Question about abortion.

[capsulecorpjx]

This is a question for the religious people who are against abortion.

What happens to aborted fetus's? Do their souls automatically go to heaven?

If yes ...

Wouldn't it be the ultimate act of sacrifice for a mother to abort her child?

Think about it.

She is committing a grave sin so her child will go directly to heaven.
Because if she gives birth to her child, there is a good chance that her child might not accept the chosen religion, therefore be sent to burn in Hell for all eternity.

Chew on that contradiction for a while.

[paralinx]

my head hurts now

[big blue alien]

No they go to limbo because they were realy evil in not getting their parents to baptise them so must be punished

[mendhak]

There's also the concept of 'The Age of Reason', before which the child isn't supposed to be held responsible for its actions.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Seems like that argument doesn't apply only to fetuses. Shouldn't we kill all people once they are good?

We should try people for decency, and execute them if they are convicted.

You would have to prove that you were a no-good, lousy, rotten, so-and-so if you wanted to avoid execution.

(for all the regulars, don't worry, you are pretty safe).

[mendhak]

But then the persecuters would go to hell for executing the just and kind and good people. Since no just, kind and good person would want to persecute, we'd have to put all the no-good, lousy, rotten people in charge of the persecution and execution process.

HOWEVER, since they are no-good, lousy and rotten, they would NOT execute the just, kind, good people... because they are no-good, lousy, rotten people who won't perform their duties and stick to their word!

[crptcblade]

I like the Wizard of Oz...

[Shaggy Hiker]

Ooooo twisted.

Still, I think history has shown that there is always somebody willing to step up to the plate and kill off anybody who appears to be very good.

[baja_yu]

This has to be the stupides question I saw in my entire life. Congratulations.

[crptcblade]

Ooooo twisted.

Still, I think history has shown that there is always somebody willing to step up to the plate and kill off anybody who appears to be very good.


I'll kill anybody except myself for $50k

:afrog:

[Bonker Gudd]

I bet you eat eggs.

When you eat an egg you eat the soul of a chicken. Can you live with that?

[mendhak]

Not if it's a scrambled egg. Then it's just the soul of a retarded chicken. And we know that retarded chickens have no souls.

[Bonker Gudd]

You could be denying that you ate the next feathered Jesus :sick:

[demotivater]

But then the persecuters would go to hell for executing the just and kind and good people. Since no just, kind and good person would want to persecute, we'd have to put all the no-good, lousy, rotten people in charge of the persecution and execution process.

HOWEVER, since they are no-good, lousy and rotten, they would NOT execute the just, kind, good people... because they are no-good, lousy, rotten people who won't perform their duties and stick to their word!
Granted, the original question is dumb. But. that's a pretty nifty reply. Not only would they not execute because they're no good - why would the want to knowingly send someone to paradise when they know they are damned to hell? :sick:
What to go capsulebabala, you're enciting a riot! :mad: ;)

[Pino]

In world eventsnow so no more chitchat :)

[mendhak]

In world eventsnow so no more chitchat :)
Uhm, why?

[nufc4eva]

what a horrible subject to talk about, hardly uplifting.

[Pino]

Uhm, why?

Because this is more of a 'real' forum :eek:

[Shaggy Hiker]

Only the people are imaginary.

[Shaggy Hiker]

This has to be the stupides question I saw in my entire life. Congratulations.

Just out of curiousity, why? It appears to be consistent with christian teaching, though not christian practice (which doesn't really seem to practice what it preaches).

[demotivater]

It appears to be consistent with christian teaching, though not christian practice (which doesn't really seem to practice what it preaches).
I highly doubt it. More likely, someones misundertanding of Christian practice. I'm sure someone actually educated in this area could answer the question in one sentence.

[yrwyddfa]

This is a question for the religious people who are against abortion.

What happens to aborted fetus's? Do their souls automatically go to heaven?

If yes ...

Wouldn't it be the ultimate act of sacrifice for a mother to abort her child?

Think about it.

She is committing a grave sin so her child will go directly to heaven.
Because if she gives birth to her child, there is a good chance that her child might not accept the chosen religion, therefore be sent to burn in Hell for all eternity.

Chew on that contradiction for a while.Well, oh Mr Enlightened one. Answer this . . .

I can hold out my hand, and look at my hand. It is a marvellous collection of cells - but on it's own it is not alive

I can hold out my arm, and look, and feel, smell, and touch my arms. It is a wonderfully complex part of my body (look at the myocin reaction) but on it's own it is not alive but the cells in it are

I can look at my whole body. Remarkable complextity. But chop my head off and the body will cease to exist - but the cells and tissues in it are.

When YOU can tell me what makes something alive or dead and what makes a cell alive and what makes it die you will

(i) enable human beings to live forever
(ii) answer the question of humanity about unborn children.

Until then, well, you know what I'm going to say . . .

Apart from that posting a thread entirely designed to promote an argument of hate, distrust, and general apathy has no part of this forum.

(Oh and as a sidenote . . I understand your question, and I know what you really meant. But the grammer, and philosophical undertones are entirely contradictory. I would suggest you go on a 101 course before you start a thread like this again)

[Shaggy Hiker]

From those last two posts, it appears that there is nobody yet on this thread who feels they actually know christian teaching. I know only enough that this appears contradictory. When those nice, slightly strange, folks in the cheap suits come knocking on my door asking me to pray with them, somehow I don't feel that they have a much more refined view than I have.

If it takes a religious scholar to understand this (nobody here has actually answered it, and most have dodged the question one way or another), then why aren't more people asking that scholar? It appears that they don't know the answer, but it also appears that they don't want to ask the question.

[demotivater]

From those last two posts, it appears that there is nobody yet on this thread who feels they actually know christian teaching. I know only enough that this appears contradictory. When those nice, slightly strange, folks in the cheap suits come knocking on my door asking me to pray with them, somehow I don't feel that they have a much more refined view than I have.

If it takes a religious scholar to understand this (nobody here has actually answered it, and most have dodged the question one way or another), then why aren't more people asking that scholar? It appears that they don't know the answer, but it also appears that they don't want to ask the question.
Religious scholars probably answer these questions all the time. But I doubt they do it on a computer programming internet forum.

[baja_yu]

From the original post, it felt like the person (finally) found a way to "silence" the religious people who are against abortion. And I feel that they are strongly pro abortionist.

I would just like to note that, I am against abortion. My last argument would be religion. I am more against it for humane reasons.

I also think that people that are are pro abortion are mainly young people, who, because it is readily available and cheap, see it as a failsafe procedure on which they can rely in case an unwanted abortion occurs. And because of that, it encourages risky behaviour and unprotected sex.

To all those who are pro abortion, I suggest you watch the short documentary called "The Silent Scream", it can be easily found on the internet.

I can only justify abortion in certain circumstances, like a terminal or degenerating illness of the child etc.

[Xanith]

From those last two posts, it appears that there is nobody yet on this thread who feels they actually know christian teaching. I know only enough that this appears contradictory. When those nice, slightly strange, folks in the cheap suits come knocking on my door asking me to pray with them, somehow I don't feel that they have a much more refined view than I have.

If it takes a religious scholar to understand this (nobody here has actually answered it, and most have dodged the question one way or another), then why aren't more people asking that scholar? It appears that they don't know the answer, but it also appears that they don't want to ask the question.
I dont think you need some scholar to answer this question. "Thou shall not kill" from the 10 Commandments should cover it. :rolleyes:

X

[Valleysboy1978]

I'm sorry but to be "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion" is frankly short sighted as nothing is ever that simple. A young girl recently raped is now pregnant, but she should not be forced to endure a 9 month pregnancy from this heinous crime. Abortion should be decided on the complexities of each case by the relevant doctors, social workers etc.

[FunkyDexter]

I'm sorry but to be "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion" is frankly short sighted as nothing is ever that simple. A young girl recently raped is now pregnant, but she should not be forced to endure a 9 month pregnancy from this heinous crime. Abortion should be decided on the complexities of each case by the relevant doctors, social workers etc. Couldn't have put it better myself. Abortion shouldn't be viewed as a 'quick fix' but to simply say 'never allow it' ignores the realities of life.

This is a question for the religious people who are against abortion.

What happens to aborted fetus's? Do their souls automatically go to heaven?

If yes ...

Wouldn't it be the ultimate act of sacrifice for a mother to abort her child?

Think about it.

She is committing a grave sin so her child will go directly to heaven.
Because if she gives birth to her child, there is a good chance that her child might not accept the chosen religion, therefore be sent to burn in Hell for all eternity.

Chew on that contradiction for a while.
1. You couldn't assume that the fetus's soul goes to heaven, Christianity contains the concept of original sin.

2. To a christian, it is Gods decision as to when you die, not a mothers. The mother therefore cannot claim this as a virtuous act.

3. Murder is murder and would be a far greater sin than sending your child to heaven is a virtue.

4. Good can come from evil acts but that doesn't mean the act isn't evil.

BTW, I'm not a Christian but the point above seem obvious to me.

[baja_yu]

I'm sorry but to be "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion" is frankly short sighted as nothing is ever that simple. A young girl recently raped is now pregnant, but she should not be forced to endure a 9 month pregnancy from this heinous crime. Abortion should be decided on the complexities of each case by the relevant doctors, social workers etc.

Exactly what I mentioned above.

[MasterBlaster]

For roman catholics it comes down to original sin and final judgement. Everyone is born a sinner. What you do with your life gets you to your final destination on judgement day. I guess seeing that a fetus never broke one of the 10 commandments It would probably won't neeed to book an airline ticket to hell. However, the mother and doctor and nurses performing the operation would.

Abortion IMHO is about as big of a suckerpunch that anyone can throw. Of all the chicks I know that have had abortions, not one of them has a day go by without regretting the decision. Yes even the one who was a violent rape victim. A child is still a child no matter how it got into you. I was on the fence on this issue like some of you until I had my own son. Let me tell you, having a child is the greates gift you will ever get. You may only get one shot at it so don't blow it.

