Religious Absurdity And Modern Psychological Baggage.

[dzebra]

I'm only posting this because I think togre made a very good point and I think The Atheist missed that point.

togre's post posed this scenario:

Should a person was mugged, stabbed and ultimately lost his/her arm be forced to go throw life with that terrible reminder and suffering? Naturally no. What if the only way to remove the reminder and alleviate the suffering (provide a new arm) involved killing some stranger off the street and taking his arm and sewing it on? Who would sanction such an act?

If you are beaten and disfigured, just about every government in the world provides for its hospital and medical systems to repair the damage as far as possible. If you lose an arm, you will be given an artificial one.

This doesn't follow the "what if." This is not a valid response to the point togre made. The scenario was that the only way to stop the suffering is to kill an innocent guy off the street and take his arm.

The point of the argument was to express togre's view that there is no way to end the rape victim's suffering except by killing an innocent.

In the case of a rape victim, the system, instead of looking to alleviate the damage, increases it by forcing the woman to go through months of pregnancy and ultimately a labour - both of which tend to leave permanent scars.

I would argue that it is not the system that forces the woman to go through labor, it is the rapist. The natural result of rape (frequently) is pregnancy. The system is not at fault for the labor, the rapist is. The damage is already set in motion. The system is trying to prevent the death of an innocent (the system is assuming the baby's life has already begun).

This, however, isn't an analogy of any kind whatsoever.

The sentence to which this was your response, incidentally, was the entire basis of the only analogy in togre's post.

Do you still just apply the biblical rule against abortion, or does the biblical rule against incest overrule it?

As for this, the act of incest would have already occurred before the option of abortion is available. Preferably, the incest would be avoided, but after that has taken place, the act of carrying the child of incest is not bad.

[Drkshadow03]

You, when in doubt, asked me what I meant. As it seems you are more interessed on exchanging ideas because Interpretation is job meant to both sides, not just one. RZ throwed a answer that have nothing to do with what I said at any point of this thread which just means it is some defensive discuss that is repeated ad nauseum and as The Atheist said, there is a point of no debate. So, I really am not offended as It is ridiculous to throw offenses against people you do not know, more even to be offended by those.

By the way, I'm curious based on our exchange, are you a Marxist?

[Redzeppelin]

There you are, you said it yourself: a "potential life", not a life in itself. If something really gets my goat, it's anti-abortionists. Why should a "child-to-be" (not yet a child, therefore) have more value than a woman's choice? And what about free will?

A woman's "choice" is mitigated by the consequences of that choice. If nothing happens to intervene, a life will result - period. Why should the woman's "choice" outweigh the value of a human life?

Red, I agree with The Atheist. Writing: "Much of your posts are generally a few degrees shy of being incomprehensible" is rude. If you were speaking in a second-language I doubt you would want someone in that language to respond to you in such a way.

Fine - no harm was meant, and I think JC was less than courteous in his response. Nonetheless: JC - I am sorry. I did not intend to insult you. Please accept this apology.

I contended that forcing a woman to carry and deliver the baby is more trauma.

I have no doubt that carrying the child who is the result of rape isn't a horrible experience - but life is full of these things and we often find that there is value in trying to turn the curse into a blessing. The child who gets to be born and the couple who gets to adopt him/her would greatly appreciate the sacrifice of the mother - and how can someone who provides such happiness into the world not somehow see at least a glimmer of value in her noble action?

I'm glad I don't know any of those "some people", because - to me - the idea is completely unpalatable.

Right - but apparently you find the idea of a fetus destroyed as being much more "palatable." An emotionally traumatized life is not healed by the termination of another one. It attempts to erradicate the rapist but does nothing of the sort - it erradicates the innocent victim of the crime.

But religious views can justify forcing ongoing trauma to the victim.

The rapist traumatized the victim. You speak on the assumption that abortion somehow "fixes" something - what exactly does it fix for the violated woman?

[JCamilo]

By the way, I'm curious based on our exchange, are you a Marxist?

Well, I like some Bourdier and Foucault stuff, but I do not adhere to any political side, in fact I would describe myself more as some short of anarchist, as delluded this position may be.

