Refuting Abortion with the Bible

[Adelheid]

I'm very sorry. I forgot to add the poll to the other thread, and I'm wondering if the Admin can close the other thread with the same title.

I don't know where to put this, but I figured that some people might not like it if I put this in the General Chat section, so I played safe. :D

Here's the points and the Bible verses refuting Abortion:

1. The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.

“For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.” Psalm 139:13-16

2. The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.

“For every beast of the forest [is] mine, [and] the cattle upon a thousand hills.” Psalm 50:10

3. The life in the womb is really part of the woman and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
“All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.” John 16:15

4. In abortion, no one is hurt since the fetus is not a person.
“Your eyes saw me when I was only a fetus. Every day of my life was recorded in your book before one of them had taken place.” Psalm 139: 16

5. Rape is a condition that justifies abortion.

“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Romans 12:19

6. To restrict a woman's right to choose is to deny her rights as a woman.
“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” Titus 5:14

7. There are too many people in the world.

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Genesis 1:28

“And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.” Genesis 9:7

8. Abortion is legal, therefore, it is okay.

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. “ Romans 12:2-3

9. We don't know exactly when the fetus becomes human in the womb, so we can abort it.
"Speak up for people who cannot speak for themselves. Protect the rights of all who are helpless.” Proverbs 31:8

10. If the baby is deformed, it would be a mercy to it to end its life.

“But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?....” Job 2:10

[Ancestor]

How about how you tell us how you personally feel about abortion? My Mother had to have two not by choice but because she got pregnant on a IUD. Females older then you may know what I am talking about and the guys here probably do not want to go into what it is. But it was life threatening and not chance for the fetus to survive. I feel since free will is in play here that it has to be left of to the woman.

[Martha Q]

Indeed Ancestor....freedom of choice...

[Psycheinaboat]

I base my opinions about abortion on brain development and consider myself pro-choice. I believe that sometimes the choice to abort can be the most responsible choice.

When I was younger I was more involved in the movement, but now with my family’s needs, I am too busy to be an activist. I still send emails to my senators and others about various issues including those that may affect reproductive rights.

I do not want to debate here, especially from a Biblical view that I do not share. I try to be open-minded and support everyone’s right to say what they believe, but on this issue it is hard for me because I know that if most pro-lifers had their way the women in family and among my friends, whom I love and support, would have no right to seek an abortion.

[AimusSage]

I believe abortion to be a personal choice, and no religion should be used to impair freedoms. If a person feels it is wrong, because the bible says it is wrong, it is their choice, but no one should ever use religion to restrict anothers personal freedoms. If a person chooses to restrict their own freedom is their choice.

unfortunately, religious debates often take a turn for the irrational, making things nearly impossible to discuss.

[amuse]

personally, i don't want an abortion; i am pro-choice; i.e., i get to choose to have or have not. but two doctors have told me i have my pregnancy is life-threatening. i am in favor of saving my life over an undeveloped one that cannot survive or breathe on its own. that said, it is an incredibly difficult thing to say yes to, and there is every possibility that i may continue with my pregnancy.

i remain firmly, however, pro-choice. i do not believe that a being that isn't viable, and hasn't "breathed the breath of life" is capable of dying.

[Ancestor]

Amuse I agree personally if it meant saving my life I would knowing the was not hope for the fetus to survive. But I would not make the choice easily and I know that I would not get a abortion just because I did not want child that is was contraception if for. Which most people should use for avoiding more the pregnancy but that is another topic. I feel the person should do what they feel is right for their body. I have to live with my own actions and accept responsibility for those actions.

[amuse]

(i meant to express my view, not to be agreed with or not. :) )
but it's so nice that discussing abortion can be done pleasantly, wow! :)

...i think in the end, our views on abortion have to be right for us.

it's good that you know how you feel about it.

[ThatIndividual]

Does it strike anyone else as a bit superfluous (even ridiculous) to hear arguments against abortion that are drawn from the Bible?

It's almost like arguing against an atheist by pointing to the Bible.

Atheist: But I don't believe in god.
Christian: But god is real.
Atheist: How do you know he's real?
Christian: the bible says he's real.
Atheist: But I don't grant the bible any authority. It's only a book.
Christian: But I know the bible is true!
Atheist: How?
Christian: Because the Bible says that the Bible is the word of God!