The only case I can see an abortion necessay is in a case where a pregnancy will kill both the mother and child. That case is so rare in modern countries with the medical resources available that it hardly makes for an interesting argument.

BTW: a fact I just read, due to the advances in c-section births, the average size of human heads are increasing. Something to do with larger headed babies and mothers dying during child birth. pretty neat.

[damasterjo]

http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2004/10/8/article_03.htm
read the 3rd paragraph

[Valleysboy1978]

Well that is enlightening. Apparently it is against the bible to marry someone not of your religion....how very discriminatory, and how very sad in this modern world

[MasterBlaster]

Well that is enlightening. Apparently it is against the bible to marry someone not of your religion....how very discriminatory, and how very sad in this modern world

I dunno, it sort of makes sense. If someone actually follows the bible teachings down to that level of scrutiny, it would probably be a good Idea that they marry someone who shares that belief. Marriage is a PITA to begin with, conflicting religions just make it even worse. I think the point they are making is that you should marry someone you are compatable with.

[damasterjo]

I dunno, it sort of makes sense. If someone actually follows the bible teachings down to that level of scrutiny, it would probably be a good Idea that they marry someone who shares that belief. Marriage is a PITA to begin with, conflicting religions just make it even worse. I think the point they are making is that you should marry someone you are compatable with.
Yes that is true, if you did not have a marrage mate that had similar intrests and likes, you wouldnt get allong, likewise differing religious beliefs would conflict with one another, which might damage the marriage and make it hard to keep good spritual values.

[Shaggy Hiker]

1. You couldn't assume that the fetus's soul goes to heaven, Christianity contains the concept of original sin.

2. To a christian, it is Gods decision as to when you die, not a mothers. The mother therefore cannot claim this as a virtuous act.

3. Murder is murder and would be a far greater sin than sending your child to heaven is a virtue.

4. Good can come from evil acts but that doesn't mean the act isn't evil.

BTW, I'm not a Christian but the point above seem obvious to me.

That argument assumes that all actions taken by the mother are selfish. Certainly she shouldn't expect salvation for that act, but that's not the point. Is the act altruistic? The target benefits, at the cost of the perpetrator. By your argument, any cost to the perpetrator should dissuade them from benefitting their child.

Basically, christians seem to be treating heaven as a consolation prize: You really don't want to go there, but if you have to go somewhere, that's better than the alternative. However, the statements I have heard is always that heaven is a reward, not a consolation.

Since we are into disclosure, my view is that if there is something after death, and my actions are deemed insufficient for salvation, then I am content with that. It is axiomatic (assumed to be true) in most religions, that god is good. I see no conclusive proof of that assertion, and plenty of proof that the issue remains in doubt. If the axiom is false, then "The lord is my shepherd." takes on a whole new meaning. After all, shepherds eat plenty of mutton.

[Valleysboy1978]

Yes that is true, if you did not have a marrage mate that had similar intrests and likes, you wouldnt get allong, likewise differing religious beliefs would conflict with one another, which might damage the marriage and make it hard to keep good spritual values.Really? I have had a couple of girlfriends who were deeply religious (one catholic the other christian). However it was never an issue as we respected each others beliefs and leave it at that.

So I have to find a girl who enjoys computer games, karate, getting drunk with the boys and lazing around....I think I'm going to be single for the rest of my life according to that philosophy!

Ever heard the phrase "opposites attract"? ;)

[demotivater]

http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2004/10/8/article_03.htm
read the 3rd paragraph
Argh! Jehovahs witnesses!! I wouldn't refer to that when looking for a general view on these issues from Christians.

[MasterBlaster]

Really? I have had a couple of girlfriends who were deeply religious (one catholic the other christian). However it was never an issue as we respected each others beliefs and leave it at that.

So I have to find a girl who enjoys computer games, karate, getting drunk with the boys and lazing around....I think I'm going to be single for the rest of my life according to that philosophy!

Ever heard the phrase "opposites attract"? ;)

Girlfriends ans Wives are two totally different beasts my friend :lol:

[Shaggy Hiker]

I know a guy who is not religious, but who's wife goes to church every Sunday. I never asked him about it. Apparently, it is possible to have a mixed faith marriage, but it sure seems tricky. I suppose if both are backsliding <your faith here>, that would work out ok.

[MasterBlaster]

Yeah, my buddies wife is like that. The lucky basterd gets to watch football undisturbed every Sunday :)

[capsulecorpjx]

Argh! Jehovahs witnesses!! I wouldn't refer to that when looking for a general view on these issues from Christians.

Aren't there more than 144,000 Jehovah witness's? They believe that only 144,000 people will go to Heaven at the end of the world (literal interpretation of Revelations).

If so, they can't all go to heaven when Armaggeddon comes.

From some posts, people are very defensive, accusing me of spreading hate which is ridiculous. I'm just pointing out ethical contradictions in your religion. And they sprout up because your religion was created before ethics was fully developed by philosophers and thinkers.

Modern ethics include the idea that group punishment is wrong, people should have personal libert, all people should be equal under the law, and that torture is evil (especially eternal torture). All of those ideas are not supported by most of the Hebrew derivied religions.

The way people reconcile this contradiction is cherry pick or spin what they want to hear from their religious texts.

BTW, I think abortion is distasteful on a personal level, though I think it should be an option in the first trimester as it is now.

My OP was more about trying to point out that the idea about Hell/Heaven itself is flawed.

[MasterBlaster]

From some posts, people are very defensive, accusing me of spreading hate which is ridiculous. I'm just pointing out ethical contradictions in your religion. And they sprout up because your religion was created before ethics was fully developed by philosophers and thinkers.

Who is "Your" and what religion are you refering to?

ethics was fully developed by philosophers and thinkers? :confused: :lol:

[nemaroller]

Well, oh Mr Enlightened one. Answer this . . .

I can hold out my hand, and look at my hand. It is a marvellous collection of cells - but on it's own it is not alive

If I lob your hand off, I bet I could make the hand muscles expand and contract with electricity - I could even have it hooked up to IV's and a dialysis machine and keep it alive for a very long time.

I can look at my whole body. Remarkable complextity. But chop my head off and the body will cease to exist but the cells and tissues in it are.

That's not entirely true either. Have you ever heard the term 'running around like a headless chicken'?

Point is, you're taking a very interrelated mechanism and disrupting immensely vital parts of it. Because of the dependant relationships, you need to replace or simulate the part that you're removing - and if you could, you would have a body just as operational as when it had your mug on it.


When YOU can tell me what makes something alive or dead and what makes a cell alive and what makes it die you will

(i) enable human beings to live forever
(ii) answer the question of humanity about unborn children.

Can you tell me whether green is blue or yellow? Really depends on what you're looking for.

[capsulecorpjx]

Well, oh Mr Enlightened one. Answer this . . .

I can hold out my hand, and look at my hand. It is a marvellous collection of cells - but on it's own it is not alive

I can hold out my arm, and look, and feel, smell, and touch my arms. It is a wonderfully complex part of my body (look at the myocin reaction) but on it's own it is not alive but the cells in it are

I can look at my whole body. Remarkable complextity. But chop my head off and the body will cease to exist - but the cells and tissues in it are.



Thats a silly question. Your body dies when your head is cut-off because of that giant gapping whole that leaks your blood. Your tissues require a constant flow of blood containing oxygen and nutrients to survive. So when you get your head cutoff, the rest of the body is dying from blood-loss (or more specifically oxygen deprvation at a tissue level).

Now if you seal off where your head gets cut off. I'm not sure then, I think your heart and lungs require your brainstem to keep functioning. So if they stop, then the rest of your body again, dies from oxygen starvation.


When YOU can tell me what makes something alive or dead and what makes a cell alive and what makes it die you will

(i) enable human beings to live forever
(ii) answer the question of humanity about unborn children.

Until then, well, you know what I'm going to say . . .

Apart from that posting a thread entirely designed to promote an argument of hate, distrust, and general apathy has no part of this forum.

(Oh and as a sidenote . . I understand your question, and I know what you really meant. But the grammer, and philosophical undertones are entirely contradictory. I would suggest you go on a 101 course before you start a thread like this again)

A cell is alive when it's still processing matter and maintaining homeostasis.

Animal cells die because (from my genetics class), everytime your cell divides a bit of genetic material comes loose from the ends, so eventually your cell will not be able to produce the same proteins as before, therefore aging and death.

Cellular aging and death serves two purposes (my speculation):
1) Prevents cancer (uncontrollable cell division).
2) Death is a benefit to evolution. Having kids and dying (instead of living forever and taking resources from your kids) creates new, slightly modified versions of you, and change is curcial to survive evolution.


As for the humanity of unborn children, that is up to debate. I really don't know, but I'm just gonna go along with the first tri-mester thing (abortions legal in first trimester).

But think about it this way, if you take a zygote, and split it, now you have twins. In theory, you can split it infinitely at that stage, therefore have infintely many people.

So what is a zygote? One person or infinte number of people? If you do not split a zygote, are you killing their twin?

Also, accusing me of hate or distrust without giving any points to how that is, is not very constructive. Accusing me of apathy is even more ludicrous. I'm just raising questions on the morality of Hell and the ethical contradictions of old religions. You may feel its "hate" because it threatens your belief system. But Hate is if I promoted violence against people, not challenge belief systems.

[Shaggy Hiker]

That bit about the zygote is pretty good. If life begins at conception, then identical twins are a single person. If there is a soul, it must enter once the number of people has been determined, or else there would have to be multiple bodies for a single soul. That's a pretty wacky idea.

The bit about the genetic material loss sounds just a bit off, but pretty close. I think those are called teleomeres, and they do appear to shrink with each division of the cell, but I don't think that anybody has explained how this causes aging, though I seem to remember some studies that strongly suggested this to be a causitive factor.

Why organisms dies is an odd puzzle. A single bacteria can divide. After division, which of the resulting organisms is the original, and which is the copy? I suppose the original, if there is one, is the one with the molecules in the original strand of DNA. However, the new copy is a perfect clone. In the abscense of memory, if the original is eaten by an amoeba, is the organism dead?

