As I prepare to wander out the door to SAFECO Field to catch Seattle's Opening Day game against the ChiSox, a question has occurred to me that I can't resist asking in the short form.

• Among other things, do anti-choice religionists still hold that abortion diminishes the value of human life?

• Against what standard would we compare that?

Example, drawn from life: This involves the ongoing saga of two people of very close acquaintance of mine. E and T are your run-of-the-mill unmarried couple, monogamous to our knowledge for six years running now.

T cannot use the pill; she has never come across a contraceptive pill that does not devastate her body's necessary chemical balance. T does not like to use condoms; most brands give her an allergic latex reaction, and goat-skin condoms ... well, who isn't slightly repulsed by the nature of the things? Besides, they're not that great of condoms. There are some contraceptive options that don't have great detriment to her, but the point is that despite their best efforts, she does, occasionally, conceive. Due to Rh factor, E and T have been told that they cannot reproduce without medical assistance. This principle is, in fact, in effect at present.

Specifically, since life begins at conception according to the anti-choice religionists, I submit the following question: having watched three accidental (unplanned) pregnancies go south due to Rh factor, resulting in the death of the embryo and, in one case, the fetus, I'm curious about why God would bless a conception with the full will of not allowing the pregnancy to gestate. In this case, God is the abortionist.

Now, I'm all for the idea that when people can't reproduce without a specific degree of medical assistance, they should not. But this is ridiculous. I cannot hold that God is telling this couple to not reproduce or, given the accidental nature of the pregnancies, to not have sex. After all, isn't the murder of an unborn human being an extreme way to make a point?

Not to mention I've seen this process occur in another couple of my acquaintance once. Despite their best efforts, though, this is what we think is the third or fourth time E and T have gone through this--only two pregnancies have ever been confirmed, and T reports that this happened once before she made E's acquaintance. When it happened seven years ago, another friend of mine, S, reported that she miscarried in my bathroom while I was asleep ... I took her down to the doctor, where it was confirmed that she was in a pretty bad state because of this miscarriage, and she soon after terminated her relationship with that boyfriend.

But come on ... this is ridiculous. It looks to me like God, who blesses conception, does so for the purpose of exploiting this "human life" in a mortal example. By the anti-choice religionists' explanation of it,then, I have to ask why God is diminishing the value of human life through this manner of exploitation?

One to think on.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I'm confused.....you are saying that God would be an abortionist by causing miscarrage?

Would not, by that logic, God be a murderer for causing cancer? I'm not sure if the dilemna works.....

Oh, and for the record, not all of those who oppose providing abortion (*shrugs* TWOPA, everything else is biased towards one side or another) believe that life begins at conception.

P.S: Goat-skin condoms? Such things exist?

*Wonders what part of the goat they are made out of, but decides that she does not want to know*

???

God told us to reproduce ourselves...

And He told us: Don't kill each other.
If you abort, you are killing a baby!!

So then...
How can the church agree with abortion??

Love,
Nelson

So then...
How can the church agree with abortion?? Dunno ... maybe because God does?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

XevP.S: Goat-skin condoms? Such things exist? I know, I know. But yes, they do. I'll skip further comment and leave you with this Google link (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=goat+skin+condoms).I'm confused.....you are saying that God would be an abortionist by causing miscarrage?

Would not, by that logic, God be a murderer for causing cancer? I'm not sure if the dilemna works..... Yes. But I do think it's different.

I look at it this way:

• E and T have sex.
• For whatever reasons beyond their contraceptive efforts, sperm reaches the egg.
• Conception occurs. God blesses life.
• Miscarriage occurs. God terminates blessed life.