Anyone who believes in the Bible is probably already Pro-Life! Anyone who is pro-choice is quite sure already that the Bible is going to prohibit abortion, whether they've ever read a Bible or not. It's futile to tell a non-Christian that abortion is wrong because the Bible says so.

Non-christians are just as certain as are Christians that the Bible prohibits abortion. It's the validity of the book that is to question.

[MiSaNtHrOpE]

Lets play Bible Tag: All they have to do is choose a verse in the book to interperet as they please to apply it to contemporary issues, which the book NEVER explicitly mentions!

Not only is the Bible's authority questionable, given the state of man and society when it was written, but one can pull interperetations out of his hat depending on personal preference or initiative (i.e.: The Bible is manipulatable as a means to an end, whether its someone who likes children or James Dobson).

The Bible is questionable because interpretations its verses are never permanent, the agenda of the interprereters, the state of mankind in Israel when it was written, the minimal scientific knowledge and the rampant sexist feelings the authors had. The Bible is not an impartial, fair work. It was written, especially in the OT, by those with power. It is not objective or reasonable. How can people use it?

[Psycheinaboat]

Anyone who believes in the Bible is probably already Pro-Life! Anyone who is pro-choice is quite sure already that the Bible is going to prohibit abortion, whether they've ever read a Bible or not. It's futile to tell a non-Christian that abortion is wrong because the Bible says so.

Non-christians are just as certain as are Christians that the Bible prohibits abortion. It's the validity of the book that is to question.

I agree with most of your post, but I have to differ on a few areas.

To my understanding many Jewish people, even orthodox Jews, believe that abortion is allowable. A friend of mine explained to me once that based on Jewish belief the soul does not enter the body until birth, and this may be why abortion is permissible. I am sure, though, that there are also many people who are Jewish and pro-life.

There are many Christians who feel that is it okay scriptually and morally to be pro-choice. Here are some links I found if you are interested. I can not attest to the accuracy of these sites, especially in the area of scripture, but here they are...

http://www.rcrc.org/resources/sermons_prayers/roe_christian_sermon.htm

http://www.rcrc.org/resources/sermons_prayers/rev_veazey_march_remarks.htm

http://www.rcrc.org/resources/sermons_prayers/sermon_gerlach.htm

[ThatIndividual]

Thank you, that's very interesting food for thought. I overlooked each of those points, probably because

point #1) I forgot about Jewish people. (Usually when referring to the Bible
it is the Christian doctrine to which I mean to refer. That is an
unfair error on my part. (Sorry Jews!)

point #2) Where I am from, that is the Southeastern United States, Christians
tend to be faaaaaarrr more conservative. I've never met a pro-choice
Christian, but I'm sure they're out there.

When one draws generalizations about people, it should always be understood that there are exceptions.

[Pendragon]

Lets play Bible Tag: All they have to do is choose a verse in the book to interperet as they please to apply it to contemporary issues, which the book NEVER explicitly mentions!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/1004.gif

[Logos]

Name-calling and personal negative comments directed at other members is not tolerated.

One post has been edited to remove them and another post has been edited because it quoted said comments.

[Stanislaw]

Name-calling and personal negative comments directed at other members is not tolerated. Posts have been edited.
:D heh, troublemakers. Guess I am not the only one.

Discussing religion is very much like discussing politics. Analysing religious texts is another matter. However, the discussion of religion is a poor debate to get inot, 'tis impossible to change anothers opinion, and usually ends in name calling.

nice call logos. (I am not being sarcastic, btw.) :)

[ThatIndividual]

Stanislaw, you make a good point, but we non-christians must fight the good fight! We're trying to set souls free! :angel: :nod:

[Stanislaw]

Stanislaw, you make a good point, but we non-christians must fight the good fight! We're trying to set souls free! :angel: :nod:

ahh, well good luck, tis a hard fight ye have ahead of you.:)

[ThatIndividual]

Aye, 'tis. 'Tis indeed. But I fight on the side of the good, so the spirit of the ultimate good is with me. The spirit of love, of truth, and of freedom! Such divine, such holy gifts of God!

