Which massacres did Jehovah sanction?

by Spectrum 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Spectrum

Hello Will,

Welcome to the forum.

This forum is mainly ex JWs there are a few practising JWs here that remind us were are apostates.

"Im lost and have been for yrs.I know theres a god and i thank him everyday. There is so many saying this and that "i just cant seem to find whats right and who to believe". Never mind"

Stick around and maybe we can unconfuse you.
stevenyc

Joshua 6: 20 When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
steve
Hellrider

First of all, I have to protest in the way you have now decided to respond to my post. When I have a discussion with someone, I prefer to respond to each argument given by my opponent, not reduce the argument to a series of sentences, and then responding to each and every sentence. This is because by choosing the latter strategy, one can "answer" an argument without really answering it. Instead of responding to the argument as a whole, one simply breaks down the argument into sentences, sentences that, each on its own, doesn`t offer an argument anymore. It also makes it difficult to respond, because I don`t only have to respond to your counterarguments, I have to also add your sentences together into what I assume is your argument. As a result, this post will look a bit "weird". Anyway:
What is a genocide?
":the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"
How many victims does it take to be a genocide? More than 100? 1000? 10 000?
There is no quanta involved. But fetuses are not a 'racial, political, or cultural group'.
You can still disapprove of it until the cows come home. But using loaded language to try and make an emotional point (even if inadevertently - genocide = Hitler thus calling abortion is genocide has implications especially as abortion ISN'T genocide) ;is just not going to work.
So, here you are using a manmade definition of a word to argue against the use of this particular word. Ok, I don`t have any problem with that, apart from the fact that I don`t necessarily agree. Yes, "genocide" is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group". When speaking about abortion in that way, I assume Forscher was trying to make an "emotional" point. His use of the word was actually pretty good (other than the fact that it doesn`t follow the dictionarys definition), because it highlights the view of anti-abortionists, that a featus allready is a human being (yes, I know you don`t agree with that, but I`ll get to that later), and, when human beings a murdered on a massive scale, this could be called genocide. Furthermore, featuses could possibly be listed as a "political" group. They are a group that have no legal rights, compared to that of their "hosts".
As for the featuses under 12 weeks: What has the development of the brain to do with anything?
Because people are legally terminated when their brains stop working, so why is it wrong to legally terminate them BEFORE their brains start working.
I am perfectly aware of what the law is, you don`t have to to explain the law to me. My point, and the point of other anti-abortionists, is that the law is wrong! The analogy "braindead after accident or illness" and "featus under 16 weeks" is also not necessarily a valid comparison. A braindead person has no chance of ever coming back to life, and this is what determines that one can "turn of the switch". A featus does have a chance not only "coming to life", it also has the potential to become an extremely intelligent person. This difference that I am highlighting here, is a the difference of potential, which is an important (ethical - and this is what it`s all about) factor in the minds of the doctors, when they have to make the ethical choice on whether or not to switch of the life-sustaining machine. Just for the record: I am not necessarily opposed to neither suicide nor assisted euthanasaia - although I see a lot of practical-ethical problems with the latter.
Is that where you set the line for human value? Why?
If you had to chose between saving a person with a functioning brain and someone in PVS in a fire, you would choose the person with the functioning brain. If you were in a foxhole, and one buddy had a leg wound, and the other had a serious head wound, had non-responsive pupils, but was still respiring, and you could only get one to safety, you'd choose the guy with the head wound.
Of course! I would choose to save the one with the highest level of potential for life! (and of course, this is one very important ethical reason for being against abortion) This would, of course, be a choice in which someone would die as a result of my actions, but it would still not be unethical of me, because of the circumstances. In the same way, I see the necessity for an abortion in cases where a 14-yearold has been raped and made pregnant by her father (even though this is not the exact same situation as the one you described above, because one would have to actively try to kill a human being - the featus). Of course, in cases such as these, the father should be locked up and never get out.
Why don`t we allow "abortion" up until the age of three?...because it now looks like a human being?; I know that this last point might look a bit "over the edge". But look more closely: It is a valid comparison, as it proves a point:
A 16-week old fetus has a couple of grammes of nerve tissue ... a three year old's brain is, what, a thousands of times larger? You don't have a point. You are effectively saying a car with no engine has the same worth as a car with an engine. I know you don't like abortion, and you don't have to, but let's not use emotional and invalid comparisons.
Oh yes, I do have a point, and it is a valid comparison. First of all, a 16-week old featus is not a lump with just a "couple of grams of neural tissue". It is 11 cm long, weighs approximately 110 grams. It has developed facial features and hair growth. It moves around, starts sucking its thumb at this stage in the pregnancy, and mothers can even feel kicking as early as 16 weeks. Not that all of this is important (in defining when the featus is a "human", in my opinion, but I dislike that you keep referring to featuses at this stage has "just a couple of grams neural tissue". Of course they do, but not in comparison to a fullgrown individual, but in comparison to its own body-weight, which is just around 100 grams. When the featus has reflexes, kicks, sucks it thumbs, etc, this is a clear sign that there is (of course very little, but still) activity in that neural tissue and in those early stages of the brain. It is not just a "car with no engine"! And even if a three-yearolds brain is a thousand times larger, this doesn`t mean that it is filled with anything important...and that sounds harsh, but I`m trying to prove a point: What does "filled with anything important" mean? Absolutely nothing! It is not the level that the child has allready reached that is important, but this is exactly what the basis of your argument is!! If we were to follow your line of thinking, then who decides what leved of development has "human value"? It is not an invalid argument to claim (according to this line of thinking of yours) that a 3-yearold also has "limited value", because, well frankly, three-yearolds aren`t really that smart!
The alternative is silly; 60% or so of fertilised eggs don't implant, more spontaneously abort. There is nothing sacred or special going on, even though something very special can happen.
Of course 60% or so of fertilised eggs don`t implant. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing, because it is outside the limits of human morality and ethical behaviour. Man can`t stop natural processes at this level, nature is on its own, and decides for herself. Life is not "sacred" or with ethical value before it enters the realm of human influence and interaction.
As once a fetus hits twenty weeks it 'stops' developing (lots of things to develop further but everything is more or less there), it doubles weight in the next, what? four weeks (from 300g to 600g) about where the 'line' should be is pretty obvious for social abortions.