When we get down to the practical considerations of the abortion debate, in order to protect the "innocent lives" of the "unborn humans", we should avoid conceiving them at all. In the long run, what this will involve, in order to prevent this very thing from happening, is a Sexual Sanctity License. You and your potential partner, upon realizing that you are sexually attracted to each other, would have to get a blood test to ensure that any unintended conception would have a fighting chance. In the case of E and T, it's a mere matter of blood chemistry. If T wants to take a chance on conception, she can get a shot from her doctor every time she chooses to conceive. (Yes, Dr Jones? My boyfriend and I wanted to have sex tonight. Can I get that shot now?) That is, T has her doctor's guarantee, insofar as anything can be guaranteed, that any conception by E will result in a miscarriage at best.

Now, why is this? I can't figure out why God would bless a life with conception knowing full well that He will destroy that life shortly enough. There are any number of practical omens such an event could be taken to represent, but it does, in fact, seem extreme to endow life and commit murder just to make a point that someone is sleeping with the wrong person. If people aren't meant to reproduce, why does God endow a life and then commit murder to make His point?

Can you imagine that? Being arrested and jailed for the murder of an "unborn human" because you had sex? I mean, your irresponsible sexual actions--sleeping with someone of the wrong Rh factor--led directly to the conception and death of this "unborn human". Your actions led to the death of an unborn human, and therefore .... (fill in the rest of the anti-choice argument).Oh, and for the record, not all of those who oppose providing abortion (*shrugs* TWOPA, everything else is biased towards one side or another) believe that life begins at conception. Indeed. That's why I'm examining this religionist-centered point.

The lord giveth and the lord taketh away. In this case, life is worth nothing more than a philosophical point. And that's what I find odd, watching this microdrama play out in my corner of the Universe.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tiassa,

Dunno ... maybe because God does?

God would never accept such thing.
You are killing someone... a baby!
This issue is pretty easy... you are killing... is this ethical? No. Closed issue... :bugeye:

Love,
Nelson

Nelson:

Kindly explain how a fetus is a baby, at what point during gestation a fetus stops being a lump of cells and starts being a baby, and show the evidence that supports your position.

Tiassa:

I understand your point now. But I don't expect it to be answered. I mean, thier God already has this wierd obsession with what they do in bed with who....:rolleyes:

Xev,

Since fecundation, a new life is born.

Love,
Nelson

Mmmkay. On what do you base that claim?

I myself cannot be sure which side I agree with. I think both have valid points.

Xev,

Well... since the two cells become one... a new life is supposed to be created, isn't it? Or the science still don't know it?? :confused:

Love,
Nelson

Good question.
Or the science still don't know it??

Not really. There is no single, precise definition of life. The one that works best is to say that a living thing

A: Keeps itself from 'falling apart' due to entropy
B: Reproduces.

See the thread, umm, 'Stars are alive' for more. Basically, we can't yet define life.

Basically, we can't yet define life.

Really... :)

Ummmm......

............:D:D:D

Love,
Nelson

I agree! Life is :) :D :D :D

;)

My biology textbooks give a rather firm definition of life. But according to my brother it doesn't take into account certain things. Maybe Paulsammuel could explain.

Better start a new thread on that... ;)

Love,
Nelson

Here's the thread...:) :
http://www.sciforums.com/t6602/s/thread.html

Love,
Nelson

God would never accept such thing.
You are killing someone... a baby!
This issue is pretty easy... you are killing... is this ethical? No. Closed issue...What are you talking about, Truthseeker?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tiassa,

I'm saying that as babies are human beings and the abortion kills the babies, then when someone aborts, a human being is being killed. Is this ethical? I suppose not... ;)

Love,
Nelson

I'm saying that as babies are human beings and the abortion kills the babies, then when someone aborts, a human being is being killed. Is this ethical? I suppose not...There is nothing about this approach that I am unfamiliar with.

However, what is at issue is that the human body, by design, allows conception of a pregnancy that does not, without artificial intervention, carry to term. That is, God blesses (as accords a particular religionist viewpoint which led me to post this topic) a conception of life that, by nature of design, cannot be.