[starrwriter]

Moral and religious arguments aside, I think abortion is a phony issue on a planet that is already over-populated. Africa has become the first continent to surpass its human carrying capacity. That means if every acre of arable land was cultivated with the latest techniques, Africans would still not be able to feed themselves an adequate diet.

I visited Sri Lanka several years ago and saw the horrible effects of over-population. Formerly known as Ceylon, the island country had once been a highly prosperous culture called the rice basket of southern Asia. With an exploding population that has reached 18 million, human life in Sri Lanka is now the closet thing to hell I ever saw. Mothers drowned new-born infants they couldn't feed -- how's that for abortion? Starving men committed suicide by laying down on railroad tracks. Scarce food was preserved with epsom salts, which is toxic. I won't even tell you the worst things I saw.

The whole world will turn into Sri Lanka if we fail to control human population. I'm just glad I will be safely dead and in my grave before it happens.

[Logos]

:D heh, troublemakers. Guess I am not the only one.

Discussing religion is very much like discussing politics. Analysing religious texts is another matter. However, the discussion of religion is a poor debate to get inot, 'tis impossible to change anothers opinion, and usually ends in name calling.

nice call logos. (I am not being sarcastic, btw.) :)

Well, I'm getting splinters here sitting on the fence, in the middle of these discussions, trying to be diplomatic Mod here :D but thank you for understanding.

[Pendragon]

Trust me, I will be careful with this post. I was trying to make a point on the other thread, but even I forget to carefully word things sometimes. :( All this year around the country, and probably around the world there have been staged protests at abortion clinics. That in and of itself is not bad, the first admentment gives people the right to peaceably assemble. But somewhere an abortion doctor lost his/her life. Somewhere personal property was destroyed, either by burning the clinic down or vandlizing it. Somewhere many were arrested when they refused a direct order from the police to quit blocking the entrence. If you are going to use the Bible to justify your actions, read the part that says to obey them that have rule over you also. You don't have to like it or agree with it, my friend, but the law is the law. The same law that protects my religious freedom protects the rights of those who wish to have no religion. Breaking the law in the name of Christianity is still breaking the law.

I have talked to unwed mothers often. It's not an easy choice they have to make. A troubled teenage girl, pregnant , kicked out by her parents, who will take her in? Who will adopt the babies "saved" from abortion? Will it be the protesters? If so, why is the problem not then labled "solved"? And sometimes, yes, it is necessary. It's a hard decision to make, but it has to be made sometimes....I cannot judge these people. I have seen their pain....

I direct this towards no one directly or indirectly. It is the opinion of one man

[Scheherazade]

I think this is too fragile of a matter to be dealt with through generalisations. Each case merits individual consideration and we should give those who have opted for this option the benefit of the doubt because I am sure we all agree that it is a very hard decision.

[mike-eustace]

Well done Stanislaw. You hit the nail on the head. It is almost impossible to change somebodys beliefs, especially when they are as ingrained as politics or religion. I am pro-choice, although that makes a terrible decision sound like a whimsical feeling. I am lucky enough never to have needed to make this decision but I do strongly believe that as humans we do have a choice to do whatever we wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on anothers human rights. Wasn't Iraq invaded recently because its citizens weren't given the freedom they deserve to make their own choices.

ME

[Logos]

Well done Stanislaw. You hit the nail on the head. It is almost impossible to change somebodys beliefs, especially when they are as ingrained as politics or religion. I am pro-choice, although that makes a terrible decision sound like a whimsical feeling. I am lucky enough never to have needed to make this decision but I do strongly believe that as humans we do have a choice to do whatever we wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on anothers human rights. Wasn't Iraq invaded recently because its citizens weren't given the freedom they deserve to make their own choices (oviously oil was another factor!)

ME


Hello Mike :)

You have a point about `human rights' but discussion of politics isn't allowed here.

Just mentioning it, maybe you're not aware of.

[Stanislaw]

Problem with debate:

Use of emotive language, and the connotation carried by emotive language.
What happened to the facts?

ye sensless mindless baby murding obriens!!!! :mad:
or on the other hand.
Ye nambsy pamby zealots!!! :mad:

heh, just thought I would point out the logic of yonder debate.