[Drkshadow03]

Well, I like some Bourdier and Foucault stuff, but I do not adhere to any political side, in fact I would describe myself more as some short of anarchist, as delluded this position may be.

Ah, I thought I sensed Foucault when you kept bringing up discourse, but your opening comment about "material power" threw me off and made me think Marxist. That's one of the ways I think Foucault challenges traditional Marxism, by deemphasizing material power.

[Bitterfly]

God, Redzeppelin, your thought is so foreign to me that's its almost interesting to see it, even if it makes me see red.

A woman's "choice" is mitigated by the consequences of that choice. If nothing happens to intervene, a life will result - period. Why should the woman's "choice" outweigh the value of a human life?

Because she's alive and the foetus is not? Seems simple to me. Why is it almost always men who argue against abortion, by the way? Is it because they feel left out of the decision process and therefore try to regain mastery by trying to tell women what their "sacred duty" is to do?

I have no doubt that carrying the child who is the result of rape isn't a horrible experience - but life is full of these things and we often find that there is value in trying to turn the curse into a blessing. The child who gets to be born and the couple who gets to adopt him/her would greatly appreciate the sacrifice of the mother - and how can someone who provides such happiness into the world not somehow see at least a glimmer of value in her noble action?

I think there are already far too many children out there waiting for adoptive parents for raped women to "sacrifice" themselves in order to procure some more. And that notion of sacrifice?!!! What's sacred about all this? Why on earth should a woman who's been through rape go through another ordeal if she chooses not to? Do you think it's easy to bear a child, let alone one that has been forced on you by someone you can only remember with hatred? Please, use a little common sense...

Right - but apparently you find the idea of a fetus destroyed as being much more "palatable." An emotionally traumatized life is not healed by the termination of another one. It attempts to erradicate the rapist but does nothing of the sort - it erradicates the innocent victim of the crime.

You admitted yourself a foetus is not a life, but a potential life.

The rapist traumatized the victim. You speak on the assumption that abortion somehow "fixes" something - what exactly does it fix for the violated woman?

It at least eliminates a very powerful trace of the rapist's passage in her body. I should think anyone could understand that...

[Pendragon]

Do you believe a rape victim who gets pregnant should be forced to bear and give birth to a child?

Frankly, no. But I don't have to make the decision, they would. I don't know what I would do in their situation.

More could be done if Christians offered to adopt the kids and raise them, help scared teenagers who have messed up with medical bills and counseling than shooting every abortion doctor in the world.

And Doug, yes, I am anti-death penalty, but I understand the desire for revenge very well, so if it were my kid killed by some maniac I couldn't say what I would do. But it's up to the country or state as to what to do.

I have always advocated this: If we are going to have it, use it, and don't waste time with it dragging on for years until everyone except maybe the victim's family has forgotten! Let the chips now fly...

God Bless

Pen

[Jozanny]

I, for one, don't really know what this debate is about anymore. What you all share in common, to my observation, is either a strident need to be right or impose your own schematic on the other which all of you know full well isn't going to happen, but I am reminded of one thing from my days in MH with my Jewish bosses who had the amazing talent of making me laugh and frightening me at the same time.

The Executive Director was sitting at the table with the President, who was also the founder of MRI, and the former asked the latter: "Before Jesus Christ appeared on the scene, who did the delusional think they were?" It struck me as a pertinent cultural question.

Can any of you step out of your belief systems for five minutes and make relevant observations? Or is Religious Texts simply a game of sticks and stones? Really, what is to be learned here, or appreciated? Without singling out anyone, and you can trust that I have no specific member in mind, the threads in this forum simply devolve into a value argument, and I find it tinder dry after a while, indeed.

[JCamilo]

Ah, I thought I sensed Foucault when you kept bringing up discourse, but your opening comment about "material power" threw me off and made me think Marxist. That's one of the ways I think Foucault challenges traditional Marxism, by deemphasizing material power.

I like the notion of the power of ideologies, because in the end it is true, just do not like the notion of idelogions only being linking with the dominant class. Bourdier is more reasonable than Foucault, IMO.