On the contrary. After twenty weeks, "nothing significant happens", other than a doubling of the weight. Hence, there is nothing more unethical (within your view) about aborting a featus in week...35 than in week 20. If you want to allow abortion up until week 16 (or 20?) - I see no reason why week 35 should not be allowed. There is no significant difference in the featus at week 35, other than that it`s bigger.
Yes, it is an artificial line. So it the age-of-concent, the age you can drive, the age you can drink, the age you can buy porn, inlist in the army, be executed... you get the idea.
We all KNOW those lines are arbitary and sometimes get it wrong - in the case of joining the army, execution or driving people can die. But we set them, all the same.
It`s not the same, and it`s not a valid comparison. Deciding on when to set a limit for allowed killing and removal of a featus, is not the same as when you think it`s ok for your kid to start driving (16 or 18).
Where I compare forcing a woman to carry a child as a form of slavery, treating her like chattel, a broodmare. Turns her into a thing. I'm pretty sure that is violates her rights.
C) Anyway, I`ll respond to it: I disagree, because with this statement you are basically justifying the actions of ever man that, after being told by a woman that she`s carrying his baby, just sighs and says "well, that`s your problem. ... Now sod off!"
No I am not. How do you stop that anyway? Different subject. I am allowing a woman who gets pregnant and does not want to carry a child to abort. Giving men a right to FORCE a women legally to carry a child is sheer madness, as per above.
The reasons for this, is: If a man has no rights, how can he have any responsibilities?
He can refrain from sex if he doesn't want the risk that a woman will exercise her right and have a child (of his) she is carrying. That is his right. If he waives his right not to take that risk, he has to take the responsibility of helping her support a child which he knew was a possible concequence of having sex.
Ok, I get it. The body is the womans! And yes, of course, the man can refrain from having sex, if he doesn`t want the woman to have a child. But now, in saying that, you are now all of the sudden sidestepping the very basis for your arguments, that "sexuality is difficult" and "shit happens", and that, therefore, abortion should be legal. My point on this particular part of the issue, is that if a man suddenly has to take the responsibility if he gets a woman pregnant (and she decides to have it) - why doesn`t she have to also take responsibility for her actions? Your claim here is that "a man gives up the right to his cromosones once he goes to bed with a woman". I can agree with that, but only, and only if we can agree on that a woman, once she goes to bed with a man, possibly gives up the right to her womb for nine months. We are of course here talking about mutual consent and a combined decision not to use a condom, in all other cases than these, the responsibility will be laid on one and not the other). However, the point I made in my previous post, still stands, you didn`t give an effective counterargument on this one: That, if abortion is to be perfectly legal and not considered even the slightest unethical (which is your stand), AND the choice on whether or not the featus is to go fullterm ONLY lays on the woman (both these premises have to be in place), then a man can not be considered responsible in any way for neither the featus, the pregnancy or the born child. It is (or was, at a certain stage), after all, just a lump of cells with no more value than a mole or a wort, and she could have had gotten rid of it even by just taking a pill (abortion pills have made all this so much easier). If she decided to have it, just because of some ridicolous idea she had (I have no idea where that idea came from), that whatever she had growing in her belly actually had some value, then that`s her problem, not his, especially as he has no right to decide whether or not this featus is to be born or removed. So he definitely has no obligations to pay for it, if she decides to have that featus born as a baby.
The day a court allows this to be the arguement that makes abortion wrong is the begining of the end of secular society in a country. I think evolution and homosexuals would be next on the hit list. What then? Porn? Drinking? Ooooweee!
Well, there`s at least two things wrong with that statement. First: Is legal abortion the foremost trait of a free society? If it has restrictions on abortion, can`t it then be considered a free society anymore? I assume you are referring to certain elements on the right, who wear stupid suits and wests and go to church a lot, and think aids is Gods punishment for homosexuals. Yes, many (most?) of the people who are opposed to abortion, are in this group, perhaps especially in the U.S. But just because I certain group that we (me too) dislike, happen to mean something that I feel is right (on this one issue) - then should I not go along with what I think is right, just because I don`t like these people? Believe me, if these people (who dislike abortion, just like me) try to touch porn, alchohol or homosexuals, then I`ll be right up there on the barricades with you (and if they try to outlaw my beer, I`ll probably be armed! ).
What`s much more important with the statement you made above though, is that you seem to care little about what is right, but a whole lot more about the overall development of a society. I think, and feel, in the exact opposite way. I don`t care which group means what about anything, I just always go along with what I feel is right (which makes it extremely hard for me to give my vote to any political party, btw). Basically, you`re above argument is saying that "whether or not abortion is ethical or not, it is a typical trait of a free, progressive and liberal society, so it should be allowed". Or...?
When the woman made the choice to lay down with a man (perhaps she even initiated it, that does happen, you know...), it could be argued that she, by that choice, in some cases, have given up the rights over her own body for the next nine months.
Not historically. Historically murder has been a wrong. Likewise rape. Abortion has not been regarded the same as murder through history; only where religions have dictated otherwise has it been prohibited, and even then is often considered a lesser crime, or none at all if done early.
Historically, I don`t give a shit what people thought, believed, felt, ate, drank or smoked 2000, 1000 or 100 years ago. People have always been wrong about everything, because they lived at a time when they didn`t anything about...anything (ha ha).The point is: It is irrelevant how abortion has been viewed down thruout history. In my country, unwanted babies (unwanted because they were disfigured, missing a finger or were girls...) were put out in the woods to die (before christianity, you know back when we raped, murdered and pillaged Europe ). That doesn`t make it right. As for abortion, and why it hasn`t been discussed historically in, for example, the religious books (or any other books), I think I could very easily explain why this is the case (but I don`t have time now).
Due to a misinterpretation of scripture, or an elboration and extension of actual Biblical law (which we know all about), some Christians feel it is equivalent to murder.
But this, unlike attitudes to murder, is a historical quirk, and not even supported by their Holy Book.
I've hoped some such Christian would try to approach it from the scriptual angle, as at least that allows some hope of understanding or agreement to disagree.
You keep referring to christianity, as if you have some underlying belief that anyone who are against abortion, automatically have to be christians, even when you are discussing this with me! Why is that? Nothing could be further from the truth! I am not a christian! I was born and raised a JW, but I have rejected that moronic faith years ago, when I was 17. I believe Jesus lived and that he was a smart and good man, but I don`t believe he was sent by God (or that God even exists), or that he was raised by the dead, or something like that. On the other hand, I am not an atheist, I`m just your average agnostic. But in all my discussion with you or anyone else on this issue, I would never bring God or christianity into it. I see God, Jeeeezus, christianity and the Bible as not only redundant when it comes to ethical questions, but an obstacle.
Forscher