[AimusSage]

Something just occured to me, while abortion is a hot debate, a lot of abortions can be prevented by proper use of protection. Obviously there will be situations when this is not relevant, but often it seems abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies, so why not use protection? This raises a whole other problem, with certain religious institutes not allowing the use of protection for their subjects.

Anyway, I think proper education in the use of protection can be a very proper preventive measure.

[emily655321]

AimusSage, I think that's a very good point about Christian viewpoints on protection.

I acknowledge the futility of debates on abortion, especially from/against a religious standpoint. But I would like to stand as an alternative example of the stereotypes of pro-choice/pro-lifers. I am very liberal, and I am an atheist, and I happen to be against abortion. I am still on the fence as to where I stand politically, since in the cases of pre-natal emergencies, which are by themselves emotionally and physically devestating, it only makes sense to let the mother decide the course of action. I think in such a case it should be a personal moral choice, and legal issues should be set aside.

To me, the question need not have anything to do with the Bible at all, and it bothers me to have my viewpoint most commonly represented by religious zealots, especially those who feel the best solution is to murder doctors. I'd just like to stand as example of someone who opposes abortion, who is not a radical conservative, and whose reasons have nothing to do with religion.

[Koa]

Discussing religion is very much like discussing politics. Analysing religious texts is another matter. However, the discussion of religion is a poor debate to get inot, 'tis impossible to change anothers opinion, and usually ends in name calling.


Actually this is so right!!! I had never thought of this... I guess that's why I seldom visit this part of the forum, it can get me so pointlessly angry as political discussion could do ;)

Back on topic, well... I used to be kinda against abortion, but I was also influnenced by a lot of religious propaganda... Now I'm kinda in doubt, that is... I don't think it should be easily taken into account as a solution, I mean there are a lot of irresponsible teenagers out there who shouldnt just act lively and then abort if it happens by mistake...pretty much as Aimus said, it's just too easy not to use protection and then have to take certain steps...
However, in cases like rapes or where the health is at serious stake, then why should this be forbidden...as it was said, it depends on the case...

As for starrwriter's post, wow...I had never thought of earth being overpopulated, actually a lot of places are kinda underpopulated and I keep hearing only about low birth rates... It's also a big problem of distribution isn't it?

[mono]

This subject, I think, among many others regarding biomedical ethics, will never attain peace among everyone, other subjects including physician-assisted suicide (PAS, a.k.a. Death With Dignity (http://www.dwd.org/)), medical marijuana, advanced directives in health care (do not resuscitate, do not intubate, etc.), and other such conflicts.
On the subject of abortion, religion and spirituality only alter beliefs and ethics of one who believes and follows 'x' religion or 'x' religious text. With or without religion, regardless of the person, each will act according to his/her own nature, which offending some others will always prove inevitable. The concept of aborting an unborn fetus does not seem as wrong as the intention of some women, men, and/or couples; I find it promoting all reason if it seems in the best interest of the child, but cannot agree with using it as a form of birth control (having multiple procedures due to not utilizing proper protection and precaution).
In essence, for me, it entirely depends on the aim and intention of people involved, making what may seem the best result for the child, which here lies the controversy of who advocates for the child: the parent(s), a religious text, health care professionals, etc.

[smilingtearz]

i joined the pro-life minstry in Jesus Youth(a movement for catholic youths...turning international hope u've heard of it)...so as a part of our introduction we were taken to women who had
1)chose to abort under normal circumstances...proper delivery, normal child, proper family income, and two or less other kids in the family...
2)were forced to do so, improper pregnancy, risk to life either of the baby or the mother, pregnancy due to sexual harrasment or pre-marital sex

and it was terrible to hear them speak, coz the latter group could cry their hearts out, and you'd cry with them but the first group...nothing really seemed to bother them.

do u find anything wrong with abortion in case of a rape? or an unmarried gurl aborting a child....(i mean anyways u know how people will look at the child when he/she grows up...)

the

[starrwriter]

do u find anything wrong with abortion in case of...an unmarried girl aborting a child....(i mean anyways u know how people will look at the child when he/she grows up...)
I have no idea what the situation is in India, but in the U.S. children born out of wedlock are not all that rare and I don't think the majority of people treat them as pariahs. More than a few very famous and successful Americans were illegitimate children.

