abortion is allowed). Our entire world would be filled with even more people on government aid, living in poverty, relying on crime, etc. I value the lives of good people, but not bad people. I also believe that the life isn't developed fully when most abortions happen. (Although, in a perfect world I would agree with you, but for the reasons most mother's get abortions in the first place, I have to be on the side of allowing it in our real world)

What makes you value life that is created at conception so greatly? Are you also against killing any other animal or organism? Do you also feel that using contraception is in a sense preventing life because it is wasting its ability to create it?

[HappyRock]

I think arguing about abortion is pointless, each side will believe that their answer is correct because it is the way their individual brain's think and work when it comes to their morality perspective. (like Beric said)

There is no "correct" answer that you can give to everyone as a whole. Abortion activists and anti-abortion activists will always exist, just like theists and atheists will always exist.

I would say let's go back to the topic, but I think enough has been said. Thanks for the great posts from everyone!

-Cheers

[Cressida]

Driving has risks.  You take those risks when you drive.  You could do everything right, but things still turn out wrong.

So I wouldn't read that sentence as saying "women's sexual activity is inherently punishable is offensive" - you inferred that, but I would never get that from a sentence of "pregnancy is a risk of having sex."

But what if you got in a car wreck and someone got in your face and said, "too bad, you drove, that's the risk"? Wouldn't you be irritated and think, even if that's factually true, who are you to pass that judgment? That's what I'm getting at here. The comment I'm objecting to is highly judgmental.

[arebelspy]

Driving has risks.  You take those risks when you drive.  You could do everything right, but things still turn out wrong.

So I wouldn't read that sentence as saying "women's sexual activity is inherently punishable is offensive" - you inferred that, but I would never get that from a sentence of "pregnancy is a risk of having sex."

But what if you got in a car wreck and someone got in your face and said, "too bad, you drove, that's the risk"? Wouldn't you be irritated and think, even if that's factually true, who are you to pass that judgment? That's what I'm getting at here. The comment I'm objecting to is highly judgmental.

No one here got in anyone's face, or passed judgement, that I saw. 

You may want to step back and consider that multiple people have posted they didn't infer the same thing you did from that statement, even pro choice people, and think about what you biases may be bringing to the conversation.

The passage I quoted carries an implication that women (and only women) who have sex are doing something that is inherently punishable.

I don't read it that way.  It's a fact, if you engage in sex, you risk getting pregnant.

Yes, going up to a pregnant woman who wants an abortion and getting in her face and saying "you took on that risk!" would be offensive, just like getting in someone's face after a car accident would be.  But talking about car accidents being a risk of driving isn't inherently offensive.  Getting in someone's face is different than talking about it in a neutral context where we're trying to discuss and learn from each other's opinions.

Purposefully taking offense (or maybe not purposefully, but taking offense because of what background you're bringing to the conversation) probably doesn't help.

[Cressida]

Fine, I give up. But I don't think "everyone else I know thinks something different, so you're probably wrong" is a very strong argument in general. Plenty of uncommon but correct beliefs have been held in human history. Having an uncommon belief might make it on balance somewhat more likely that you're wrong; but if you *are* wrong, there are stronger arguments available against you, sort of by definition.

[Gin1984]

I think arguing about abortion is pointless, each side will believe that their answer is correct because it is the way their individual brain's think and work when it comes to their morality perspective. (like Beric said)

There is no "correct" answer that you can give to everyone as a whole. Abortion activists and anti-abortion activists will always exist, just like theists and atheists will always exist.

I would say let's go back to the topic, but I think enough has been said. Thanks for the great posts from everyone!

-Cheers

But I think that was the point.  When your morality, which comes from a certain religion (given that the conception is the beginning of life is a Christian thing) and you impose that morality on others who may not have that morality, there is a problem.

[GuitarStv]

Well, we've covered religion and abortion.  Can we cover gun rights in the US next as our next divisive topic?  :D

[VirginiaBob]

I think arguing about abortion is pointless, each side will believe that their answer is correct because it is the way their individual brain's think and work when it comes to their morality perspective. (like Beric said)

There is no "correct" answer that you can give to everyone as a whole. Abortion activists and anti-abortion activists will always exist, just like theists and atheists will always exist.

I would say let's go back to the topic, but I think enough has been said. Thanks for the great posts from everyone!

-Cheers

But I think that was the point.  When your morality, which comes from a certain religion (given that the conception is the beginning of life is a Christian thing) and you impose that morality on others who may not have that morality, there is a problem.

Lol- let's keep this going!