As you get more complex, the question of what is a discrete, unique, organism becomes defined very quickly. There seems to be a good advantage to living forever, since a male, at least, would be able to reproduce for a long time. I suppose life isn't a stable state. Things fall apart, the center doesn't hold.....in the end: You were eaten by a grue!

[damasterjo]

Aren't there more than 144,000 Jehovah witness's? They believe that only 144,000 people will go to Heaven at the end of the world (literal interpretation of Revelations).

If so, they can't all go to heaven when Armaggeddon comes.

Yes there are over 6,500,000 and more than One million in the United States alone. And yes we do beleive that 144,000 will go to heaven to help rule over the people who will live on the earth forever.

If God never lies, and he created Adam and Eve to "fill the earth and subdue it" - then why would Satan meesing up there lives change that original purpose? That is why he sent his son Jesus to die for a ransom, to attone for Adams death, (A perfect man for a perfect man) so that we can have repentance from our sins.

So since God dosent lie and his original purpose was for the whole earth to be a paradice, it will happen...

Think about this, if Adam and Eve would not have eaten the fruit and sinned, where would they be today... ?

[baja_yu]

Yes there are over 6,500,000 and more than One million in the United States alone. And yes we do beleive that 144,000 will go to heaven to help rule over the people who will live on the earth forever.


So how can you be sure that that is not what is going on right now. 144.000 people are in heaven right now. And they are ruling over the rest of us who live on earth forever?

[baja_yu]

That's not entirely true either. Have you ever heard the term 'running around like a headless chicken'?


A cockroach can live a week without its head. The roach only dies because without a mouth, it can't drink water and dies of thirst.

[baja_yu]

I'm just raising questions on the morality of Hell and the ethical contradictions of old religions. You may feel its "hate" because it threatens your belief system. But Hate is if I promoted violence against people, not challenge belief systems.

Let's just say that Hell and religion in general were invented by the ruling minority as means of controling the poor, working majority of people. Promising them heaven if they obey, and threatning them with hell and eternal suffering if they do not.

[demotivater]

Funny thing is - according to the door to door religon salesmens religon, the 144,000 are already chosen. Of course, they don't tell you that at the door. So, sign on the line and prepare to be damned for there are no more vacancies! LOL - Bike riding, tie wearing, brainwashed morons.

I'm just pointing out ethical contradictions in your religion.

You'll have to back that up a bit. Start by pointing out what religon you're picking on, then produce your evidence of expertise in said religon.

[baja_yu]

While we are on the subject of religion, who here has the balls to pick on Scientology? :)

Can you belive I only heard of it a few days ago. And look at this, they have a device called "Mark Super VII Quantun E-meter" which costs almost $5.000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter

What interests me is, what makes it "quantum"? Does it operate on quantum physics priciples?
Their website reffers to it as a "religious artifact" :)

[demotivater]

Two words: Tom Cruise

The power of Scientology (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8530918890580805143)

[baja_yu]

Two words: Tom Cruise

The power of Scientology (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8530918890580805143)

This one has loads of interesting clips http://www.scientomogy.info/

[Valleysboy1978]

All living thing things age and die because all living things require oxygen in some manner. As Oxygen is a corrosive it will cause deterioration of our bodies, gradually.

[baja_yu]

Not all. Maybe somewhere (or some time) there will be mutant creatures living on nuclear power and they wont require oxygen :D

[FishGuy]

Not all. Maybe somewhere (or some time) there will be mutant creatures living on nuclear power and they wont require oxygen :D
Now theres a bloke with an open mind! :)

[Valleysboy1978]

"Open mind"?
perhaps if each word was re-worded to "Empty head"

[FunkyDexter]

That argument assumes that all actions taken by the mother are selfish. Certainly she shouldn't expect salvation for that act, but that's not the point. Is the act altruistic? The target benefits, at the cost of the perpetrator. By your argument, any cost to the perpetrator should dissuade them from benefitting their child. The original post attempts to set up a condradiction (and therefore paradox) of morality that an anti-abortion christian would be unable to answer - presumably in an attempt to debunk their belief system (eg. 'How can it be right while this contradiction exists?'). That contradiction only exists if the christian judges the balance of morality as displayed by the mother to be 'good'. I merely demostrated why, in terms of a christian outlook, the balance would not be 'good', ergo, there is no contradiction and the belief system stands up.

Have you ever heard the term 'running around like a headless chicken'? The chicken only actually continues to run around while enough of the brain stem is left intact. In chickens, the brain stem extends a long way down the neck so this can often happen, however once the remaining portion dies the chick clucks it's last. If you want to read something really amusing, if a little grotesque, do a google search for 'Mike the headless chicken' - and it's not a hoax.

>>Found a link to Mike (http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/story.html). Be warned, it is a little grotesque but I don't think anyone here will really be bothered by it.

[nemaroller]

A cockroach can live a week without its head. The roach only dies because without a mouth, it can't drink water and dies of thirst.

Those damn cockroaches really like to show off...

[nemaroller]

Found a link to Mike (http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/story.html). Be warned, it is a little grotesque but I don't think anyone here will really be bothered by it.

I think we can all learn something from 'Mike'... I just don't know what exactly that is yet.

[baja_yu]

"He pecked for food and preened his feathers just like the rest of his barnyard buddies."

This story is complete BS. Yeah right. Pecked with what?
And the fact that it is from 1940 makes me think that even more.
And the owner was cool about it, huh? You wouldnt freak out that the chicken that you beheaded is still alive? And, one more thing, when he chopped it's head off, why did he just leave it there?

And when he chopped off its head, how come it didnt bleed to death? Maybe he was a nuclear powered chicken so he did not have blood. Or maybe, just after cutting his head of, the guy thought: "Oh my God, what have I done? I better try and save this chicken. I will start by stopping the bleeding, then tomorrow I'll try to attach its head back one, right after I finish mating my two-dicked horse with my two-vaginad cow"

Did he have any animals with 4 asses, like Mefesto in South Park :D

[baja_yu]

"he was a big fat chicken who didn't know he didn't have a head" - "he seemed as happy as any other chicken."

Know it with what? He didn't have a brain to process the thought, nor the eyes to establish that he doesn't have a head (yes, I know that it would require him to look in the mirror :) )

[MasterBlaster]

Weak chicken, A turkey would have made it for 28 months. :)

Did anyone actually look it up in guiness to verify it was true?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I asked somebody to do that. They first looked it up in a pint, then in a whole pitcher, then finally in a keg. When they finally came to, they were clutching the base of a porcelain font, and had a duck stuffed down their pants. They reported that they had been unable to find the fact in guiness, but were willing to try other beers.

The duck, of course, had little to say, but he was just a quack anyways.

[nemaroller]

Weak chicken, A turkey would have made it for 28 months. :)

Did anyone actually look it up in guiness to verify it was true?

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=54463

[baja_yu]

I stay by my comments. The Ahole that added this to the book must have been drunk on his own beer at the time.

What's more, Mike's homepage sasy it was in 1940. The Guiness site says "On September 10, 1945", but, below the picture, under "when" it says 1947.

[FunkyDexter]

I think we can all learn something from 'Mike'... I just don't know what exactly that is yet. How to keep an open mind :bigyello: or maybe just 'If you're a chicken, avoid farmers with axes'

If you want to look something up in guiness, do you need beer goggles?

What's more, Mike's homepage sasy it was in 1940. The Guiness site says "On September 10, 1945", but, below the picture, under "when" it says 1947. I'd trust the GBWR over the home page, keep in mind that the homepage is a commercial venture someone's set up to sell TShirts and I doubt it's affiliated with Mike in any way (it was just the first link I could find). I do believe the GBWR though, it's not like it's a wikki or something so the entries are presumably well vetted (geddit, 'VETted'). I assume the photo was taken in 47, which is wholly possible if Mike lived for 18 months from September 45.

[Valleysboy1978]

AAAaaaanyway. Back to the original topic.

[baja_yu]

I have decided to volunteer at the H5N1 decontamination group, and instead of killing all the infected birds, I'm going to bring them home an chop their heads of and see if they will survive. I'll make test groups of about 100 per species.

[nemaroller]

I stay by my comments. The Ahole that added this to the book must have been drunk on his own beer at the time.

What's more, Mike's homepage sasy it was in 1940. The Guiness site says "On September 10, 1945", but, below the picture, under "when" it says 1947.

It was in Life Magazine Oct 22, 1945 issue.


http://members.aol.com/ddsquirrel/2headlessrooster.jpg

http://www.2neatmagazines.com/life/1945.html
( Do a Edit..Find on Page for 'Headless Rooster' )

[baja_yu]

I have decided to volunteer at the H5N1 decontamination group, and instead of killing all the infected birds, I'm going to bring them home an chop their heads of and see if they will survive. I'll make test groups of about 100 per species.

I stand by my comments... again :D

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'm speechless......and I'll stand by that!

[capsulecorpjx]

The original post attempts to set up a condradiction (and therefore paradox) of morality that an anti-abortion christian would be unable to answer - presumably in an attempt to debunk their belief system (eg. 'How can it be right while this contradiction exists?'). That contradiction only exists if the christian judges the balance of morality as displayed by the mother to be 'good'. I merely demostrated why, in terms of a christian outlook, the balance would not be 'good', ergo, there is no contradiction and the belief system stands up.


But ... if a mother had the intention of sending her child to heaven thus avoiding the possibility of hell ... and knew the consequences of her action yet does it anyway. Isn't it a noble act?

A Christian (Muslim or Jew) might say that it is not up to the Mother to choose. But ... the intention is the same, the effect is the same (child goes to heaven), so wouldn't it still be noble?

Other people say that the premise that the child goes to heaven is wrong, that instead the child goes to limbo because of original Sin. Which brings another point, is it ethical for an unborn child to go to limbo? It had no control over the situation. Is Original Sin ethical?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Not to me it isn't. Original sin is part of the general christian anti-sex litany. Sex is good for everything except humans, apparently.