[smilingtearz]

Aww the situation here is really terrible...u know people come to dispise and detest children born out of a pre-marital relation...its disgusting u know...to look at all the humiliation the poor child has to undergo!
and later even while trying to get them into a school...there's this problem of what u'll write in the column called Father's Name :_____________
and they make so much fuss out of this!
i wish i could get a lot of people to protest against this!

[starrwriter]

Aww the situation here is really terrible...u know people come to dispise and detest children born out of a pre-marital relation...its disgusting u know...to look at all the humiliation the poor child has to undergo!
and later even while trying to get them into a school...there's this problem of what u'll write in the column called Father's Name :_____________
and they make so much fuss out of this! i wish i could get a lot of people to protest against this!
Good idea. After all, the child didn't ask to be born out of wedlock, so why should he/she have to suffer?

[emily655321]

I'm sorry it's like that in India, Smilingtearz. :( I imagine it must be that way in many other countries, as well. There are so many single parents in the United States, either by divorce or "illegitimate" conception, that I think it has largely ceased to be an issue of contention. So many people have a friend or family member involved in such a situation—either a child of a single parent, or someone who is/was a single parent,—that most people are sensitive to the issue. At least that's the way it is where I live. I know the Northeast isn't a always a good representative sample of the overall population.

[Nid-Vaeda]

Okay first off I didn't read the entire thread (to busy to read more than a page or so) but I need to say something that has been bothering me. Pro-life/Pro-choice, I think Penn Jillette said it best "...we're all pro-life and pro-choice, it's for or agianst abortion that you stand for..."

[smilingtearz]

i stand against abortion...that comes under pro-life

[ChuckBukowski]

What irks me is that these so called "pro-life" people are usually anything but. Its not like theyre out there protesting wars, famine and poverty...things that kill people every day. Its just that they have their own agenda. Often times these people are also "pro-capital punishment". On the other side of the coin I happen to be pro-choice (a term I hate because it almost sounds like your saying "I love abortions!") and anti-capital punishment, but I dont really give a darn if people die. Some people really deserve to die and I'm ok with that, honestly. I dont think abortions should be a cure-all for pregnancy, but I also dont think your religion should trump peoples personal choices, especially mine. I would never ask some chick I knocked up to get an abortion, I would take care of my child. But I'll be damned if I end up having to pay taxes to take care of someone elses, she should of aborted that pregnancy if he/she was too screwed up in his/her own affairs to take care of his/her child. And is adoption really a viable option, because I dont see these so called pro-life people lining up to adopt children out of foster homes and orphanages. In a world full of poverty, abandonment and neglect you Christians arent doing much to stem the tide. You promise heaven while everyone sits in hell. All talk no action. I dont do anything to change the current situation of the world, then again I dont claim to have all the answers written down in a leather bound, gold leafed, 2000 year old book. I'm done, it's hopeless, you people are hopeless...

[parap]

I hope legal abortion performed by qualified doctors in sanitary places was "invented" because of the horrors that took place before it when women tried to do it on their own.

Abortion is probably as old as prostitution (and I don't mean to compare the two). All over the world women abort their pregnancies using whatever methods they have. Often it's the traditional old method of trying to instigate a miscarriage (carrying heavy stones, putting feet in warm water, and other such tricks or myths if you will). Those who are unable to instigate a miscarriage might resort to the worst: trying to get it out manually, or as already mentioned, kill it right after birth.

I don't view abortion in a clinic to be an alternative to contraception. I view it as a safe option to the more traditional ways of aborting pregnancies. Many, many women are going to do it anyway, whether in America or in some village in the Middle-East. We might as well make it a safe journey for them. And if you are indeed honestly pro-life, then you should automatically also be pro-choice, unless you either truly don't care about the mother, or you have a very unreal view of humanity.