I am up for the notion of culture, a comple failure in Marx analyses, the power of culture as not a source of oppression only.

[The Atheist]

I'm only posting this because I think togre made a very good point and I think The Atheist missed that point.

....

The point of the argument was to express togre's view that there is no way to end the rape victim's suffering except by killing an innocent.

Nope. No points missed, just total disagreement. Your & togre's contention only works if you equate a living, walking human with a bundle of unrecognisable cells which may (if not spontaneously aborted by miscarriage) grow into a human being.

That's an argument I'm not going to get into beyond stating that my personal belief is that it's a really bad argument and I cannot compare the two.

[

As for this, the act of incest would have already occurred before the option of abortion is available. Preferably, the incest would be avoided, but after that has taken place, the act of carrying the child of incest is not bad.

Thanks.

All I can say to this is that it's exactly the reason why I call myself "The Atheist", to show that there is an alternative to religion. Your premise is so repugnant to me that I won't even argue the point on it. I'm happy to just agree to disagree.

A woman's "choice" is mitigated by the consequences of that choice. If nothing happens to intervene, a life will result - period. Why should the woman's "choice" outweigh the value of a human life?

As above, the central thesis to your argument is that a human embryo/early-term foetus is equivalent to an extant life. I disagree with that and will cheerfully leave it there.

The rapist traumatized the victim. You speak on the assumption that abortion somehow "fixes" something - what exactly does it fix for the violated woman?

No.

I repeat, it doesn't fix anything. What it does is stop the trauma continuing.

Why is it almost always men who argue against abortion, by the way? Is it because they feel left out of the decision process and therefore try to regain mastery by trying to tell women what their "sacred duty" is to do?

This is a question I have pondered for many years, having never seen a female spokesperson for anti-abortion groups in this country. I always get an enormous sense of irony watching debates between women - for whom the possibility of rape-pregnancy demonstrably exists - who are pro-choice, and men - for whom the outcome is, of course, an impossibility - arguing against abortion.

Truly bizarre.

If I had to guess, I'd just go with the control theme.

Do you think it's easy to bear a child, let alone one that has been forced on you by someone you can only remember with hatred?

This is why not many women ever support the idea. I suggest that the blokes who take this stance have never been in a delivery suite, watching and hearing the effects of the trauma from a wanted baby, nor seen the hoorendous effects of the highly-likely episiotomy, where the woman's vaginal and anal tissue is cut with scissors like so much rump steak. A little blood creates a lot of reality, in my opinion.

How a woman would go through that with a child she has will almost certainly not want, I don't know, but I would think that a large dose of part-traumatic stress would be the least of it.

To be honest, I find it hard to believe that the attitude exists in 2008.

Frankly, no. But I don't have to make the decision, they would. I don't know what I would do in their situation.

Mate, you're a champ!

That's why I usually stay out abortion debates, but I know from talking to rape survivors that carrying a pregnancy is possibly the most traumatic thing they could think of. I also balance my view with a confirmed christian I know who carried and still mothers the child of her rape.

More could be done if Christians offered to adopt the kids and raise them, help scared teenagers who have messed up with medical bills and counseling than shooting every abortion doctor in the world.

Again, realism over dogma - "you're a top bloke" is what we say about you in Kiwi vernacular. I could not agree with you more.

[Redzeppelin]

God, Redzeppelin, your thought is so foreign to me that's its almost interesting to see it, even if it makes me see red.

I feel the same, except that your belief system doesn't make me angry.

Because she's alive and the foetus is not? Seems simple to me.

Simple only because of the central assumption of your argument - that the fetus is not alive. That issue is the crux - but there is no way to prove that the fetus is alive or not alive, so you don't get to simply default to your position. As I said - without intervention of some kind, that fetus will become a person - period. Someone who should be here won't be here. No amount of semantic quibbles changes that. Once an egg and sperm unite, life is formed.

Why is it almost always men who argue against abortion, by the way? Is it because they feel left out of the decision process and therefore try to regain mastery by trying to tell women what their "sacred duty" is to do?