This creates a curious couple of notions:

• God is the master abortionist (given, as nothing happens without God's will), but this time in a particularly direct manner. That is, God blesses a life with the intent that it should die in zygote or fetal stage. That is, the pregnancy cannot carry to term. Rh factor mismatch causes the mother's body to reject the developing organism as an infection.

• Does nature, then, need a little help? This is the curious thing. As a believer in evolution, to me it seems there must necessarily be a reason why this occurs. I'll have to read a good deal more about it before I even have a clue what that reason is or could possibly have been. Then again, perhaps evolution doesn't come into it. No matter how you put it, God or Nature, I always say It isn't extraneous.

• What casts it in the religious/political light is that I have long been familiar with the Christian (anti-abortion) argument that God blesses life at conception. (As Xev points out, not all anti-abortion hold Christian justifications for their beliefs.) In that sense, one is left to wonder why. Not in the sense of why did God take the baby in that car crash ... that is its own debate that I have no general issue with. But in the sense of why bless a life that is, by nature, not going to make it?

Is one, then, killing a baby by not artificially intervening--that is, helping nature in its apparently imperfect design? :bugeye:

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Adam,

***My biology textbooks give a rather firm definition of life.***

Yeah. Ironically, this is one arena where mainstream science and mainstream religion agree but where human philosophy wins at the expense of the human life. Go figure.

If you really want answers to your questions, you have to take in the whole implications of birth, not only from a physical veiwpoint, but from the spiritual one as well, especially as your posts are leaning toward a murderous god. :)

Love.

Jan Ardena.

What birth? I'm talking about a condition whereby stillbirth happens to be the closest thing you'll get.

--Tiassa :cool:

XevBut I don't expect it to be answered. I mean, I figured you were right about that, but I wouldn't have imagined this ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiassa
What birth? I'm talking about a condition whereby stillbirth happens to be the closest thing you'll get.

Whatever:rolleyes: …. because you are insinuating that….

…….God is the abortionist and God is the master abortionist.


And then ask…..

……..why God is diminishing the value of human life through this manner of exploitation?

And then go on to say…..

……..God terminates blessed life.

You need to (unless you are satisfied with your own accounts) to grasp some understanding basic understanding of God and His energies, otherwise you are just pissin in the wind bro. :p

Love.

Jan Ardena.

Tiassa: Not expecting? Wow, you are sweet and innocent. I am only suprised that the flames haven't consumed this thread yet.

Jan:
If you really want answers to your questions, you have to take in the whole implications of birth, not only from a physical veiwpoint, but from the spiritual one as well, especially as your posts are leaning toward a murderous god.

Actually, He is your God. :p

Blonde: Isn't all philosophy humanistic? I mean, I've never heard of any other animal that philosophizes.

And I would like to see this clear cut definition of life.

I'll dig out my biology textbooks later. They're hidden away with my "Make your own space shuttle" handbook and the guide to world domination through fast food.

You need to (unless you are satisfied with your own accounts) to grasp some understanding basic understanding of God and His energies, otherwise you are just pissin in the wind bro. I am always appreciative of this demonstration of theistic cowardice. This is what we're dealing with, in nice short points so you can understand.

•*Anti-abortion religionists frequently include among their arguments that God blesses life at conception.
• There exists a condition in nature whereby that blessed conception will fail without medical intervention.
• I find the anti-choice religionist argument that God blesses life at conception to be bunko, especially in this light.
• Because by that theistic standard, what we have is a circumstance by which God blesses life specifically so that he can take it back.
•*I see this as different from God's role in life and death as pertains to Xev's point about cancer.
• At least the cancer patient made it to the world and had time to put faith in Jesus freaking Christ or not. That's part of what makes the difference.
• But the absurdity of blessing a life just so that it can die before it makes it out of the womb, and so that it can try to take the mother with it (as such miscarriages do sometimes attempt to destroy the mother--it is a life competition) arises when I can find no reason for it.
• God works in mysterious ways? Sure, but it's a cheap answer.

