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!

[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?
What to go capsulebabala, you're enciting a riot!

[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.

[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

[baja_yu]

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

[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.

[-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.

[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

[Pino]

In world eventsnow so no more chitchat

[mendhak]

In world eventsnow so no more chitchat

Uhm, why?

[Pino]

Uhm, why?

Because this is more of a 'real' forum

[nufc4eva]

what a horrible subject to talk about, hardly uplifting.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Only the people are imaginary.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

X

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.