Hellrider said:
What the fuck do you know about his experiences, his life, the choices he has had to made!?! And you dare speak about "judgemental attitude"????

Thanks for coming to my defense HR. I saw that you really got a debate going with that! I was in a situation that forced me to do a little soul searching on the issue of abortion. I can't tell the story because it is unique enough that I might as well send a letter of resignation to the WTBTS as well because I'd be ID'd in a New York second. Just know that I've been there and learned that it is not a black and white issue.
As to my being "judgemental", I was pointing out to those who are themselves judgemental of God's actions and say unrestricted abortion is a "right" are in no position to judge God on any level. Millions of humans have been terminated for no other reason than they were inconvenient to the mothers who concieved them. The methods used are brutal, agonizing, and cruel. And yet many of the same people who so righteously condemn God just don't see the inconsistency in their views as evidenced by many posts on the matter. Who really is being blind and judgemental here? I think the answer is self-evident, whether one chooses to see it or not.
As for the legal side of things. I've not seen an effective rebuttal of what I presented. Let me remind folks that the Supreme Court has not found a right to an abortion in the Constitution, period. It has consistently held that abortion can be restricted, or even prohibited, subject to the one restriction that it must be available for women who's health makes it necessary. I have no problem with that. Sadly, that provision has been used as a way of circumventing any restrictions by the abortion industry. The "right to privacy" has also been used to hide the misdeeds of predatory pedophiles, something most people on this forum claim to loath. So now we are being treated to the disgusting spectacle of Planned parenthood fighting tooth and nail to keep those crimes covered over. What insanity! You champions of abortion may not see anything wrong with that. But I do. If standing up for the victims means I'll take some flack and be called "judgemental", then so be it!

Forscher
MuadDib

@Spectrum: No superior knowledge here! Just a nerd's love of history books. :) I would think that to sustain 185 000 fighting men in a region that, according to most archaeologists, likely only sustained that number as a total civilian population during peacetime, the Assyrians would have to have some quite sophisticated logistics indeed. The relative distance of the march would be offset by the protracted nature of the siege (which, as I recall, also involved other sieges and battles as part of the general Assyrian campaign). And as an Empire, the Assyrians may indeed have been able to muster a force much more sizeable than most of their competitors - certainly one much larger than the city-states and fractured polities of the Levant. But I would doubt that they would be able to do so without significant disruption to their normal economic activities, having drawn off such a huge proportion of their working adult male population into this army. And to then lose them all would have damaged their civilization beyond recovery.
@Pro-lifers: I commend you for your respect for the sanctity of human life, but your connection of this stance with state power is frightening. Again, I ask the reverse question: if the state can force a woman to bear a fetus to term, can it force her to abort one? And if one, why not the other? If you're going to allow the state a free hand in biological determinism it strikes me as inconsistent to say that it can force a woman to do one thing but cannot force her to do something else.
Bottom line: government has no business whatsoever in the affairs of a woman's own body. If you don't like abortion then educate against it, make sure people are making informed choices based on open and accessible information. Creating a Draconian society where old rich men tell women how to live their lives is not a progressive solution.
Hellrider

@Pro-lifers: I commend you for your respect for the sanctity of human life, but your connection of this stance with state power is frightening. Again, I ask the reverse question: if the state can force a woman to bear a fetus to term, can it force her to abort one? And if one, why not the other? If you're going to allow the state a free hand in biological determinism it strikes me as inconsistent to say that it can force a woman to do one thing but cannot force her to do something else.

I really can`t see why this is supposed to be such a "hard" argument for allowing abortion. Why so obsessed with "the state" (whoever that is) on this issue? Actually, the state is under no obligation to provide us (the women, I mean) with the service of medically supervised abortion. "The state" has been doing this as a service to women, based on the (in my view) faulty belief that abortions are ethically unproblematic, and that it`s just like removing a wort or a mole. Why should the state be obligated to offer free abortion? This is what it`s all about. "The state" can of course not stop pregnant women who are desperate to "get rid of it" from jumping of cliffs, down stairs or using other methods, and I do realize that a lot of women probably would do that if abortion was not legal, but still, to offer abortion as a state-sponsored service, is not something "the state" is obligated to do. In the same way, the state would have no business interfering in pregnancies with the intent to force women to have abortions. In short: The state should butt out of womens uterus (or how that`s spelled in english). I really don`t see how you get from the premiss A) if "the state" won`t offer medically supervised abortions to women, then B)...the next logical step for "the state" would be to force women to have abortions.
There is absolutely no logic in deriving B from A here.
Abaddon
Hellrider
First of all, I have to protest in the way you have now decided to respond to my post. When I have a discussion with someone, I prefer to respond to each argument given by my opponent, not reduce the argument to a series of sentences, and then responding to each and every sentence. This is because by choosing the latter strategy, one can "answer" an argument without really answering it. Instead of responding to the argument as a whole, one simply breaks down the argument into sentences, sentences that, each on its own, doesn`t offer an argument anymore. It also makes it difficult to respond, because I don`t only have to respond to your counterarguments, I have to also add your sentences together into what I assume is your argument. As a result, this post will look a bit "weird".