Were you God, Jan Ardena, to what purpose would you bless life? What is the point of blessing life just to take it back six or eight or ten weeks later? What if that takes place later in the pregnancy, killing a fetus and not a zygote or embryo?

What happens in the Universe without God's say-so, Jan Ardena? Or do you disagree with American anti-choice religionists in their fundmental "logic"? That's part of it. Why is it that theists don't like taking questions head on? Hmph, well God didn't make me smart enough to answer the question, so I'll undertake a different question for His glory? Is that what's going on here?

Thus I would expect you to keep such shite answers such as the above-cited to yourself unless you're going to, say, offer some of that perspective that you find so relevant that it compels you to avoid the central issue of the topic. Expand on your answer, Jan, and show me that you're actually addressing the topic post.

Or else shut up.

Pissing in the wind? How about you demonstrate to me that you have an understanding of what this topic is about? I mean, you're already reduced to pissing in the wind? :rolleyes:

I really thought you would have been able to do better, Jan Ardena. That was a ridiculously pathetic non-contribution to this topic.

--Tiassa :cool:

.....you say that there is no god, and anybody who believes in a false entity, does so out of wanting some comfort, or something to that effect.

Then you ask 'if there is a god why does he does he murder'?

So you are setting the ground rules for your debate before it has even started. Therefore it is not really a debate.
Have you asked an anti-choice religionist what experiance they have had, that made them come to that conclusion?

My point is relevant to what you are asking, you are accusing God of these crimes, due to your poor fund of knowledge. I say to you, find out for yourself if God is guilty of such crimes, His resume is documented in the holy scriptures. Its not mysterious.
If you still hold to the point that there is no god, then what is the use of your debate, that is what i meant by 'pissing in the wind'.

What’s it gonna be, does He exist or not?

If you think He exists, then you should learn more about Him.
If you think He doesn’t then why bother attribute Him to anything, good or bad.

Me your friend not your enimi. :p

Love.

Jan Ardena.

.....you say that there is no god, and anybody who believes in a false entity, does so out of wanting some comfort, or something to that effect.

Then you ask 'if there is a god why does he does he murder'? Cite me, please, where I say that there is no God. Please provide the textual citation and a link to the topic and thread so we can all see the context. I'm getting very sick of this crap. Ask around. Like I told KalvinB, take a poll.

Furthermore, your reduction of the issue at hand is ludicrous.

It's surprising to me that most of the anti-abortion response--daresay all of it--is choosing to undertake points separate from the topic post.

You know, if a woman conceives, has a child, and that child grows to be 80 and dies of cancer, I'm not arguing that; Xev and I cleared that one off the table immediately.

I'm not even talking about the woman who conceives, gets in a car wreck or falls down the stairs, and miscarries due to external trauma. This is closer to the point, but not quite there.

What I am talking about is a condition whereby conception occurs with the specific result of a miscarriage due to the incompatibility of organisms. The organisms treat each other like infections, and usually the mother's body ends up killing off the gestating organism.

This condition can be worked around with artificial intervention. That is, you can pump chemicals into a woman designed to prevent her body from sensitizing to Rh factor. Nonetheless, the bloods of the two organisms are poisonous to each other.

As a question of nature, I find it interesting how this circumstance plays into evolution. Is it a vestigial conflict? Is it a growing conflict? Why does nature allow this to happen at all?

As a theological question, though, it puts God's will in a specific light. According to an exceptionally common notion, God blesses life at conception. It seems strange to bless a life just to kill it before it has any chance to ... well, has it sinned yet?

The question is what God is doing blessing and then murdering. The organism does nothing but exist in a womb.

Is it an attempt to change the behavior of the host (mother)?

Is it a message of some sort?

Isn't murder a ridiculous measure to undertake in such a circumstance?

I'm not the one setting the debate, Jan. The anti-abortion crowd has set the debate. Without their theological point and its necessry demands, the question would not even exist.