The better question is why are you resorting to the ad hominem argument here? There are plenty of women (some who had abortions) who think likewise - that life is worth preserving, and that having an abortion solves one "problem" but creates others.

Why don't you back off the straw man argument because it really looks bad for you to twist my points into some sort of "battle of the sexes" thing. Surely you can do better.

I think there are already far too many children out there waiting for adoptive parents for raped women to "sacrifice" themselves in order to procure some more. And that notion of sacrifice?!!! What's sacred about all this? Why on earth should a woman who's been through rape go through another ordeal if she chooses not to? Do you think it's easy to bear a child, let alone one that has been forced on you by someone you can only remember with hatred? Please, use a little common sense...

Your argument is the equivalent saying that we should let starving people die because the world is overpopulated anyway (something the Atheist would most certainly protest).

People who suffer terrible experiences have a number of ways to respond to that experience. I suggest that the harder road is ultimately the more healing of the two choices. Studies have shown that women experience significant emotional trauma from choosing to have an abortion. I am unaware of any studies that suggest that an abortion as a response to a rape has any healing effect whatsoever. Bringing life into existence is an amazing thing - and sometimes, the way we bring healing to ourselves is to put our energies into something greater than ourselves. I have no doubt that bearing a child who is the product of a violation is extraordinarily difficult - but many people here on earth make extraordinary sacrifices for a greater good. Yes the mother hates the rapist - but the rape isn't the child's fault - why should she/he pay the ultimate price for the crime?

You admitted yourself a foetus is not a life, but a potential life.

A misstatement; a fetus is alive from the moment of conception - it is a potential person. Sorry.

It at least eliminates a very powerful trace of the rapist's passage in her body. I should think anyone could understand that...

But is doesn't take away the trauma of the experience - and the fetus is HALF HERS so she wipes out something which is part her. Removing the reminder doesn't mitigate the pain and it adds to that pain the knowledge that a potential person has been destroyed. I should think anyone could understand that...

As above, the central thesis to your argument is that a human embryo/early-term foetus is equivalent to an extant life. I disagree with that and will cheerfully leave it there.

Like I said above - you have no evidence for that position - that is the crux of the abortion debate. To allow it with good conscience, you have to believe that that potential person isn't alive at conception. It is.

I repeat, it doesn't fix anything. What it does is stop the trauma continuing.

Completely false. Studies show that even women who have abortions voluntarily suffer emotional consequences for years to come. Don't expect me to believe that exterminating the product of a rape changes that in any degree.

This is a question I have pondered for many years, having never seen a female spokesperson for anti-abortion groups in this country. I always get an enormous sense of irony watching debates between women - for whom the possibility of rape-pregnancy demonstrably exists - who are pro-choice, and men - for whom the outcome is, of course, an impossibility - arguing against abortion.

Once again, instead of dealing with the argument at hand and assessing its logic, you - like Bitterfly - resort to a weak ad hominem in order to suggest that the argument has no merit and is merely gender based. That's fallacious thinking. Obviously it is easier for men to take the pro-life position, but that doesn't invalidate the position. Deal with the argument and lay off the logical fallacies.

[Virgil]

A misstatement; a fetus is alive from the moment of conception - it is a potential person. Sorry.

I'm not jumping into the middle of this debate, but I do disagree here. It is only a "potential person" until the heart starts beating. Once the heart starts beating (around five to six weeks) it is a person. If the heart is beating there is nothing to distiguish it with a person outside the womb. It is a stage of dvelopment, much like an infant is at a stage in development with respect to an adult. The fact that it is inside a womb makes no difference. It is a person.

[NikolaiI]

I'm not jumping into the middle of this debate, but I do disagree here. It is only a "potential person" until the heart starts beating. Once the heart starts beating (around five to six weeks) it is a person. If the heart is beating there is nothing to distiguish it with a person outside the womb. It is a stage of dvelopment, much like an infant is at a stage in development with respect to an adult. The fact that it is inside a womb makes no difference. It is a person.

I really could jump in here with some great arguments for not eating meat for instance, they may have less intelligence, but so do mentally retarded people???