What if your morality comes from something other than religion?  Hypothetically, is it ok to impose your morality on others then?  What if someone just believes life begins at conception for other reasons?  For example (but not intended to be all inclusive), someone who struggles with infertility, and cherishes the embryos they created through an IVF procedure.  Based on their experience with this, they believe life begins at conception.  Or any other of a multitude of reasons.  In this case, is it ok to impose your morality on others?

[VirginiaBob]

Well, we've covered religion and abortion.  Can we cover gun rights in the US next as our next divisive topic?  :D

Perhaps we should discuss the gun rights of religious non-aborted fetuses? 

[arebelspy]

I think arguing about abortion is pointless, each side will believe that their answer is correct because it is the way their individual brain's think and work when it comes to their morality perspective. (like Beric said)

There is no "correct" answer that you can give to everyone as a whole. Abortion activists and anti-abortion activists will always exist, just like theists and atheists will always exist.

I would say let's go back to the topic, but I think enough has been said. Thanks for the great posts from everyone!

-Cheers

But I think that was the point.  When your morality, which comes from a certain religion (given that the conception is the beginning of life is a Christian thing) and you impose that morality on others who may not have that morality, there is a problem.

Lol- let's keep this going!

What if your morality comes from something other than religion?  Hypothetically, is it ok to impose your morality on others then?  What if someone just believes life begins at conception for other reasons?  For example (but not intended to be all inclusive), someone who struggles with infertility, and cherishes the embryos they created through an IVF procedure.  Based on their experience with this, they believe life begins at conception.  Or any other of a multitude of reasons.  In this case, is it ok to impose your morality on others?

Whether or not to impose your morality on  others depends on your moral code.

[HappyRock]

Well, we've covered religion and abortion.  Can we cover gun rights in the US next as our next divisive topic?  :D

Haha, okay. This thread is already off-topic, and since you asked :) (not kidding, even though you were probably being sarcastic), here is what I believe

Guns will probably never be entirely illegal for citizens in the U.S, and I don't think they should be. People should be allowed the right to defend their property and themselves if someone else is threatening their life, family, house, etc.

The problem I have is the leniency and extent that is given in the U.S.

I think the fact that any person of age can obtain a full arsenal of military-grade assault rifles, silencers, and other automatics isn't entirely right. Why would you need an automatic rifle or silencer to defend your house or self? Why would you bring an assault rifle or silencer out of your house? (Unless you are committing a horrible crime). You have to consider that most automatic rifles aren't even practical in a self defense situation.

Some may claim that we need assault weapons in the extreme case of a government attack or end of world event. But you have to understand we are at the point in technology where assault rifles wouldn't make a difference if a government wanted to wipe us out.

A semi-automatic, lower caliber gun will do the same job in a real self defense situation and also prevent the problems that high-powered automatics cause for the police, in mass-shootings, murders, etc.
Also, if a gang or group attacked you at your home which is extremely unlikely, I don't think an assault rifle in close quarters combat will do you any better than a standard handgun.

Personally, I think such availability and lenient gun laws can increase gun violence and homicide rates, but this is arguable. I don't think people should use the constitution as a basis for every new gun law we make. We are advancing and progressing as a nation, thus resulting in possible changes or additions to the constitution. This article shows significantly lower gun homicides in countries with more strict gun laws (Although, I wonder if overall homicide rates decreased) : http://www.takepart.com/photos/10-countries-assault-weapons-bans/the-united-states-9470-gun-homicides-per-year

[HappyRock]

Some problems with all of this in the real world that make gun control almost pointless :

Regardless, criminals and psychopaths will still find automatic rifles to commit crimes or mass -shootings. Gun violence will probably still continue just as much, but the idea is hopefully over time it will lessen and maybe automatic guns will become less available to criminals.

To reduce homicide you must look at root causes like mental illness, social inequality and income inequality - you know, things that influence human behavior, not gun "gun violence". But I have to agree that mass-shootings wouldn't be as devastating if these military-grade guns weren't so easily obtainable for the mentally insane.

Overall, I think Americans in general tend to glorify guns more than others, and the Civil War also seemed to promote people owning and having guns.

I am very interested in hearing different Mustachian points of view on gun control and rights, just like I am on abortion and religion. I would love to hear reasoning for thinking that automatic rifles/silencers should be allowed for civilians.

I think it is more logical that there is a ban on silencers and automatic ARs. Personally, I love and own guns and would be fine if it stayed this way, but it likely could change in the future, especially if mass-shootings continue. The argument is definitely a debatable one.

[Rickk]

Man I love pancakes.

You know - I have never been a fan of pancakes - too much carbs for me - they never seem to stick with me - perhaps if they have apples in them or something.

But give me a good Denver omelet - now that I really love.

[Rickk]

Well, we've covered religion and abortion.  Can we cover gun rights in the US next as our next divisive topic?  :D

So - does gun rights cross religious lines?
I mean the arguments people make over guns sounds like a religious fight, but it seems that there are not strong dividing lines on run rights based upon belief.