[MasterBlaster]

But ... if a mother had the intention of sending her child to heaven thus avoiding the possibility of hell ... and knew the consequences of her action yet does it anyway. Isn't it a noble act?


No. Read up on free will. It is up to the child to get his/herself into wherever, not the mother. Nobel? What does that have to do with anything? It's about sinner/non sinner.


A Christian (Muslim or Jew) might say that it is not up to the Mother to choose. But ... the intention is the same, the effect is the same (child goes to heaven), so wouldn't it still be noble?

Again, It is not up to the mother. And has nothing to do with your definition of noble.

Other people say that the premise that the child goes to heaven is wrong, that instead the child goes to limbo because of original Sin. Which brings another point, is it ethical for an unborn child to go to limbo? It had no control over the situation. Is Original Sin ethical?
Original sin means that humans are born, inperfect with a predisposition to sin. Mother Theresa, fictional aborted baby, and Ted Bundy were all born with original sin. Theresa followed the rules, Aborted baby didn't do a damn thing right or wrong, Teddie broke damn near every one of the rules.

Theresa and dead fetus will both end up in heavan eventually, teddie is screwed. It's that simple. Acording to those religons.

[FunkyDexter]

I think MasterBlaster said just about everything I would have done in response but this debate put me in mind of a psychology paper I read a while back. It basically postulated that humans NEVER commit an act which they themselves believe to be evil because we justify everything we do within our own moral frameworks before we do it. This applies to everything from mothers aborting their children on the basis that 'I could never have given it a happy life' to Dictators committing genocide on the basis that 'These people stand in the way of the greater good and therefore must be eliminated'. Of course, sometimes the moral framework is twisted enough to allow the sort of 'My benefit is more important than yours' decisions that would lead to burglary, for example, but the point is, in the perptrators mind, they have justified it to the point where they don't believe it's an evil act.

If we take that theory you could never judge an act as evil or good on the basis of the intention because the intention will never be evil. It will be, at worst, 'OK'.

I tried to go back and find the paper and a link or something but sadly couldn't so I really won't vouch for it's veracity and I'm sure I've just paraphrased over some of the key points. I think it adds something interesting to the discussion though.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I think MasterBlaster said just about everything I would have done in response but this debate put me in mind of a psychology paper I read a while back. It basically postulated that humans NEVER commit an act which they themselves believe to be evil because we justify everything we do within our own moral frameworks before we do it. This applies to everything from mothers aborting their children on the basis that 'I could never have given it a happy life' to Dictators committing genocide on the basis that 'These people stand in the way of the greater good and therefore must be eliminated'. Of course, sometimes the moral framework is twisted enough to allow the sort of 'My benefit is more important than yours' decisions that would lead to burglary, for example, but the point is, in the perptrators mind, they have justified it to the point where they don't believe it's an evil act.

If we take that theory you could never judge an act as evil or good on the basis of the intention because the intention will never be evil. It will be, at worst, 'OK'.

I tried to go back and find the paper and a link or something but sadly couldn't so I really won't vouch for it's veracity and I'm sure I've just paraphrased over some of the key points. I think it adds something interesting to the discussion though.


That's ok, I would expect that most people understand this to be the case anyways.

[capsulecorpjx]

I think MasterBlaster said just about everything I would have done in response but this debate put me in mind of a psychology paper I read a while back. It basically postulated that humans NEVER commit an act which they themselves believe to be evil because we justify everything we do within our own moral frameworks before we do it. This applies to everything from mothers aborting their children on the basis that 'I could never have given it a happy life' to Dictators committing genocide on the basis that 'These people stand in the way of the greater good and therefore must be eliminated'. Of course, sometimes the moral framework is twisted enough to allow the sort of 'My benefit is more important than yours' decisions that would lead to burglary, for example, but the point is, in the perptrators mind, they have justified it to the point where they don't believe it's an evil act.

If we take that theory you could never judge an act as evil or good on the basis of the intention because the intention will never be evil. It will be, at worst, 'OK'.

I tried to go back and find the paper and a link or something but sadly couldn't so I really won't vouch for it's veracity and I'm sure I've just paraphrased over some of the key points. I think it adds something interesting to the discussion though.

Very well, a mother carries the baby to term, and gives it up for adoption because she can't afford it. But it isn't adopted to the family practicing the one true religion. The child does not accept the one true religion, therefore, when he/she dies, he/she goes to hell and is tortured for all eternity.

The mother goes to heaven, and is judged a righteous person, and believes in God's judgment.

Is this correct? This has happened.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Oh lighten up ;)

I don't know that all religions feel that non-believers are damned, but that's a major reason why I don't believe in the religions that do.

[MasterBlaster]

The mother goes to heaven, and is judged a righteous person, and believes in God's judgment.

Is this correct? This has happened.

I hereby hand over my crown, You have officially beat me in the category of posting krap that doesn't make sense. :lol:

Keep this up and you'll suffer Hitler's fate in the movie "Little Nicky". :p

[capsulecorpjx]

I hereby hand over my crown, You have officially beat me in the category of posting krap that doesn't make sense. :lol:

Keep this up and you'll suffer Hitler's fate in the movie "Little Nicky". :p

But if I accept Christ or Muhammed's gosphel as the word of God, that won't happen to me right?

I mean ... I shouldn't because you guy have no proof, your religious texts make no sense, and probably all this stuff is made up.

But ... WHAT IF YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT???

Wouldn't that suck?

ZOMG!!! I must become religious to avoid the possibility of Hell!!!

And after I become religious, I must never think ill of God or religion, because of the fear of Hell!!! Because eternal torture is pretty bad.

[MasterBlaster]

:lol: Hehheheh, I hope you like pineapples man :lol:

[big blue alien]

spiky end first hehe

[demotivater]

But if I accept Christ or Muhammed's gosphel as the word of God, that won't happen to me right?

I mean ... I shouldn't because you guy have no proof, your religious texts make no sense, and probably all this stuff is made up.

But ... WHAT IF YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT???

Wouldn't that suck?

ZOMG!!! I must become religious to avoid the possibility of Hell!!!

And after I become religious, I must never think ill of God or religion, because of the fear of Hell!!! Because eternal torture is pretty bad.
I think you should go talk to a preacher if you're that conflicted. You haven't mentioned which religon you're referring to in all these posts, and you're making sweeping generalizations that don't apply to certain religons at all. In short, you're completely insane. :wave:

[Shaggy Hiker]

Actually, I'd say he's completely sarcastic.

[System_Error]

For those of you who are being serious: I don't think there really is a biblical scripture that discusses what was asked, but you just have to realize God is a fair God.

[nemaroller]

Well, the governor of South Dakota has just signed the abortion ban bill.Man, you can never behold such arrogant power as a fundamentalist christian.

[MasterBlaster]

Well, the governor of South Dakota has just signed the abortion ban bill.Man, you can never behold such arrogant power as a fundamentalist christian.

Was he not elected by a majority of votes? :confused:

[NotLKH]

Well, the governor of South Dakota has just signed the abortion ban bill.Man, you can never behold such arrogant power as a fundamentalist christian.

First off, you forget, the Senate passed it first: from the other day

The measure, which passed the state Senate 23 to 12, makes it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman. The proposal still must be signed by Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who opposes abortion.

Secondly, even though that gov "opposes" abortion:


In 2004, he vetoed a similar bill


Besides being used to save the life of a pregnant woman, what other circumstances would you deem abortion necessary?

[yrwyddfa]

What does the Christian faith think about abortion?


When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.



f men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life . . .


Clearly the key phrase (here, in bold) determines what you should believe if you subscribe to a Christian philosophy.

The RSV version implies that if the woman get's hurt then it's 'eye for an eye' time, and apparently gives no value on an unborn child.

The NIV strongly implies life to the unborn child (talking of birth, in this case) and both mother and child are protected.

The linguistic fundamentals of which translation should be trusted conclude

There is no miscarriage in this text. The child is born pre-maturely and is protected with the same sanctions as the mother. If the child is injured there is to be recompense as with the injury of the mother.

. . . and can be found here (http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/abortion/exodus21.html)

Which, on the basis of the same analysis, means that the NIV version is more linguistically accurate, and that the right of life confer to both Mother and Child.

I think Google is amazing at resolving the most simple of questions "What does God think about abortion?" - which was the original question.

[sevenhalo]

Besides being used to save the life of a pregnant woman, what other circumstances would you deem abortion necessary?
The bill also makes it illegal to perform abortions in the event of rape or incest.

[MasterBlaster]

The bill also makes it illegal to perform abortions in the event of rape or incest.

Are rape and incest not illegal? :confused:

[MasterBlaster]

Hey has any one noticed if you highlight a confused smiley it sorta looks like Mr Yuck except purple? :confused:

[sevenhalo]

Those acts are illegal, but the victim no longer has the option of an abortion if she is raped.

The victim is now being forced to contimplate felony charges or have psycological damage beyond any comparison.

[MasterBlaster]

If I am murdered do I have the right to contemplate coming back to life?

If you ask me after the crime is comitted, the psycological damage beyond any comparison has already been done.

[yrwyddfa]

Those acts are illegal, but the victim no longer has the option of an abortion if she is raped.

The victim is now being forced to contimplate felony charges or have psycological damage beyond any comparison.This is murky grounds, and one which can spawn all sorts of extremes.

Say if, for instance, a women got so drunk that she hadn't realised that she was raped. The following evening she had consensual sex with her husband. Nine months later when the baby came out white instead of black like Mum and Dad they decide to have a paternity test. The husband is found not to be the father.

Does the woman still have the right to destroy the baby on that basis - being that it was a product of rape? Should the woman give the child away to spend a childhood in state care?

Clearly the answer lies at what point a lump of cells dividing becomes a human being and therefore inherits the same right to life as the rest of us.

I understand that this is taking it to it's extreme, and my point is only to state that there is nothing, at all, simple in dealing with cases such as this.