But, I am just posting to respond to Jozanny's... yes, it got off topic. I just wanted to say Darkshadow made excellent points, and before him/her, islandclimber, and from the responses they got, Darkshadow was misunderstooad and islandclimber is completely inconceivable...

Um, Jozanny, you are intelligent... you will not call someone mentally sick because they profess belief in something invisible, will you? That's what the article said, which Hyde was asking our opinions of. It's quite offensive!

I think it's surprising/awful that people would think and say such a thing. Everyone I know or is in my life, who is a person of faith, is a wonderful person.

[The Atheist]

Like I said above - you have no evidence for that position - that is the crux of the abortion debate. To allow it with good conscience, you have to believe that that potential person isn't alive at conception. It is.

Yes, that's your opinion. Mine differs.

Nothing's going to change that, so as I said, I will agree to disagree, so will you please qualify the "It is." with an "in my opinion". There is no evidence for anything, since there is no position on when "life" starts, can be valued as human, or even what constitutes life - that isn't based on a bible.

Gosh, you accuse me of being an absolutist often enough.

Completely false. Studies show that even women who have abortions voluntarily suffer emotional consequences for years to come. Don't expect me to believe that exterminating the product of a rape changes that in any degree.

Same again. How on earth can you say "completely false"? You're comparing two entirely different things - one done by choice, one forced through violence. I haven't made any statements on the effects of abortion since they are irrelevant. If a woman is allowed to choose, she can choose. You would have her choice taken away.

Once again, instead of dealing with the argument at hand and assessing its logic, you - like Bitterfly - resort to a weak ad hominem in order to suggest that the argument has no merit and is merely gender based. That's fallacious thinking. Obviously it is easier for men to take the pro-life position, but that doesn't invalidate the position. Deal with the argument and lay off the logical fallacies.

Several points here:

While I knew you'd read it, the message wasn't to, or aimed at, you. It was stating an obvious fact to Bitterfly, who had also noted the same problem - men trying to make rules about something which will never, ever affect them - and finding it ironic, to say the least.

Would you tell black people why they cannot do something? Would you deny muslims the right to face Mecca and worship outside of their own country? Do we allow Jews to carry out genital mutilation?

Personally, I find the idea that men should have any say in abortion completely repugnant, so your claim of logical fallacy is simply wrong. You're welcome to disagree with how I see it, but fallacious, it ain't.

I don't accept any male arguments on abortion. That's one reason why I don't make any beyond asking women to sort it out. Fortunately, in the developed world, the laws and moral support position is given to women choosing for themselves. Men who are anti-abortion seem to me to have far too much in common with men who make their wives wear burqas - control rather than compassion.

[Jozanny]

But, I am just posting to respond to Jozanny's... yes, it got off topic. I just wanted to say Darkshadow made excellent points, and before him/her, islandclimber, and from the responses they got, Darkshadow was misunderstooad and islandclimber is completely inconceivable...

Um, Jozanny, you are intelligent... you will not call someone mentally sick because they profess belief in something invisible, will you? That's what the article said, which Hyde was asking our opinions of. It's quite offensive!

Niko, if I may shorten your handle without giving offense--I did not read what Hyde posted, not because the author may not be right about believers, but because the author is wrong solely on the basis of mental health, case closed.

Religious Texts and Philosophical Literature are the weakest forums on this network, and I may stop visiting here soon, because the polemicists really want to fall in love and get married, advancing same sex monogamy and polygamy in a simultaneous gesture of good will toward kumbaya coalitions.

I think mental illness and religious faith is actually an interesting topic, only no one here cares a flying flick. The only thing that matters is the relentless self-justification of the more frequent member arguments, which I can read in hundreds of prior posts. Beats me why any of them need to constantly reiterate.

Some, some of the literary discussions are worth having, which is why I stay--being *down* here makes me want to leave, for the sheer myopia of the view, if nothing else. No one posts about religious texts or literature with a philosophical edge, although I should correct myself, as you did post about the Gita, which is good, but I have only the barest glimmer into the eastern dialectic of spiritual advancement, so I did not voice in that thread.