Sorry, I was responding to points within your argument. I'll be less granular, although doing it the way I did is better for showing up inconsistencies in your argument.
So, here you are using a manmade definition of a word to argue against the use of this particular word. Ok, I don`t have any problem with that, apart from the fact that I don`t necessarily agree. Yes, "genocide" is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group". When speaking about abortion in that way, I assume Forscher was trying to make an "emotional" point. His use of the word was actually pretty good (other than the fact that it doesn`t follow the dictionarys definition), because it highlights the view of anti-abortionists, that a featus allready is a human being (yes, I know you don`t agree with that, but I`ll get to that later), and, when human beings a murdered on a massive scale, this could be called genocide. Furthermore, featuses could possibly be listed as a "political" group. They are a group that have no legal rights, compared to that of their "hosts".
Hellrider, all words have (hu)man made definitions!
1. We agree about genocide being a deliberately emotive but technically incorrect term to apply to abortion. Emotive arguments don't make the law, rational ones do.
2. And fetuses can't be a political group, they don't have the vote.
3. And without dealing with the medical and scientific argument about there being nothing equivalent to a born human at 16 weeks, you constantly use this equivalence as a running assumption. This is called a circular argument, it's a fallacious form of argument, without value. If you have a secular argument you must prove it with secular facts, not ignore secular facts so as to be able to carry on using that argument.
I am perfectly aware of what the law is, you don`t have to to explain the law to me. My point, and the point of other anti-abortionists, is that the law is wrong! The analogy "braindead after accident or illness" and "featus under 16 weeks" is also not necessarily a valid comparison. A braindead person has no chance of ever coming back to life, and this is what determines that one can "turn of the switch". A featus does have a chance not only "coming to life", it also has the potential to become an extremely intelligent person. This difference that I am highlighting here, is a the difference of potential, which is an important (ethical - and this is what it`s all about) factor in the minds of the doctors, when they have to make the ethical choice on whether or not to switch of the life-sustaining machine. Just for the record: I am not necessarily opposed to neither suicide nor assisted euthanasaia - although I see a lot of practical-ethical problems with the latter.
You are yet to explain to me using secular facts why the law is wrong. You repeat yourself, but provide facts? No.
You are using the 'potential' argument; I have already said I will consider that worth responding to when you can demonstrate we extract the maximum potential possible from those that are already born. To say 'don't abort the fetus, think of its potential' and not to say 'let's eliminate child poverty and social disadvantage, think of the potential' is to use the argument of potential only when it suits you. Inconsistent arguments are not logical. Logic and consistency make laws.
Of course! I would choose to save the one with the highest level of potential for life! (and of course, this is one very important ethical reason for being against abortion) This would, of course, be a choice in which someone would die as a result of my actions, but it would still not be unethical of me, because of the circumstances. In the same way, I see the necessity for an abortion in cases where a 14-yearold has been raped and made pregnant by her father (even though this is not the exact same situation as the one you described above, because one would have to actively try to kill a human being - the featus). Of course, in cases such as these, the father should be locked up and never get out.
Why don`t we allow "abortion" up until the age of three?...because it now looks like a human being?; I know that this last point might look a bit "over the edge". But look more closely: It is a valid comparison, as it proves a point:
If killing a fetus is wrong, it is inconsistent to kill a fetus that comes about through rape or incest, as it is still wrong. If one argues compassionately for the harm the mother would suffer bearing such a child, then one is actually agreeing with one end of the spectrum of social issues making people decide to abort. Again, inconsistent arguments don't make good laws.
Oh yes, I do have a point, and it is a valid comparison. First of all, a 16-week old featus is not a lump with just a "couple of grams of neural tissue". It is 11 cm long, weighs approximately 110 grams. It has developed facial features and hair growth. It moves around, starts sucking its thumb at this stage in the pregnancy, and mothers can even feel kicking as early as 16 weeks. Not that all of this is important (in defining when the featus is a "human", in my opinion, but I dislike that you keep referring to featuses at this stage has "just a couple of grams neural tissue". Of course they do, but not in comparison to a fullgrown individual, but in comparison to its own body-weight, which is just around 100 grams. When the featus has reflexes, kicks, sucks it thumbs, etc, this is a clear sign that there is (of course very little, but still) activity in that neural tissue and in those early stages of the brain. It is not just a "car with no engine"! And even if a three-yearolds brain is a thousand times larger, this doesn`t mean that it is filled with anything important...and that sounds harsh, but I`m trying to prove a point: What does "filled with anything important" mean? Absolutely nothing! It is not the level that the child has allready reached that is important, but this is exactly what the basis of your argument is!! If we were to follow your line of thinking, then who decides what leved of development has "human value"? It is not an invalid argument to claim (according to this line of thinking of yours) that a 3-yearold also has "limited value", because, well frankly, three-yearolds aren`t really that smart!
I am in error here; the details I gave were for 12 weeks. Sorry.
However, for the record, a adult rat of c. 400 grammes will have 2 grammes of brain. A 12 week fetus will have a brain less than 1.4 grammes in weight.
At 16 weeks the brain will be c. 10 grammes, about 1/40 th of the weight it will be at birth. This massive difference in weight is not the only factor to consider, as the brain is still massively undeveloped.
http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn094.pdf#search='fetal%20brain%20development%2016%20weeks'
See especially box 2
I note that you get bogged down in how human it looks, how it moves and reacts. Do we define humanity on the basis of appearance? No, we define humanity according to the qualities expressed due to the existence of our minds, which cannot exist in a brain of a 16 week-old fetus. As I said early (and as you seem to bear out), if 16 week-old fetuses had scales and were icky, abortion of a 16 week-old fetus would not be an issue.
Are we going to deny women the right to abort something which does not have the brain structure to support anything akin to humanity just because 16 week-old fetuses look like ickle tiny babies?