[sevenhalo]

You have to use this in the same way you view the judicial system. It's better for 10 guilty men to go free then have 1 innocent man be sentenced.

What about a person who is out jogging and got attacked. The morning after pill isn't 100% effective (if that isn't being banned with the bill? I don't know), and there is a chance; even if it is slim, that they could still be carrying. By definition, this bill would still make it illegal.

I think the circumstances are murky if nothing else. They really did a horrible job wording what would consitute a valid reason for an operation. All of the words are set to "shoot first, ask question later" instead of some preemptive wording that might help her.

[MasterBlaster]

I understand that this is taking it to it's extreme, and my point is only to state that there is nothing, at all, simple in dealing with cases such as this.

It is simple. Don't get pregnant if you don't want a child. I dont want lock-jaw so I get a tetnas(sp?) shot ervery 6 years or so. I don't want malaria so I get a shot when I go somewhere that there is a chance I can get it. If someone doesn't want a child, why not get a shot once a month to keep it from happening? They are free in the US if you can't afford one.

[yrwyddfa]

It is simple. Don't get pregnant if you don't want a child. I dont want lock-jaw so I get a tetnas(sp?) shot ervery 6 years or so. I don't want malaria so I get a shot when I go somewhere that there is a chance I can get it. If someone doesn't want a child, why not get a shot once a month to keep it from happening? They are free in the US if you can't afford one.Ok - and I'm searching for an example here . . .

Say if that the only way to prevent a woman becoming pregnant is by a condom. Are you going to insist that all rapists wear condoms?

[penagate]

If someone doesn't want a child, why not get a shot once a month to keep it from happening?

And it's still not that simple. If they wanted a child themselves ?

[NotLKH]

Under what circumstances should those who engage in incest willingly be allowed to terminate their pregnancy with abortion?

Certainly, if it can be determined that the fetus will be damaged in the extreme physically, I would say that abortion should be allowed, {as with any such circumstance outside of incest}.

But if it is determined that the fetus will develop into a healthy child, then shouldn't it be allowed to live?

Furthur, Why should Abortion be allowed upon the fetus if that fetus was conceived from rape?

Finally, is the "morning after" pill considered abortion there? I hope not.
{edit...I see that has been already questioned...}

[sevenhalo]

MB, that's just... I mean, seriously... You want women to take contraceptives just incase they get raped? I don't even know how to respond to that. There are so many moral grounds, personal freedoms and individual opinions you just trampled on.

But it's your opinion. So... I'll leave it there.

[yrwyddfa]

Clearly the answer lies at what point a lump of cells dividing becomes a human being and therefore inherits the same right to life as the rest of us.

[MasterBlaster]

That is not the only way to prevent pregnancy. there are hundreds of birth control medications. I'd be willing to bet that at least one will work for a woman without resorting to a jimmy.

If they wanted a child, there, they just got one. Who really cares who the return to owner tag in the DNA belongs to? If you raise the child, you'll always be the one they call mommy or daddy. I'm not down playing the trauma caused by a rape. That is absolutly horrifying to a person. But prenancy and rape are two different beasts. They should not be mixed legally.

[MasterBlaster]

MB, that's just... I mean, seriously... You want women to take contraceptives just incase they get raped? I don't even know how to respond to that. There are so many moral grounds, personal freedoms and individual opinions you just trampled on.

But it's your opinion. So... I'll leave it there.

No, I want women who do not want children to take contraceptives. I apologize if I didn't get my point across clearly. I have no problem trampeling on moral grounds if it keeps me from trampeling on common sense.

[penagate]

A child of rape is a memory of that experience that will last forever.

[yrwyddfa]

No, I want women who do not want children to take contraceptives. I apologize if I didn't get my point across clearly. I have no problem trampeling on moral grounds if it keeps me from trampeling on common sense.My eleven year old daughter is very likely to start menstruating in the next year.

She is too young for medical contraceptives to be prescribed, or bought, as it's illegal for her to have intercourse (thank goodness)

What do you suggest, MB?

[MasterBlaster]

Rape in itself is an experience of hell that will last for ever. The child had no say in the matter. If a person is too much of a sissiebiatch to think about someone other than themselvs and end the life of a potentially successfull law abiding citizen to make themselvs feel better about something horrible that happended to them, well I guess I stand corrected. :rolleyes:

[MasterBlaster]

My eleven year old daughter is very likely to start menstruating in the next year.

She is too young for medical contraceptives to be prescribed, or bought, as it's illegal for her to have intercourse (thank goodness)

What do you suggest, MB?

Are you not her father? Have you checked you local sex offender registry yet? Do you screen her friends, phone calls, internet usage? Do you know where she is and who she is with every second of the day?

[penagate]

Are you being sarcastic?

[yrwyddfa]

Are you not her father? Have you checked you local sex offender registry yet? Do you screen her friends, phone calls, internet usage? Do you know where she is and who she is with every second of the day?
She is going to New York for 10 days this October: I am not going with her, and neither is her mother. I have placed my faith in the ability of her teachers to be surrogate parents. If one of those does not live up to 'standard' and she gets into some sort of trouble (unlikely, I know) then I cannot subscribe to your philosophy that if she didn't want to get pregnant she should have loaded her body with hormones to prevent it.

[MasterBlaster]

Are you being sarcastic?

To you, yes:p

to yrwyddfa absolutly no sarcasm there. I checked the registry in my state and damn near had a heart attack. The world is an ugly place unfortunatly. parents have the responsibility to protect their children.

[yrwyddfa]

to yrwyddfa absolutly no sarcasm there. I checked the registry in my state and damn near had a heart attack. The world is an ugly place unfortunatly. parents have the responsibility to protect their children.I've worked in the Prison System in the UK; I am well aware of how ugly the world really is. (Tabloids haven't even started to get close, btw - nor has your local registry; that's just the tip of the iceberg)

[MasterBlaster]

She is going to New York for 10 days this October: I am not going with her, and neither is her mother. I have placed my faith in the ability of her teachers to be surrogate parents. If one of those does not live up to 'standard' and she gets into some sort of trouble (unlikely, I know) then I cannot subscribe to your philosophy that if she didn't want to get pregnant she should have loaded her body with hormones to prevent it.

If she was going to visit the south american rain forrest for 10 days would you not get her a malaria shot? I guess my point is, people look at birth control like it is a big deal. It's not. It's not like they're pumping her full of horse amphetemines(sp) and making her run around a race track or record a Black Sabbath album. At the worst, her meunnstration cycle will be regulated to a consistant scheduel and you will know exactly when to, get the hell out of the house for a few days.

[penagate]

Yes, but accodring to yrwyddfa it is impossible to legally obtain contraceptives for her at her age (Understadnably). So by your logic what are you supposed to do in that case?

[MasterBlaster]

Yes, but accodring to yrwyddfa it is impossible to legally obtain contraceptives for her at her age (Understadnably). So by your logic what are you supposed to do in that case?

How the hell is it "(understandably)" illegal for a girl capable to concieve a child to safely prevent herself from having an unwanted child?

Do it the old school way. Foller her around with a shotgun until she's 18 years old. I don't know man. I don't know the law in the UK. In the US, It is not illegal. It has to be prescribed by a doctor. So let me get this straight. In the UK it is illegal for an underage girl to prevent pregnancy using medication but is legal for her to get an abortion?

[yrwyddfa]

How the hell is it "(understandably)" illegal for a girl capable to concieve a child to safely prevent herself from having an unwanted child?

Do it the old school way. Foller her around with a shotgun until she's 18 years old. I don't know man. I don't know the law in the UK. In the US, It is not illegal. It has to be prescribed by a doctor. So let me get this straight. In the UK it is illegal for an underage girl to prevent pregnancy using medication but is legal for her to get an abortion?I am not prepared to argue this, anymore.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion; and I am mine.

To reiterate: I do not believe it should be necessary to load my daughters body full of hormones to mitigate the risk of rape and subsequent pregnancy. If you think this is the right thing to do in any legal, moral, of religious sense then that's up to you. I simply do not think this is right

[Harsh Gupta]

sorry to bother you ppl, i am not a regular member of world events, but i have been reading this thread, few posts only and no sarcasm, no offence, but the topic is full of foolishness, and i can't believe that there are ppl in world like MasterBlaster.

@MasterBlaster,

firstly, what you said is your view, and what i might say in few sec. mins, are my views, but it is not logical; on moral, psychological grounds, on grounds of mutual understanding, mutual respect among children & parents (or between spouses), for women to take contraceptives.

1) how can you relate rape/ pregnancy with dieseases like malaria? :confused:

2) you also questioned the freedom / positive thinking of women in whole.
it's like just stay at home from the fear of being hurt in a major accident, dont buy anything in life from the fear that someone will destroy it, dont earn money because someone will steal it.

3) even women have right to enjoy freedom equally. do you take necessary precautions when you step out of your home in the morning.

probably NO, because you are positive that nothing will happen to you.

4) even if it is legal to get contraceptives at any age, it is not seriously good for little girl's health. i dont know if i am right, but even prolonged use of contraceptive pills results in degradation in health of 30+ women, thats why medics suggests husband's to undergo the surgery if they dont want more children.

5) i dont know your definiton of rape, but for me, forced sexual course by a women, even if the convicted is women's husband is rape.

what yrwyddfa said is true and completly relevant, it's a matter of understanding and good positive attitude that nothing will happen to her daughter.

Harsh Gupta (sorry for being sarcastic, your posts made me)

[MasterBlaster]

I am not prepared to argue this, anymore.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion; and I am mine.

To reiterate: I do not believe it should be necessary to load my daughters body full of hormones to mitigate the risk of rape and subsequent pregnancy. If you think this is the right thing to do in any legal, moral, of religious sense then that's up to you. I simply do not think this is right

Did I say "mitigate the risk of rape and subsequent pregnancy"? No, I said to "mitigate the risk of pregnancy". Period, in any woman old enough to have a child and who does not want one.