[RobinHood3000]

I'm an atheist, and I find myself hard to place. Middle of the road, I suppose, but strongly leaning towards the so-called "pro-life" position. I think that in cases of rape, incest, or threat to mother's life, abortion should be allowed because the baby is likely to be unwanted, unhealthy (physically and emotionally, in life), or infeasible, respectively. But I'm against "abortion on demand," as the phrase goes, not on the grounds of the life of the baby (though that probably sounds heartless of me) but on the basis that I consider it a shirking of responsibility. I should probably wait until I'm older to form a definite opinion on sex and its social implications, but as it stands now, I can't help but feel like it shouldn't be so incredibly difficult for people to avoid having sex if they can't afford (financially or otherwise) to have a baby. Perhaps I'm being naïve or moralistic, but...well, there's my stance. It's open to debate and, if anyone presents a compelling enough argument, subject to change.

[parap]

I can't help but feel like it shouldn't be so incredibly difficult for people to avoid having sex if they can't afford (financially or otherwise) to have a baby.

It's too idealistic, unreal, and naive to believe that adult human beings can avoid having sex. Sex, making love, intimacy, or whatever you what to call it, is as natural as eating and drinking, and most people will not stop doing it, whether they want children or not.

Nevertheless, I have also always said that legality of abortion should always go hand in hand with good sex education and widely available contraception. Problem is that even this is too idealistic, unreal, and naive, as there are still too many countries where sex is considered taboo, and too many poor people who simply can't afford all these fancy gadgets.
Moreover, like I already said, whether you like it or not, women are going to continue trying to abort their pregnancies as long as that gender exists, as it has throughout the history of mankind. Legalizing abortion is simply a safer option for all these women who are going to do it anyway. Humanity is not perfect, and even contraception or other methods like withdrawal or counting days don't always work. Unless you want to see the women kill themselves while trying to abort their pregnancies. The foetus is going to die anyway. What about the women? Should we kill them too? That might of course be another option, but then don't label yourself "pro-life", because that would be a complete contradiction in terms.

[emily655321]

What irks me is that these so called "pro-life" people are usually anything but. Its not like theyre out there protesting wars, famine and poverty...things that kill people every day. Its just that they have their own agenda. Often times these people are also "pro-capital punishment". On the other side of the coin I happen to be pro-choice (a term I hate because it almost sounds like your saying "I love abortions!") and anti-capital punishment, but I dont really give a darn if people die. Some people really deserve to die and I'm ok with that, honestly. I dont think abortions should be a cure-all for pregnancy, but I also dont think your religion should trump peoples personal choices, especially mine. I would never ask some chick I knocked up to get an abortion, I would take care of my child. But I'll be damned if I end up having to pay taxes to take care of someone elses, she should of aborted that pregnancy if he/she was too screwed up in his/her own affairs to take care of his/her child. And is adoption really a viable option, because I dont see these so called pro-life people lining up to adopt children out of foster homes and orphanages. In a world full of poverty, abandonment and neglect you Christians arent doing much to stem the tide. You promise heaven while everyone sits in hell. All talk no action. I dont do anything to change the current situation of the world, then again I dont claim to have all the answers written down in a leather bound, gold leafed, 2000 year old book. I'm done, it's hopeless, you people are hopeless...
Chuck, I understand where you're coming from, but the way you put things often comes out as hyperbole, generalization, and confrontation. I think you have good points, but the way you communicate them is somewhat offensive sometimes. It's hard to be calm when the issues are so heated, but I've seen what this forum is like when everyone is yelling at each other, and it's not a fun place to be. These discussions are only as peaceful as they are through the effort of those involved, and I feel like everyone but you is doing a fairly good job at biting their tongue and trying to be understanding of one another. Saying things like, "you people are hopeless" doesn't exactly lend itself to constructive discussion. We're all just here to try and understand one another, no matter what our beliefs may be, and it would be nice if you'd word your arguments more diplomatically. I know you're frustrated, but one can be frustrated and peaceful at the same time. :)