Of course 60% or so of fertilised eggs don`t implant. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing, because it is outside the limits of human morality and ethical behaviour. Man can`t stop natural processes at this level, nature is on its own, and decides for herself. Life is not "sacred" or with ethical value before it enters the realm of human influence and interaction.
Actually, man can stop natural processes (some forms of spontaneous abortion) at this sort of level, and do. The point I am making is you advocate denying women the right to end something which nature holds in no special regard. As I said earlier, if animals can 'choose' to abort if conditions don't suit birth, why can't women? Saying in response it is un-natural will just get you a list of how many un-natural things we do each day.
We allow politicians to make mistakes that kill thousands of born humans and vote them back into office. You seek to deny the women to end something that has none of the mental qualities we associate with humanity that might be the result of a mistake or accident. Can't you see the sexism, the inequality, the double standard, the illogical and unsupportable legal nature of the argument you make?
On the contrary. After twenty weeks, "nothing significant happens", other than a doubling of the weight. Hence, there is nothing more unethical (within your view) about aborting a featus in week...35 than in week 20. If you want to allow abortion up until week 16 (or 20?) - I see no reason why week 35 should not be allowed. There is no significant difference in the featus at week 35, other than that it`s bigger.
I didn't say this, and this shows you have some semi-magical basis for your opposition. You claim you have a secular argument, but it is an emotional one. My choice of twenty weeks as a hard limit for social abortions is precisely due to the completion of some parts of brain growth that mean abortion does become an ethical issue at this point. You feel, quite why you've not explained (although it looking like an ickle baby is obviously one factor) that ANY abortion is bad at any point (apart from rape or incest where suddenly the fetus can be aborted through no fault of its own). It's a feeling. Since when are feeling the basis of secular (as we are having a secular discussion) law?
It`s not the same, and it`s not a valid comparison. Deciding on when to set a limit for allowed killing and removal of a featus, is not the same as when you think it`s ok for your kid to start driving (16 or 18).
Some kids will be competent to drive at 14, some won't be at 20. We discriminate against those who could drive earlier than 18 because of those who wouldn't be, yet allow those who still won't be competent until 20 to drive for two years. Arbitrary lines exist everywhere. And you, without at one point proving your point (equivalence) are constantly using equivalence in your argument.
Ok, I get it. The body is the womans! And yes, of course, the man can refrain from having sex, if he doesn`t want the woman to have a child. But now, in saying that, you are now all of the sudden sidestepping the very basis for your arguments, that "sexuality is difficult" and "shit happens", and that, therefore, abortion should be legal. My point on this particular part of the issue, is that if a man suddenly has to take the responsibility if he gets a woman pregnant (and she decides to have it) - why doesn`t she have to also take responsibility for her actions? Your claim here is that "a man gives up the right to his cromosones once he goes to bed with a woman". I can agree with that, but only, and only if we can agree on that a woman, once she goes to bed with a man, possibly gives up the right to her womb for nine months. We are of course here talking about mutual consent and a combined decision not to use a condom, in all other cases than these, the responsibility will be laid on one and not the other). However, the point I made in my previous post, still stands, you didn`t give an effective counterargument on this one: That, if abortion is to be perfectly legal and not considered even the slightest unethical (which is your stand), AND the choice on whether or not the featus is to go fullterm ONLY lays on the woman (both these premises have to be in place), then a man can not be considered responsible in any way for neither the featus, the pregnancy or the born child. It is (or was, at a certain stage), after all, just a lump of cells with no more value than a mole or a wort, and she could have had gotten rid of it even by just taking a pill (abortion pills have made all this so much easier). If she decided to have it, just because of some ridicolous idea she had (I have no idea where that idea came from), that whatever she had growing in her belly actually had some value, then that`s her problem, not his, especially as he has no right to decide whether or not this featus is to be born or removed. So he definitely has no obligations to pay for it, if she decides to have that featus born as a baby.
"Ok, I get it. The body is the womans!" If you get it adjust your opinions to reflect this.
"if a man suddenly has to take the responsibility if he gets a woman pregnant"? There is no suddenly, this is no surprise to the man. Having sex CAN get women pregnant, even with ALL precautions. He cannot assume she will not have the baby, no matter what she says beforehand. You relieve men of their reproductive responsibility. They have a simple choice to avoid this risk, two in fact; no sex or sterilization. A man may feel it is unfair to have this responsibility when they don't have the right to demand any seed of their loins is carried until birth, but the alternative is allowing men to force women to give birth, which is legally unsupportable.
"When the woman made the choice to lay down with a man (perhaps she even initiated it, that does happen, you know...), it could be argued that she, by that choice, in some cases, have given up the rights over her own body for the next nine months." Again, brood-mare mentality.If you can force a woman to be pregnant. why not force a woman to get pregnant? Where's the difference Hellrider? I thought you said you got it was the woman's body? Nothing a court of law would support. You might FEEL that way, just like some people BELIEVE homosexuals should be punished, but FEELINGS and BELIEFS are not the basis of secular law.
Well, there`s at least two things wrong with that statement. First: Is legal abortion the foremost trait of a free society? If it has restrictions on abortion, can`t it then be considered a free society anymore? I assume you are referring to certain elements on the right, who wear stupid suits and wests and go to church a lot, and think aids is Gods punishment for homosexuals. Yes, many (most?) of the people who are opposed to abortion, are in this group, perhaps especially in the U.S. But just because I certain group that we (me too) dislike, happen to mean something that I feel is right (on this one issue) - then should I not go along with what I think is right, just because I don`t like these people? Believe me, if these people (who dislike abortion, just like me) try to touch porn, alchohol or homosexuals, then I`ll be right up there on the barricades with you (and if they try to outlaw my beer, I`ll probably be armed! ).
IF abortion is made illegal due to religion 'X's attitude toward abortion (rather than a secular argument), as I say, bye bye secular society. You misrepresent my argument; I am not linking abortion to a free society, but the imposition of religious law as the end of secular society. And if you allow them to get a religious law imposed on the country because it suits your OPINION (you've yet to show your feelings about abortion would matter in a court of law ruling on whether it is 'right' or not), then you had better buy that gun, as they will come for your beer at some point.