No unwanted pregnancies = no need for abortions

Now if there is a doctor in the house to see if
- effects of abortion >= -effects of birth control

BTW no one answered my question:
In the UK it is illegal for an underage girl to prevent pregnancy using medication but is legal for her to get an abortion?

[MasterBlaster]

sorry to bother you ppl, i am not a regular member of world events, but i have been reading this thread, few posts only and no sarcasm, no offence, but the topic is full of foolishness, and i can't believe that there are ppl in world like MasterBlaster.

@MasterBlaster,

firstly, what you said is your view, and what i might say in few sec. mins, are my views, but it is not logical; on moral, psychological grounds, on grounds of mutual understanding, mutual respect among children & parents (or between spouses), for women to take contraceptives.

1) how can you relate rape/ pregnancy with dieseases like malaria? :confused:

It's preventable just like malaria and that was my basis for the comparison. Don't try to think to much into it. and for the 10th fooking time, I was speaking of pregnancy in general, not just rape related.


2) you also questioned the freedom / positive thinking of women in whole.
it's like just stay at home from the fear of being hurt in a major accident, dont buy anything in life from the fear that someone will destroy it, dont earn money because someone will steal it.

I am not questioning freedom. If a woman does not want a child, pardon me if I think it is much eaiser to "Not get pregnant in the first place" than to get pregnant and have to go throug an invasive surgery. I know that it is possible to have severed limbs reattached but I am not going to stick my finger in a running lawn mower to clear a clog.


3) even women have right to enjoy freedom equally. do you take necessary precautions when you step out of your home in the morning.
probably NO, because you are positive that nothing will happen to you.

Yes, every morning I do not open my front door, then jump in front of a bus.


4) even if it is legal to get contraceptives at any age, it is not seriously good for little girl's health. i dont know if i am right, but even prolonged use of contraceptive pills results in degradation in health of 30+ women, thats why medics suggests husband's to undergo the surgery if they dont want more children.

Really? wow, thanks for the info Dr. contraceptives are commonly used in young women for reasons other than to prevent pregnancy.


5) i dont know your definiton of rape, but for me, forced sexual course by a women, even if the convicted is women's husband is rape.


WTH does that have to do with anything? I was not defining rape.


There are two sides to the abortion argument. The only way to settle it is to find an alternative solution. Personally, I could care less if you get knocked up and decide to get a kid cut out of you. Not my problem. I'm not for or against the laws concerning abortion. IMHO, It is a subject that shouldn't even be considered for a law. . I was just suggesting that there may be an eaiser way.

and in response to your personal insult. Please read the rules for this forum and then kiss my arse.

[nemaroller]

MasterBlaster is actually advocating birth control to prevent the occurence of abortions. What I'm not clear on is if his answer to avoiding a rape-induced abortion is for the woman to take birth control to eliminate that possibility.

It would be far easier to change a few words in a law allowing abortions in case of rape than mandate or strongly suggest birth control to any human female that is of child-bearing age.

This abortion issue in South Dakota is a christian funded ploy to have the Supreme Court re-examine Roe vs Wade (the governor even admits that the state bill he signed will never become law). The problem with this ploy is it comes at a large legal expense that neither the tax payers of South Dakota wish to pay for, nor should Planned Parenthood expend its coffers where that money would be better spent on contraceptives, birth control, and education.

In fact, you would think it would be an act of Treason for a State to knowlingly pass a law that flies in the face of Federal law.

[MasterBlaster]

MasterBlaster is actually advocating birth control to prevent the occurence of abortions. What I'm not clear on is if his answer to avoiding a rape-induced abortion is for the woman to take birth control to eliminate that possibility.


It is impossible to eliminate. I suggesting a method to reduce rape induced abortion. I am making an assumption that reducing the number of women capable of becoming pregnant will lower the number of rape induced pregnancies. I would also suggest castration of all convicted sex offenders to further reduce that number.

[sevenhalo]

If I was a girl, I wouldn't take contraceptives (shot or pill). We're not anywhere near advanced enough to know the long term repricussions of these chemical agents we nonchalantly expose ourselves to. We're only dawning into the chemical age right now. If the past has proven anything, we should never trust ourselves.

We used to use tapeworms as a diet drug, salem witch trials, red meat, god only knows the damage our first microwaves were doing.

Think about the people 100 years from now learning about us in their history books/computers/pdas/telepathic IO neural implants. "Back in the turn of the millenium, kids were given one drug to solve every attention problem we know about today. They atually beleived that by adjusting only the dosage, it would be applicable to every child..." And then the 10 year olds will laugh at our ignorance.

Back on topic, I know of a few people who refuse to take contraceptives for that very reason.

[yrwyddfa]

Did I say "mitigate the risk of rape and subsequent pregnancy"? No, I said to "mitigate the risk of pregnancy". Period, in any woman old enough to have a child and who does not want one.

. . .

BTW no one answered my question:
In the UK it is illegal for an underage girl to prevent pregnancy using medication but is legal for her to get an abortion?

(i) We were talking about abortions due entirely through rape, and without the womens consent - at that point in the debate (perhaps we have cross-wires?)

(ii) It is illegal for a child in the UK (<16 years old) to have access or to give access to contraception without parental consent. It is also a criminal offence to provide contraception to a child without parental consents. Oddly, it is not illegal for a child to seek, solicit, and have an abortion without parental consent - the logic is that two doctors need to concur in order for the treatment to occur; It's certainly not a shining example of consistent UK law.

So the question is, I guess, am I just about to take my daughter down to the doctors and insist she takes contraception at 12 years old (ish) I'd rather educate her so that she doesn't consider sex as an act of indifference.

So the last one is: should I nevertheless enforce contraception upon my daughter to mitigate the risk of a rape induced pregnancy. I can only say - from a gut feeling: I can't necesarily justify this - a resolute no. Absolutely no.

[capsulecorpjx]

Got one more question. Does the aborted fetus/child go:
1) To Heaven
2) To Limbo
3) To Hell
? Is there a passage in the bible/koran/torah that answers this question?

[sevenhalo]

Holy crap (no pun intended ;)), this is going to get alot nastier now. I'm out, I'm not about to debate religious views on this topic.

[yrwyddfa]

Got one more question. Does the aborted fetus/child go:
1) To Heaven
2) To Limbo
3) To Hell
? Is there a passage in the bible/koran/torah that answers this question?Well, for the Christian analysis I posted earlier (last page) I suspect it depends on the translation. If a child is consider sentient and (from what I remember from many years ago) a child is consider pure - I would suspect heaven. I don't recall the concept of 'limbo' anywhere apart from in Catholic literature.

From a logical philosophical point of view I suspect the answer lies with determining when a bunch of cells becomes a human being.

As for the rest I don't know.

[penagate]

I guess yrwyddfa the difference between someone of your daughter's age and the scenario with husband/wife that you described earlier is that if there is not really a reasonable situation in which an 11 year old would be pregnant. You are going to know something is up and the question in THAT case is can you justify an abortion.

[FunkyDexter]

Sorry MasterBlaster but I strongly disagree with some of the positions you've taken on this one.

You posted earlier that rape and pregnancy are seperate issues and shouldn't be combined in law. That might be a nice ideal but since one can lead to the other I don't see how you can separate them.

I know you're saying your arguments only apply to consensual sex, but since non-consensual sex (ie rape) is, by it's nature, non-concenssual it's not something the woman can choose to abstain from - it's a situation she has no control over. Therefore, if we're debating whether abortion should be a legal under those circustances we MUST account for the possibility that it will happen.

You seem to be saying that all women who don't want to get pregnant should protect themselves against it, even if they don't partake in consensual sex. If they don't protect themselves against it and get raped, well that's just her fault for not protecting herself. I disagree, she should be free to choose what she does to her own body - to my mind that's probably the single most fundamental human right. Of course, if there were no rapists in the world it would be a moot point, but there are, so it isn't.

You posted that you don't walk out of your house in the morning and jump in front of a bus, but that's a bad analogy. In the case of rape, the bus mounted the curb, ploughed it's way across you're lawn, hit your front wall doing sixty and flattened you while you were quietly enjoying your eggs and bacon.

Someone posted earlier in the thread that every girl they'd ever known who'd had an abortion regretted it. I think you're probably right (I only know one girl who'se has had and she says she regretted it) but I think that's an argument for proper councelling rather than legislation to ban it. I'm broadly a pro-choicer in that I don't equate abortion with murder and I think a woman should be able to choose what to do with her own body. That said, I think the choice to have an abortion is almost universally the wrong one... but a woman should have the right to make that choice - in an ideal world she'd choose not to but I'm uncomfortable imposing that choice on her. I do think we should provide a much greater level of councelling and support to a women (both before and after the birth) so that a) she REALLY understands the decision she's making and b) the decision to have the child doesn't equate to choosing a life of few opportunities

By the way, I think it's all well and good to say 'If you don't want to get pregnant don't have unprotected sex' but I think that ignores the realities of life. Besides survival, the sexual urge is probably the single strongest one we have and I don't think it can be dismissed quite that easily.

[MasterBlaster]

You posted earlier that rape and pregnancy are seperate issues and shouldn't be combined in law. That might be a nice ideal but since one can lead to the other I don't see how you can separate them.


I can eaisally seperate the issue. Is it his/her fault she/he got raped? absolutly not. Is it his/her fault that the she/he may have contracted HIV or a STD? Absolutly not. Is it his/her fault that he/she will be tramatuized for life. Again, absolutly not. Notice I used his/her. Being able to concieve a child is not a requirement to become a rape victim.

So, If I am raped by a woman, and she becomes pregnant. Should It be legal for me to force her to get an abortion because that child is a constant reminder to me of the crime?

No, that would be ridiculous. That is how I can seperate the two issues. One act is a crime, the other is a personal decision. Crimes should be argued in courts, personal issues should not.