And you know we have not covered the death penalty either, it seems that doesn't get as much press as it used to.
My question on that one is - why do we bother?  It seems we have the capability of locking people up for as long as we want to - so why have to kill them? 
Convenience? Spite? Revenge? Mercy? Advertising (showing others what happens if they do XYZ)?

[kite]

What if your morality comes from something other than religion?  Hypothetically, is it ok to impose your morality on others then?  What if someone just believes life begins at conception for other reasons?  For example (but not intended to be all inclusive), someone who struggles with infertility, and cherishes the embryos they created through an IVF procedure.  Based on their experience with this, they believe life begins at conception.  Or any other of a multitude of reasons.  In this case, is it ok to impose your morality on others?

I think that one's morality always comes from religion.  It may not be an organized religion,  but it is a set of values and beliefs that manage (manipulate) behavior even more effectively than laws.  There's another thread about Oprah Winfrey,  and I think what she's been promoting all along is a religion of what I'd call "Woo". She's the one who cannonized Dr. Oz & Dr. Phil who are each a unique disgrace to their respective professions.
Apart from Oprah, there's Nationalism, Environmentalism, Consumerism, and Football, for example; each with acolytes ready to die for the cause. 
Asking if it's OK to impose your morality on others is a bit like asking if water ought to be wet. It already is happening everywhere.  The environmentalist concerned with saving whales is imposing his morality on the people who hunt them for food or profit. The nationalists concerned with keeping population growth low imposed their will on millions of women with forced abortions and sterilizations.  Consumerism pervades everything.  We're headed into it's most sacred season and Black Friday,  like Super Bowl Sunday is one of it's holy days. 

As to when life begins. ...or rather when a unique life begins, that isn't a question that religion or morality answers,  it is one of science.  And it happens at conception - it's the very definition of conception.   Our laws don't confer equal and absolute rights to everyone who is alive, particularly ones who are fragile and dependent,  and they never have. The law balances the needs and rights of one against another and it is always going to be imperfect. 

[GuitarStv]

Man I love pancakes.

You know - I have never been a fan of pancakes - too much carbs for me - they never seem to stick with me - perhaps if they have apples in them or something.

But give me a good Denver omelet - now that I really love.

Quadruple the amount of eggs you put in the pancake dough, add a splash of milk, and double the baking powder.  The pancakes magically turn into very tasty crepes (even tastier if you fry them in coconut oil).  Then when you've cooked 'em apply a copious amount of greek yogurt and blueberries on one side of the crepe and roll it into a tube.  They will keep you full.

[jordanread]

Oh man, I love this place. We actually managed to talk about religion and abortion and stayed civil for the most part. How awesome is that?

As to when life begins. ...or rather when a unique life begins, that isn't a question that religion or morality answers,  it is one of science.  And it happens at conception - it's the very definition of conception.   Our laws don't confer equal and absolute rights to everyone who is alive, particularly ones who are fragile and dependent,  and they never have. The law balances the needs and rights of one against another and it is always going to be imperfect.

I agree that the answer to the question is related to science, but the issue I have is that the actual issue is related to the legal system, which gives it an entirely different spin.

As far as gun control goes, I've always wondered what would happen if there was a marksmanship requirement for gun ownership.

Man I love pancakes.

You know - I have never been a fan of pancakes - too much carbs for me - they never seem to stick with me - perhaps if they have apples in them or something.

But give me a good Denver omelet - now that I really love.

Quadruple the amount of eggs you put in the pancake dough, add a splash of milk, and double the baking powder.  The pancakes magically turn into very tasty crepes (even tastier if you fry them in coconut oil).  Then when you've cooked 'em apply a copious amount of greek yogurt and blueberries on one side of the crepe and roll it into a tube.  They will keep you full.

As far as pancakes go, I'll just leave these Paleo Hazelnut Coffee Pancakes here. These are delicious.

You guys all rock!!

[PloddingInsight]

I have not followed the whole thread, but I decided to pop in and see where the religion conversation ended up after so many pages.

I think you guys are pretty close to figuring this stuff out.

Man I love pancakes.

You know - I have never been a fan of pancakes - too much carbs for me - they never seem to stick with me - perhaps if they have apples in them or something.

But give me a good Denver omelet - now that I really love.

Quadruple the amount of eggs you put in the pancake dough, add a splash of milk, and double the baking powder.  The pancakes magically turn into very tasty crepes (even tastier if you fry them in coconut oil).  Then when you've cooked 'em apply a copious amount of greek yogurt and blueberries on one side of the crepe and roll it into a tube.  They will keep you full.