I should probably wait until I'm older to form a definite opinion on sex and its social implications, but as it stands now, I can't help but feel like it shouldn't be so incredibly difficult for people to avoid having sex if they can't afford (financially or otherwise) to have a baby.
I used to think this way, too, RH, but parap's right; it isn't feasible. The problem is, sex is deeply entrenched in our emotions, and it isn't just a matter of procreation. It has a lot to do with the emotional bond between couples, as well as being nearly as strong a drive as thirst, hunger, and sleep. I didn't even realize how important it can be until I got a boyfriend (at long last), and I feel like I'm able to understand myself and others better than before. I've become much more peaceful and secure in myself. I'm not saying, "Everybody run out and have lots of sex!" because that kind of behavior will certainly not make you feel good about yourself (I know that, too), but within the context of a loving adult relationship, it can be a very wonderful thing. Kudos to those with self-restraint, but I could not have a boyfriend without making love to him.

The problem with baby-less sex is, condoms are ten bucks a box! No wonder poor people have more kids than middle-class ones.

[RobinHood3000]

I do apologize, as I'm sure what follows will sound to many like the raving of an immature boy (which it conceivably is), but if I may be permitted to state my philosophy on love...

I, personally, distinguish love (the stuff of most realities) from true love (the stuff of most fantasies) with one important criterion. By my reckoning, love of any kind consists of a physical and an emotional sphere which exist in a closely-linked synergy, in which a strengthening of one sphere adds to the intensity of the other. Just as a kiss (or other physical interaction) between two people in love can strengthen their relationship, so can a deeply connected conversation be equally electrifying (and satisfying). My criterion for distinguishing between the two is this: true love is capable of existing for brief but significant periods of time (subjective phrasing, I know, but I'm still working out the kinks) in the absence of physical interaction IN THE PRESENCE OF (very important) adequate emotional compensation for that loss. I'm in a long-distance relationship with a girl who could be the girl of my dreams (at least from my inexperienced perspective), and though I wish I could be with her in person to touch her, kiss her, and hold her, I feel as if the emotional aspect is enough to last me until the day when I can see her again in person. I could be wrong, and my definition could very easily be just one heck of an effective placebo, but I do ask for as much constructive feedback as possible--my philosophy is something of a work in progress, in need of constant whittling in light of new information to refine it.


And I think I understand where parap and emily are coming from--my original intent was to put "teenagers" (the demographic I'm most qualified to observe and study) in the place of "people," but changed it for fear of making a stereotypical generalization. I am sorry if I offended anyone.

[emily655321]

And I think I understand where parap and emily are coming from--my original intent was to put "teenagers" (the demographic I'm most qualified to observe and study) in the place of "people," but changed it for fear of making a stereotypical generalization. I am sorry if I offended anyone.
Ah, now that's a good distinction to make. I almost left my sentence at "loving relationship," but added the "adult" to make that very distinction. I am of the mind that teenagers (at least those under 17 or 18) should not have sex, and all the teenage pregnancies, aborted or not, that occur thereby, I see as the inevitable and tragic result.

The old "wait til you're married" rule I believe to be outdated, though, since it harkens back to a time when people got married at 18, or even younger. In today's culture, children are sheltered by their parents for a much longer time, so that the mind of an 18-year-old these days is more like that of a child than it was when people began a trade early and had to fend for themselves. Now, in an age where the common marrying age is up to the late 20's/early 30's, I think we need to have a better rule. Teenagers hear, "Wait til you're married" and think, "Wait till I'm 30?? No way!" I would rather have parents tell them, "Wait til you're eighteen," so at least a few would see an alternative beyond having sex at 14 or 15. I know I certainly don't advocate a world populated by 30-year-old virgins—that much sexual frustration just isn't healthy, in my opinion. But a teenage relationship, I believe, is certainly sustainable within the confines of celibacy.

I also agree with you, RH, that a long-distance relationship, or celibacy for any other reason, is sustainable for a period of time, when people are in love. But I'll reference my hypothetical world of 30-year-old virgins again; personally, I don't want a child until I'm at least 25, preferably 30. I know, especially in the Westernized world, that this is becoming the prevailing opinion among young adults. In such a case, I think it unreasonable to expect that people remain celibate until they reach the point at which they're ready to be a parent. And, though I think it psychologically healthy for 18-year-olds to have sex, I think most 18-year-olds today lack the maturity to raise a child well.