What`s much more important with the statement you made above though, is that you seem to care little about what is right, but a whole lot more about the overall development of a society. I think, and feel, in the exact opposite way. I don`t care which group means what about anything, I just always go along with what I feel is right (which makes it extremely hard for me to give my vote to any political party, btw). Basically, you`re above argument is saying that "whether or not abortion is ethical or not, it is a typical trait of a free, progressive and liberal society, so it should be allowed". Or...?
I object to that. I have made it clear throughout this I feel abortion is right. To then claim I don't care about what is right is misrepresentation of my argument; like calling abortion genocide. Don't do that. Get your head around the fact that what you FEEL is right is different from what can be proven to be WRONG in law. You want your FEELINGS imposed on others, just as some religious people want their BELIEFS imposed on others. In a secular society neither a a valid basis for infringing the freedom of others - and don't immediately use a counter argument using a claim of equivalence when you are yet to prove this.
Historically, I don`t give a shit what people thought, believed, felt, ate, drank or smoked 2000, 1000 or 100 years ago. People have always been wrong about everything, because they lived at a time when they didn`t anything about...anything (ha ha).The point is: It is irrelevant how abortion has been viewed down thruout history. In my country, unwanted babies (unwanted because they were disfigured, missing a finger or were girls...) were put out in the woods to die (before christianity, you know back when we raped, murdered and pillaged Europe ). That doesn`t make it right. As for abortion, and why it hasn`t been discussed historically in, for example, the religious books (or any other books), I think I could very easily explain why this is the case (but I don`t have time now).
So the minute an argument you used is shown invalid, you don't give a shit about it? You immediately jump from intellectual slipperiness (dumping an argument you used (the validity of historical cultural wrong)) when it's shown to be an invalid argument, in fact, one that supports my stance NOT yours, to irrelevance (infanticide is not abortion; again you use equivalence in your argument without ever having proved it, just like Creationists use the Flood in their arguments without ever having proved it) to evasion ("I think I could... etc.).
You keep referring to christianity, as if you have some underlying belief that anyone who are against abortion, automatically have to be christians, even when you are discussing this with me! Why is that? Nothing could be further from the truth! I am not a christian! I was born and raised a JW, but I have rejected that moronic faith years ago, when I was 17. I believe Jesus lived and that he was a smart and good man, but I don`t believe he was sent by God (or that God even exists), or that he was raised by the dead, or something like that. On the other hand, I am not an atheist, I`m just your average agnostic. But in all my discussion with you or anyone else on this issue, I would never bring God or christianity into it. I see God, Jeeeezus, christianity and the Bible as not only redundant when it comes to ethical questions, but an obstacle.
You seem to feel there is no chance growing up in a Christian culture that your attitudes have been influenced by that culture. Ha! The comment about the scriptural argument was a general one, not specifically to you. However, the fact that some Christian's mistaken attitude toward abortion makes them BELIEVE it is wrong (but not in a way that can be proved in a secular court) is very similar to how you FEEL abortion is wrong (as is your right), but not in a way that can be proved in a secular court.
Forscher
Could you please prove to me scripturally abortion is wrong? I believe it is a prohibition made up by Christians, not one coming from the Bible.
Hellrider
Abaddon:
We agree about genocide being a deliberately emotive but technically incorrect term to apply to abortion. Emotive arguments don't make the law, rational ones do.
And fetuses can't be a political group, they don't have the vote.
And without dealing with the medical and scientific argument about there being nothing equivalent to a born human at 16 weeks, you constantly use this equivalence as a running assumption. This is called a circular argument, it's a fallacious form of argument, without value. If you have a secular argument you must prove it with secular facts, not ignore secular facts so as to be able to carry on using that argument.
1) I disagree. Emotive arguments are a very important part of the law, and an even greater part when the law is practically applied. If you doubt this, call the nearest law-school and ask them.
2) Fetuses can`t be a political group? Ok, if you say so. Actually, I`m a bit unfamiliar with the term "political group", I don`t think this term is used in my language. Well, let`s try a parable instead then: If all the retards (or should I say "intelectually challenged"? You know, Downs syndrome, braindamaged, etc) in a country were rounded up and killed (such as in nazi-Germany 65-70 years ago), would that not be a genocide? I think it would.
3) I refuse to discuss this on medical and scientific terms. I will explain why later on in this post. But if you believe that having the "running assumption" that a fetus is a human, and then applying this assumption in every argument would be classified as "circular reasoning", then you do not understand the meaning of the term "circular reasoning". But just to make it easier for you, I will mention it in a sidenote, every time I rely on my above mentioned "running assumption". Perhaps this at least will make it easier for you to see my pov.
You are using the 'potential' argument; I have already said I will consider that worth responding to when you can demonstrate we extract the maximum potential possible from those that are already born. To say 'don't abort the fetus, think of its potential'
I was not the one that brought the "potential"-argument into the discussion. You did, here:
If you had to chose between saving a person with a functioning brain and someone in PVS in a fire, you would choose the person with the functioning brain.
...and now you dislike it, when I use your own argument against you? You dislike it, because I took your argument and showed that it`s not valid?
If killing a fetus is wrong, it is inconsistent to kill a fetus that comes about through rape or incest, as it is still wrong.
You don`t have to tell me this, I have been the first one to point this out, as I did in a previous post:
In the same way, I see the necessity for an abortion in cases where a 14-yearold has been raped and made pregnant by her father (even though this is not the exact same situation as the one you described above, because one would have to actively try to kill a human being - the featus).