[yrwyddfa]

And most of the evils of society can, in fact, be cured through information. We have a society that has been disinformed and based on the disinformation has made irrational choices. And that's what I mean by 'ignorance.' People, who ordinarily might be smart, are deprived of the data by which to make a rational decision, don't have the data to do it. That is, of course, unless it relates to unwanted pregnancies. Then you don't need information, you need drugs ;)

[MasterBlaster]

That is, of course, unless it relates to unwanted pregnancies. Then you don't need information, you need drugs ;)

:lol:

You don't need drugs, you need information. If that information supports the use of drugs then that should be the decision you make. I am not a doctor. I do not know the effects of birth control on young women. I'm just floating an alternative Idea out there. Either way, It is and hopefully will always be our personal decision to make, after consulting a physcian, of course. I find it odd that in the UK It is not your personal decision. One more example of the government regulating personal freedom instead of crime.

[yrwyddfa]

I'm pleased to see that you got the humour in my last post. :thumb: This thread was on the verge of degenerating, I thought . . .

[MasterBlaster]

:)

Like I said man, this is not a passionate issue for me. Just trying to come up with a better solution than the norm. I hear a train wreck coming

If a turkey rapes a bottle of birth control pills and the pharmacist has an abortion will the turkey

1: go to hell
B: go to heaven
3: Finally get its due recognition as the coolest bird ever
4: Go to limbo but eventually become the national bird?

[Valleysboy1978]

I can eaisally seperate the issue. Is it his/her fault she/he got raped? absolutly not. Is it his/her fault that the she/he may have contracted HIV or a STD? Absolutly not. Is it his/her fault that he/she will be tramatuized for life. Again, absolutly not. Notice I used his/her. Being able to concieve a child is not a requirement to become a rape victim.

So, If I am raped by a woman, and she becomes pregnant. Should It be legal for me to force her to get an abortion because that child is a constant reminder to me of the crime?

No, that would be ridiculous. That is how I can seperate the two issues. One act is a crime, the other is a personal decision. Crimes should be argued in courts, personal issues should not.Technically a man cannot be raped by a woman. It is physically impossible.

[penagate]

Maybe if he is restrained somehow like being tied up

[sevenhalo]

Although, there are ways that a women can impregnate herself without the man knowing. I won't go into details, but even a mind that's in the proximity of the gutter can figure this one out. :)

So in a sense, it does work either way.

[Valleysboy1978]

Maybe if he is restrained somehow like being tied upWould you be excited if you were tied up with a knife to your throat? Hardly, I'd be too terrified to (trying to keep this clean due to the AUP) be "excited"

[penagate]

Well, you have a point there, but nothing's ever quite that black and white. For example, the man could have be drugged. Even if he did not put up a fight it can still be classes as rape depending on the circumnstances such as that.

There are a few more examples here
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=1006022100861

[MasterBlaster]

Technically a man cannot be raped by a woman. It is physically impossible.

Bullsheit. Ever heard of dopeing someone? you do not have to be awake or consious to preform. Ever woke up pitching a tent? :)

[capsulecorpjx]

Bullsheit. Ever heard of dopeing someone? you do not have to be awake or consious to preform. Ever woke up pitching a tent? :)

Ever heard of a strap on?

[MasterBlaster]

:lol: :lol:

No never heard of that. Why don't you explain it to us?

[NotLKH]

A woman could slip the guy viagra, tie him up, and have her way.
And of course, a man can be raped by another man, especially in prisons with weight rooms.

[oceanebelle]

And of course, a man can be raped by another man, especially in prisons with weight rooms.

what crime will that violation be under?

[Valleysboy1978]

As NotLKH pointed out a man can be raped by another man but the law dictates that a man cannot be raped by a woman. So even if she did manage it there would never be a conviction. Besdies, she'd have to wait hours for the viagra to work

[FunkyDexter]

I was quite surprised by ValleysBoy's assertion that a woman couldn't rape a man but it seems he's right, in Scotland at least. I found a definition on this link (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rn01-46.pdf) which says (amonst other things) "Rape is a gender specific crime ... it can only be committed by males upon females". I haven't found an English or US definition yet but in Sctoland, at least, that would mean that niether sodomistic rape or the creative use of Viagra by a woman on a man would be considered rape.

I'm quite bothered by that. Why should I not be offered the same protection as a woman simply because it's trickier (but still possible) for her to have sex with me without my consent?

edit>> just found on the wikkipedia that in England and Wales, although a woman cannot commit rape she can be prosecuted for "causing a man to engage in sexual activity without his consent". This can carry a life sentence if penetration was involved so I guess it's treated as rape in everything but name.

[Xanith]

In fact, you would think it would be an act of Treason for a State to knowlingly pass a law that flies in the face of Federal law.
Just a quick question. When the Supreme Court of the US stated that slavery was legal and that African Americans were less than a whole human being was the Emancipation and freeing of the slaves treasonous in your book?

X

[capsulecorpjx]

Just a quick question. When the Supreme Court of the US stated that slavery was legal and that African Americans were less than a whole human being was the Emancipation and freeing of the slaves treasonous in your book?

X

Well there were free states too back then. So if a State changed it position, then no it wouldn't be treasonus cause the Constitution didn't prohibit free states.

You can be treasonus and be a moral person. Those are two seperate things. Treason is a legal issue.

[NotLKH]

Hmmm.
the law dictates that a man cannot be raped by a woman.

33-year-old California teacher Rebecca Boicelli (search) was arrested last month on statutory rape and related charges after DNA tests confirmed that a former student fathered her 2-year-old baby when he was 16.

[Xanith]

Well there were free states too back then. So if a State changed it position, then no it wouldn't be treasonus cause the Constitution didn't prohibit free states.

You can be treasonus and be a moral person. Those are two seperate things. Treason is a legal issue.
There was never anything about slavery or free states vs. slave states in the Constitution as far as I remember. The Supreme Court of the land made it possible for slavery to be legal due to the classification of slaves as property and slaves being regarded as less than a whole human being (without such rulings slaves would have been afforded the same protections under the US Constitution as everyone else).

My whole point was that it is not treasonous to oppose such decisions made by the Supreme Court because in fact they can be wrong, just like slavery.

X

[Valleysboy1978]

NotLKH that's statuatory rape, a WHOLE different kettle of fish because he would have consented, but he was below the legal age to consent so eventhough it's not forced, it's illegal.

England and Wales have the same laws, a man cannot be raped by a woman. Simple as that. I think it was based on the physical as well as other variables. For example, generally a woman will rarely have the physical power to overcome a man enough to rape him. I'm not trying to condone the law because I am not. I believe the law should just be "the sexually motivated physical assault of another person", but unfortunately in the eyes of the law the man will always have the disadvantage. A good example is domestic abuse, although the vast majority is a man beating a woman, there are cases of women assaulting their partners...but they rarely get convicted because of the law being female-biased. How pitiful our judicial system has become :(

[yrwyddfa]

The UK law regarding rape is fairly clear here (http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/topicofthemonth/index.jsp)

[Valleysboy1978]

So a woman cannot rape a man, but she can be convicted of sexual assault by indecently touching him and such

[nemaroller]

In my State, it can be a man or woman... but what I found also was that having sex with a drunk person could potentially have you charged with a Class C felony - I knew of a couple college roommates who could have been charged with that.. and some women too!

940.225 Sexual assault. (1) FIRST DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT.
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class B felony:
(a) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person
without consent of that person and causes pregnancy or great
bodily harm to that person.
(b) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person
without consent of that person by use or threat of use of a dangerous
weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead
the victim reasonably to believe it to be a dangerous weapon.
(c) Is aided or abetted by one or more other persons and has
sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person without
consent of that person by use or threat of force or violence.
(2) SECOND DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT. Whoever does any of
the following is guilty of a Class C felony:
(a) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person
without consent of that person by use or threat of force or violence.
(b) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person
without consent of that person and causes injury, illness, disease
or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ, or mental
anguish requiring psychiatric care for the victim.
(c) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who
suffers from a mental illness or deficiency which renders that person
temporarily or permanently incapable of appraising the person’s
conduct, and the defendant knows of such condition.
(cm) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person
who is under the influence of an intoxicant to a degree which renders
that person incapable of appraising the person’s conduct, and
the defendant knows of such condition.
(d) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who
the defendant knows is unconscious.
(f) Is aided or abetted by one or more other persons and has
sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person without
the consent of that person.

[MasterBlaster]

agghhh, Coyote Ugly :eek:

Gotta watch out for those Two Baggers.

[Shaggy Hiker]

So, If I am raped by a woman, and she becomes pregnant. Should It be legal for me to force her to get an abortion because that child is a constant reminder to me of the crime?


Interesting question. If you get a woman pregnant in pretty much any state in this country, you are liable for child support. In the case you state, would you still be liable for child support? If not, what legal justification would you use if she took you to court?

[MasterBlaster]

Interesting question. If you get a woman pregnant in pretty much any state in this country, you are liable for child support. In the case you state, would you still be liable for child support? If not, what legal justification would you use if she took you to court?

I would use the same argument women use "that child is a constant reminder to me of the crime"

I would most likley be liable for child support. I'll tell you a little story about a college roomate of mine. A girl claimed he was the father of her child. He had no knowledge she even had the child as he only met her once in his life and hadn't spoken to her for over a year. When the baby was born, she put his name on the birth certificate. The next day she filed a child support claim with the state. She didn't have his current address so the summons to court never reached him. He didn't show up for court, so the Judge by default granted her the state maximum in child support. 6 month later he noticed that a large percentage of his wages were being garnished. That was the first he ever heard of this kid. Unfortunatly he didn't have the cash for an attorney and had to pay this non-refundable money for 2 years for a child that didn't turn out to be his. BTW His credit rating was destroyed beyond repair due to the fact he owed 6 months back child support and went default on 3 loans due to the decrease in his cash flow. There is a serious problem with the system and it favors the female.

[Shaggy Hiker]

That's what I was thinking, too. The system is pretty well skewed in one direction. While I believe it is the duty of a guy to support a child he fathered regardless if he was an active participant, it seems like there are a variety of possible ways a guy could father a child when he had neither intention nor even direct participation in the act.