[Aurora Ariel]

That's an interesting discussion.But I think it is a common misconception about large families, as upper class individuals actually had many children in the past as well.The gentry use to breed alot to provide heirs to pass on the "strong"(in their own minds) genes and continue family prosperity in the future.Originally, it was the rich who had many children to ensure the continuation of the lineage.Many offspring died young, so they had to ensure that some males would survive to inherit the land or throne.Quite a few kings are renowned for producing alot of offspring, many who were illegitimate.Some had numerous wifes, and left one if they were deemed "infertile".The rich could afford more children, while the poor could bearly keep the ones they had.But nowdays, it does seem more common that the wealthy or bourgeois have fewer children, as we can see from the statistics spread across the globe which elucidate the birth rates in many nations.In developing countires, the children per women percentage is much higher than in industrialized western nations.In developed countries, there is a trend to have only one child or no children at all.Single households are on the rise, and the numbers of couples without children continues to grow.Today, there are more lifestyle choices, which allow individuals or couples to make up their own minds and gain access to a greater freedom.But this is still denied in many poor countries, where alot of children continue to live in a wretched and disadvantaged state.

[Adelheid]

Ah.... but back to the point if you don't mind. Is Abortion right in the first place? How can you define what is right and what is not if there is no standard?

For exactly that reason, without the Word of God, the world is going astray. They have no more basis upon which to have their laws their standards, and so of course their laws are allowed to become more corrupted and evil. Once man started to take out the Bible from the Courts and schools, we started having all this problem.

What is right to you? Why is wrong wrong?

[RobinHood3000]

Forgive this question, as I realize it must sound like I'm questioning your faith, but I swear that I only ask it to learn about theist points of view: How is God and his presence the only basis for morality?

[Theshizznigg]

Interesting Topic, Congratzi.

Abortion? The mere thought of it to me, a woman willingly killing her child is in my mind one of the greatest blights on humanity.
Am I pro-life? Yes, and No.
I do believe that a woman in need of an abortion, because of complications in pregnancy, risk to her life is deemed a sastifactory need, because the woman life is in risk, and the chances of the fetus surviving are slim.
It is in that sense, that it is better for the woman to survive than the fetus, or having both of them die, because the woman will be able to reproduce again.
This on a merely biological scale, is evidence enough for my reasoning.
Do I think that rape victims should have the right to abort their child?
Yes, I do. Though I feel in my mind that it would be a better thing for the woman to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption.
My reasons for this are such.
The child did not choose how it was conceived, it is innocent despite its materialization. It is also a part of that mother, a piece of her own genetics, a part of her.
Thirdly I believe it unfair that a life should be snuffed out, merely because that life was caused in an unconventional way.
There are also plenty of couples out their looking for children to adopt.
These are merely my thoughts, and a mother must do as she sees fits.

I must state however, that abortion for the mere convience of it, is in my mind despicable. It is despicable for a many number of reasons, both religious and non religious.

By religion I may state what many already know. That human life is precious, and that all things that live have a soul. By aborting a child, (in my mind) for no other reason than mere inconvinience, is no better than murdering a adult.
Both the adult and the child have souls, both were alive.

Or look at it from a purely Darwinian vantage. We live and die, we do not continue, and no person can achieve immortality. We must therefore survive through our children, and in our way achieve immortality through them by passing of genetic material.
It therefor would go against the very fundamentals of nature to kill those little parts of us that exist beyond us.

I agree that abortion has been around as long as Humans have existed, and has really stemmed from the lack of food, supplies, traditionally.
But if that is the case then why do we see the alarming epedemic of more abortions in civilized countries, countries that can support those young, against those countries that can't yet try desperately to have as many children as possible for better odds of survival?
In the end it returns to the question of carelessness and convinience in many such cases.

One may never have a full answer to this debate, or really have an absolute without having to crush someones rights under their heels.
As for me, I believe strongly in pro-life, but then have my reservations, as well.

Shizz.
"Godblessinheim."

[Logos]

Topic started last year, bumped after Forum Rules (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410) were introduced, now closed.

"This area is for discussions of specific religious texts. Any other general religious topics started will be subject to Admin or the Moderator's approval as to whether they are appropriate to remain."