See? I see this problem. My point on this, without having to go into details (because this is a major subject on its own), is: Just because there are certain situations in which man has to do something that is unethical (for a much greater good) - this certainly doesn`t justify making this (above mentioned) unethical behaviour (which we should resort only in times of extreme situations and crisis) the norm for our actions. Of course,in response to that, you could claim that "well, what is an extreme situation and a crisis", is different from individual. And in response to that, I would say: "Well, I don`t consider a vacation in Spain where a woman doesn`t want to have a big belly showing cause she is going to be on the beach all day, an extreme situation and crisis" - and then you would accuse me of sexism and then, there goes the whole ballgame...
"When the woman made the choice to lay down with a man (perhaps she even initiated it, that does happen, you know...), it could be argued that she, by that choice, in some cases, have given up the rights over her own body for the next nine months." Again, brood-mare mentality.If you can force a woman to be pregnant. why not force a woman to get pregnant? Where's the difference Hellrider? I thought you said you got it was the woman's body
The difference is, that in the one case (forcing a woman to get pregnant) - that would be rape. In the second case, it is to stop the murder of an innocent human being, although this human is still inside its mothers womb (extreme "running assumption" applied on this one, see first post).
I thought you said you got it was the woman's body? Nothing a court of law would support. You might FEEL that way, just like some people BELIEVE homosexuals should be punished, but FEELINGS and BELIEFS are not the basis of secular law.
No, this is just plain wrong. If you believe that feelings, beliefs, morality and emotive arguments are not part of the law, then you are just plainly mistaken!!!! Again, call your local law-school and have a discussion with them about this particular point!!!
On the contrary. After twenty weeks, "nothing significant happens", other than a doubling of the weight. Hence, there is nothing more unethical (within your view) about aborting a featus in week...35 than in week 20. If you want to allow abortion up until week 16 (or 20?) - I see no reason why week 35 should not be allowed. There is no significant difference in the featus at week 35, other than that it`s bigger.
I didn't say this, and this shows you have some semi-magical basis for your opposition. You claim you have a secular argument, but it is an emotional one.
And:
You keep referring to christianity, as if you have some underlying belief that anyone who are against abortion, automatically have to be christians, even when you are discussing this with me! Why is that? Nothing could be further from the truth! I am not a christian! I was born and raised a JW, but I have rejected that moronic faith years ago, when I was 17. I believe Jesus lived and that he was a smart and good man, but I don`t believe he was sent by God (or that God even exists), or that he was raised by the dead, or something like that. On the other hand, I am not an atheist, I`m just your average agnostic. But in all my discussion with you or anyone else on this issue, I would never bring God or christianity into it. I see God, Jeeeezus, christianity and the Bible as not only redundant when it comes to ethical questions, but an obstacle.
You seem to feel there is no chance growing up in a Christian culture that your attitudes have been influenced by that culture. Ha! The comment about the scriptural argument was a general one, not specifically to you. However, the fact that some Christian's mistaken attitude toward abortion makes them BELIEVE it is wrong (but not in a way that can be proved in a secular court) is very similar to how ; you FEEL abortion is wrong (as is your right), but not in a way that can be proved in a secular court.
First of all: You seem to believe (a "running assumption") that there is only two ways of discussing this. There is the "religious way", which you also refer to as feelings, belief, emotive arguments, and then there`s the secular way! If this is the level of your thinking, I don`t really see the point in continuing this discussion, and for me to explain to you how what you refer to as "secular grounds" also is a path filled with "running assumptions", emotions and (some) ethical thinking, and for me to show you the difference between religious assumptions/beliefs/feelings and, on the other hand, genuine, ethical thinking (without God, and still very much on secular ground), would take to much time. Look: There is religion. Religion is filled with all sorts of beliefs and values, some of which do have a genuine ethical basis, some of which are just BS. "Secular thinking" is filled with the "running assumption" that it is devoid of such metaphysical garbage as "values", "ethics" and "morals". Nothing could be farther from the truth. Then there is my alternative: Ethical thinking! If you are puzzled, or wonder what I am (after all, I`m not a christian and I`m not an atheist), then look up Moral Realism! And as for the "you seem to to believe there is no chance that growing up in a christian culture that your attitudes have been influenced...", I couldn`t disagree more. Yes, I was raised in the JW-religion. I am an ethically focused person, not because of this, but in spite of this. There is absolutely nothing ethical or moral about the religion I grew up in, and you know this very well (and I wouldn`t call the JW-religion "christian" either, it has nothing to do with christianity, it is a corrupted version of judaism - no pun intended about judaism or jews, I have nothing against them). The "moral values" I learned, was that it was ok to lie and cheat (I was my parents do this all the time, after a while I understood that it was "spiritual warfare") - and I learned that there is a God that is, sometime in the future, going to kill almost all the people on this planet. Now, that has nothing to do with morality. Believe me, if I was influenced by my upbringing in any way, it was to develop ethics and morality as a protest against the immoral way I was brought up.
Historically, I don`t give a shit what people thought, believed, felt, ate, drank or smoked 2000, 1000 or 100 years ago. People have always been wrong about everything, because they lived at a time when they didn`t anything about...anything (ha ha).The point is: It is irrelevant how abortion has been viewed down thruout history. In my country, unwanted babies (unwanted because they were disfigured, missing a finger or were girls...) were put out in the woods to die (before christianity, you know back when we raped, murdered and pillaged Europe ). That doesn`t make it right. As for abortion, and why it hasn`t been discussed historically in, for example, the religious books (or any other books), I think I could very easily explain why this is the case (but I don`t have time now).
So the minute an argument you used is shown invalid, you don't give a shit about it? You immediately jump from intellectual slipperiness (dumping an argument you used (the validity of historical cultural wrong)) when it's shown to be an invalid argument, in fact, one that supports my stance NOT yours, to irrelevance (infanticide is not abortion; again you use equivalence in your argument without ever having proved it
This is absurd. I never brought up "history" to support my arguments. You did, and I showed you that it was wrong, and that history doesn`t matter! As shown here, I wrote:
When the woman made the choice to lay down with a man (perhaps she even initiated it, that does happen, you know...), it could be argued that she, by that choice, in some cases, have given up the rights over her own body for the next nine months.
And then you wrote:
Not historically. Historically murder has been a wrong. Likewise rape. Abortion has not been regarded the same as murder through history; only where religions have dictated otherwise has it been prohibited, and even then is often considered a lesser crime, or none at all if done early.
You brought up history in all of this. I responded to it. And then you accuse me of bringing up history as a factor, and then rejectine it when it doesn`suit me anymore?
This is getting to absurd.
Hellrider
...I didn`t have time to go into detail earlier today, but I`m back now:
Well, there`s at least two things wrong with that statement. First: Is legal abortion the foremost trait of a free society? If it has restrictions on abortion, can`t it then be considered a free society anymore? I assume you are referring to certain elements on the right, who wear stupid suits and wests and go to church a lot, and think aids is Gods punishment for homosexuals. Yes, many (most?) of the people who are opposed to abortion, are in this group, perhaps especially in the U.S. But just because I certain group that we (me too) dislike, happen to mean something that I feel is right (on this one issue) - then should I not go along with what I think is right, just because I don`t like these people? Believe me, if these people (who dislike abortion, just like me) try to touch porn, alchohol or homosexuals, then I`ll be right up there on the barricades with you (and if they try to outlaw my beer, I`ll probably be armed! ).
And then you wrote...
IF abortion is made illegal due to religion 'X's attitude toward abortion (rather than a secular argument), as I say, bye bye secular society. You misrepresent my argument; I am not linking abortion to a free society, but the imposition of religious law as the end of secular society. And if you allow them to get a religious law imposed on the country because it suits your OPINION (you've yet to show your feelings about abortion would matter in a court of law ruling on whether it is 'right' or not), then you had better buy that gun, as they will come for your beer at some point.
Again, you are relying on your (unspoken) running assumption that (by definition) all opposition to abortion is based on religious beliefs, or at least (hidden) religious (christian) culture. This is simply wrong. The problem in all of this, is that christianity is a web of beliefs, some of which have an ethical backing, while other parts of it do not! (Such as the dislike of homosexuality). I have no problems in agreeing with some of the "christian values", whereas others aren`t worth the paper they are written on, in my book. I know of course that this is confusing, and that`s why I wrote, in an earlier post, that God, christianity and jeeeezus is ot oly redundant in ethical matters, but an obstacle (obsticle? not sure about this english word) to it. My point here is: This whole discussion is not secular (in the sense "devoid of any ethical considerations"). The whole basis for your argument is not secular (in the sense "devoid of all and any ethical considerations"), but on the contrary, a just as ethically-based argument as mine! (That it is unethical and immoral to force a woman to bear forth a fetus full term, if she doesn`t want to). First of all we have to establish what a person is, what a human being is. You brought up the "potential"-argument (yes, YOU did, I can scroll back and show where) - and I showed you that this argument doesn`t support your case, on the contrary. By the way, the potential-argument, which you brought up (!!!!) - is an extremely ethcially based argument! In deciding what constitutes a human being (that is, when the "lump if cells" can be considered a human!) - is not a secular, medical discussion (as in "devoid of all and any ethical considerations") at all! - on the contrary, it is, has always been, and always will be an ethical question. All matters of life and death (of something living) are. And I really can`t let this one go:
I've given a neurological basis for my stance
No one has dealt with the fact that neurological complexity of first and early second trimester fetuses is NOT equivalent to even a new born human.
This not an argument at all. It is simply not relevant to the discussion. The development of the neural tissue in a fetus could be that of a ...pottyplant until week 37 for all I care, it is not relevant to the discussion. What is relevant though, is the fact that we, as human beings, have to face the fact that we are making ethical decisions concerning fetuses, that is, lumps of human cells that will eventually turn into a baby, and then a human being (yes, back to the "Potential"-argument, because it works much better for me than for you, as I have shown).
However, the fact that some Christian's mistaken attitude toward abortion makes them BELIEVE it is wrong (but not in a way that can be proved in a secular court) is very similar to how you FEEL abortion is wrong (as is your right), but not in a way that can be proved in a secular court.
And the same must be said about how you feel abortion is right! - as it hasn`t been established as a "fact" that a fetus is not a human being, either. And frankly, this fact, the fact that we are all not completely sure what a fetus is (not sure on whether it should be considered a human or not), this should at the very least moticate us all to proceed with caution in this matter, because of the fact that there definitely is a possibility that one might be committing murder (!!! if some future medical work should give us even better reasons to believe that a fetus actually is a human being...).
However, there is one very good argument for abortion, one which you have not brought up, probably because it isn`t a very "noble" or pc-argument. It is, in my view, the best argument for abortion, and I really do`t have a good or effective counterargument. The argument goes like this: Some people are shit! Yes, you heard me. Some people are to messed up, to stupid, to irresponsible, to insensitive, to ever have children. In an appartment I lived in a few years ago, my next-door neighbour was this real white trash couple, both junkies. They had a kid, a boy, he must have been around 5 years old when I was living there. I heard things from their appartment, like the sound of furniture being thrown around, screaming, and the little boy yelling "dad don`t hit mom anymore!", and I eventually called the police, but they couldn`t do anything, as the woman wouldn`t press charges. The police even warned me about not contacting them, on this, unless I was sure someone was being killed, or something like that, because the man (father of that kid) could be dangerous, if he felt that some neighbour of his was "spying" on him, or something like that. The point is: Some people have had such shitty, horrible childhoods, because of their shitty, good-for-nothing, subhuman parents, that they have been so mentally messed up even from such an early age, that it can be impossible to fix, even with a 1000 sessions at the psychiatrist and all the pills in the world. Some people are so messed up by their good-for-nothing parents that it would have been better for them if they had never been born. This, in cases where suicide is the really only option that would ever fix it, then it certainly would have been better for the person, if he/she had never been born. Dying is difficult, better to have never been born at all.
DaCheech

How about hananiah and saffira, they weredestroyed on the spot by the Jeh for only giving 1/2 their belongings to the christian cong

Which massacres did Jehovah sanction?

Share this