[Deathend]

Dont believe in a god, also right and wrong have no meaning its just someone's opinion or point of view so if you were to argue it would never end. The winner is always the person who has more people doesnt mean what they speak is true though

[NotLKH]

Granted, there is no universal truth such as what is absolutely right and absolutely wrong.

But to say its just a matter of personal opinion is simplistic at best.

You, alone, aren't the determinier of what you think is good, bad, right, wrong.
You first off have the teachings of your parents. Who in turn were taught by there parents, ad infinitum.
Next, your friends and neighbors certainly influence whaty you've come to determine what is right and wrong.
Society, those invisible people all around that determine laws, run the media, plan public schools curriculum, all influenced what you've come to think of as right and wrong.
And finally, society itself has been shaped by the predominant religions that its constituents follow. Religion has inluenced your beliefs, even if you don't believe in religion.

So, ultimately, since all around you predominately have been influenced by the same forces that you yourself have been influenced by, you will find that by and large, your sense of what is right and wrong is not just a "personal opinion". It represents the majority belief, +/- 5 %.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Dont believe in a god, also right and wrong have no meaning its just someone's opinion or point of view so if you were to argue it would never end. The winner is always the person who has more people doesnt mean what they speak is true though

Let us all shed our punctuation and run freely through the forums sowing confusion with every mangled phrase

I actually understood this eventually

[yrwyddfa]

C++ programmer, obviously. Mangling is common in those circles ;)

[Shaggy Hiker]

Can't be, no semicolons.

[yrwyddfa]

Trying to disguise true origins?

[capsulecorpjx]

Couldn't have put it better myself. Abortion shouldn't be viewed as a 'quick fix' but to simply say 'never allow it' ignores the realities of life.


1. You couldn't assume that the fetus's soul goes to heaven, Christianity contains the concept of original sin.

2. To a christian, it is Gods decision as to when you die, not a mothers. The mother therefore cannot claim this as a virtuous act.

3. Murder is murder and would be a far greater sin than sending your child to heaven is a virtue.

4. Good can come from evil acts but that doesn't mean the act isn't evil.

BTW, I'm not a Christian but the point above seem obvious to me.

#1)
Is original sin in the bible?

Original Sin is a horrible concept.

From your particular Chrisitan perspective (the belief in original sin):

a) God is all powerful
b) God is all good
c) Any person that doesn't accept Christ goes to hell
d) Fetus' are people.
e) A fetus cannot accept Christ, therefore it gets sent to hell for all eternity if it gets aborted by its mother (who also gets sent to hell).

Something is wrong here.

To me, logically, being immoral requires an immoral act.

A fetus cannot commit an immoral act, but Original Sin says they are immoral because they haven't been baptized, or accepted Christ.

The idea of original sin is so idiotic... it makes no sense to me.

The only reason I see for this idea is to scare the parents to make sure their kids are recruited to the religion.

[FunkyDexter]

being immoral requires an immoral act but there's the catch, if you DO believe in original sin then we are born sinful and have to be actively moral during our lives to absolve ourselves of that sin. On that basis a baby that never got the chance to do anything actively moral would indeed go to hell (or purgatory or whatever else you happen to believe).

By the way, original sin isn't to do with being baptised or otherwise, rather it's a belief that we're all born bad and have to go forth and do something about it if we're to go to heaven.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that original sin seems a fairly abhorent concept. But then I'm not a christian and I don't believe in original sin (neither do many christians). My point was that you were trying to point a contradiction in their belief system, but to do that the contradiction must exist within the belief system itself, not just something that contradicts something that we as non-christians believe.

[freshblueO2]

This is a question for the religious people who are against abortion.

What happens to aborted fetus's? Do their souls automatically go to heaven?

If yes ...

Wouldn't it be the ultimate act of sacrifice for a mother to abort her child?

Think about it.

She is committing a grave sin so her child will go directly to heaven.
Because if she gives birth to her child, there is a good chance that her child might not accept the chosen religion, therefore be sent to burn in Hell for all eternity.

Chew on that contradiction for a while.



That's a very interesting perspective. Consider this:

1. If a foreknowledge of a person's destructive actions are known before they are ever committed, should that person be judged and sentenced before hand?

A: No. Every person has a free will of choice. This right has been granted to every person by God.

2. Since God is the omnipotent being who resideses outside our space and time, why doesn't the one creator destory this creation since he knew his creation would be defient towards him from the start?

A: We we're created to know, love, and serve God. God loves his creation, and out of love comes forgiveness.

[capsulecorpjx]

That's a very interesting perspective. Consider this:

1. If a foreknowledge of a person's destructive actions are known before they are ever committed, should that person be judged and sentenced before hand?

A: No. Every person has a free will of choice. This right has been granted to every person by God.

2. Since God is the omnipotent being who resideses outside our space and time, why doesn't the one creator destory this creation since he knew his creation would be defient towards him from the start?

A: We we're created to know, love, and serve God. God loves his creation, and out of love comes forgiveness.

My problem:
In your religion, God created the world knowing people will defy or ignore him or not accept Christ. Therefore they are sent to hell. Which from what I gather means you are to burn for all eternity.

From this perspective, I'd rather have no creation at all, than to have even one person (regardless of what they do) be tortured for eternity.

[yrwyddfa]

Another problem . . .

If you create something - let's say a child; do you want this creation to have freewill or be totally deterministic? If it's the latter then I concur that your argument is cogent and rational. If it's the first one then I'm afraid you'll need to concede that you do, in fact, completely understand the relationship between God, man, and creation, and the (basic) implications surrounding it.

The argument against even making this choice is that in reality mankind is somewhere between the extremes of free-will and determinism. But as the Christian faith (and others) don't subscribe to these shade of grey it's irrelevant in this context.

[nemaroller]

And further...

The further an individual is allowed to further himself, the individual can only go less further.

[capsulecorpjx]

Another problem . . .

If you create something - let's say a child; do you want this creation to have freewill or be totally deterministic? If it's the latter then I concur that your argument is cogent and rational. If it's the first one then I'm afraid you'll need to concede that you do, in fact, completely understand the relationship between God, man, and creation, and the (basic) implications surrounding it.

The argument against even making this choice is that in reality mankind is somewhere between the extremes of free-will and determinism. But as the Christian faith (and others) don't subscribe to these shade of grey it's irrelevant in this context.

Determinism and free will is a philosophical debate.

It has nothing to do with whether the existence of eternal damnation is ethical.

That is where my question about abortion centers. The Christian concept of eternal torture is so extreme, that wouldn't it be a noble act for a Christian mother to committ abortion (a mortal sin) to prevent her child from a very real possibility of rejecting their religion and thus being condemned to being totured for all eternity?

[yrwyddfa]

'Pigeon-holing' religious and philosophical issues is a neat trick - and helps you to avoid answering a valid point. Religious people use it; non-religious people use it. I don't care who uses it; it is not a rational act to dismiss either religion of philosphy or the philosophy of religion out of hand.

Fortunately, I've seen it before, as others here have, and realise that without any rational justification, you may as well be vomiting random words.

And if you knew anything about what your are saying then you will realise that 'in the beginning' God created man 'in his own image' I don't think it was talking about looks do you? Perhaps it might be things like 'freewill'?

Freewill is at the very centre of all monotheistic religions. You get to choose whether to believe or otherwise. This is 'celebrated'

As for ethics. . . .

Describe what you think ethics and their applicability to mankind are without introducing rules (determinism) or choice (freewill) . . . .

Describe the anthropological origins of ethics.

Quote 'eternal damnation' from the original source - and include it's outer context.

[yrwyddfa]

BTW, capsule . . .

The term 'Hell' is more properly defined as 'the absence of God' The closest (simple) analogy I can think of is a society without the rule of law but I'm sure our Christian friends here would claim that analogy doesn't quite do the term justice . . . .

I don't recall any phrases in the Christian bible describing eternal torture; in fact I can only recall one religious body that encourages this - Catholicism.

If you can dig out the 'burn in hell' etc etc quotes I'd be most grateful.

[-SUBS-Lenos]

This has to be the stupides question I saw in my entire life. Congratulations.

This has been the stupidest reply I have even seen. Congratulations.

----
"My" Thoughts Pertaining to the main question.

If child isn't tought about God or never really learns about Him then he will not go to hell when he dies. The only way you go to hell is if you reject God. In other words, you only go to hell by sin. This child has to make a "choice" later in life to commit a sin. When he is born he is innocent and will go straight to heaven if he dies. The mother is actually depriving the child of the right to live a good life, if the child "chooses" to live one, in this world and enjoy many of this worlds pleasures. Also there is no gift, sacrifice, act of mercy, or anything that would make the "killing" of a child right. Its murder! And if you don't believe in God, murder is against the law! You ("you" meaning anyone how supports abortion) say its a womens choice, well she made the choice to have the baby in the first place by not being responible! And now she has taken away her freedom of choice! We must remember to have choice we must have responsibility. But I'am getting off-topic, and I don't want to get into an arguement. This is just my opinion.

[Valleysboy1978]

That's a very interesting perspective. Consider this:

1. If a foreknowledge of a person's destructive actions are known before they are ever committed, should that person be judged and sentenced before hand?

A: No. Every person has a free will of choice. This right has been granted to every person by God.

2. Since God is the omnipotent being who resideses outside our space and time, why doesn't the one creator destory this creation since he knew his creation would be defient towards him from the start?

A: We we're created to know, love, and serve God. God loves his creation, and out of love comes forgiveness.Oh here we go :rolleyes:

So according to the analogy of your second question if I create an application and it is truly terrible and doesn't do what I want it to do I must live with it and leave it be? Certainly not, I will either fix it or scrap it and start again.

And how are you supposed to serve God when he leaves no instructions except via a novel with no accredited author, date of publishing or even an original edition!?!

[yrwyddfa]

Valleys . . .

Given the scope of the original question, I think that it is enough - solely to answer the question - to presume that God does exist.

If God doesn't exist it does not preclude the question 'If God exists . . . ' etc etc

Bit of a fuzzy head this morning (spending my Budget gains;) Hope this makes sense.