Really, if I asked whether you liked figure skates or hockey skates better on ice, would you accuse me of setting the ground rules for your debate before it has even started if I didn't give a damn what you thought of the new Sketchers roller-skates?What’s it gonna be, does He exist or not? On the one hand, start your own topic. To the other, no the He that I refer to does not exist; that is, the Christian God. The goddess I recognize definitively exists.If you still hold to the point that there is no god, then what is the use of your debate, that is what i meant by 'pissing in the wind'. Again, Jan, I invite--no, I demand that you cite my point that there is no God.

And then, if you somehow manage to find some arcane-yet-valid example, not only will I claim sobriety and a bad mood as my excuses, I will point you over to the titanic debate entitled The Crucifixion was a fraud, and have you review the oft-repeated point about mystery novels and such.If you think He exists, then you should learn more about Him.
If you think He doesn’t then why bother attribute Him to anything, good or bad. I like how often you say things like that. It's a good line to have in reserve. Unfortunately, you're barking up the wrong tree with it.Me your friend not your enimi. Don't make me dig up old posts of yours.

In fact, don't make such statements. I would hope, as I do with all people, to call you friend. But if I met you in a tavern somewhere and you behaved according to your online persona, I would buy you a beer just to make you go away.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Have you asked an anti-choice religionist what experiance they have had, that made them come to that conclusion? Many, many times, Jan.

• In terms of the notion that God blesses life at conception, this is uniformly a rhetorical point that anti-choice religionists seem to learn somewhere. It's just another presupposition that they demand.

• In terms of their anti-choice stance in general, it's a diverse package of stories. However, what is common to all of them is that they do not feel a woman is an independent life form with the full rights and privileges of being human. Common among all anti-abortion stances is the degredation of women.

Many, many times, Jan.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

....the fact that you attribute God to acts of murder, widens the debate.

The soul is what God takes responsibility over, as He says in His scripture.

The soul, due to transgression of law, is forced by the laws of nature to accept a material body/human body and becomes what is known as a living soul or living entity. If the living soul accepts the outward body as the self, then he/she acts out of ‘ignorance’ and most certainly transgresses the laws of nature. This is where the law of karma comes into play, for each material act one incurs, he/she will incur ‘subsequent’ reactions. So we can understand that the soul is actually trancendental to life and death. When we speak of life in this world we must understand that there has to be death, but in our pure state there is no life or death, we are eternally part and parcel of the Supreme Soul.

One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again.
BG.2.27

When the soul enters the male semen, it is to be understood by vedic literature, that the parents are totally suitable to the condition of the souls last incarnation, so if he/she was an alcoholic up until death, he/she will resume where h/s left off, but this time with a new life, new time and a new set of parents, who are most probaably partial to slurp or two. I
f the conditioned soul was pious in his last life, he will have the opportunity to live an oppulent life this time. That is why people in poorer countries, naturally look up to the western countries, especially the USA.

So the soul is always blessed, but the activities of the conditioned soul is not blessed, unless the soul acts in accordance with God and seeks to lovingly serve him unconditionally, then the soul is what is called ‘liberated while in his/her body’.

One is understood to be in full knowledge whose every endeavour is devoid of desire for sense gratification. He is said by sages to be a worker for whom the reactions of work have been burned up by the fire of perfect knowledge.
Abandoning all attachment to the results of his activities, ever satisfied and independent, he performs no fruitive action, although engaged in all kinds of undertakings.
BG.4.19-20

The soul is not affected by anything in this world;

That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul.
BG.2.17

For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.
BG.2.20

This is why your attitude concerns me, you are not looking at the whole issue.

organisms treat each other like infections, and usually the mother's body ends up killing off the gestating organism.

The child kills the mother and the mother kills the child.
The cow is revered as mother, because she gives milk from her breast to the whole of human society, all for a small amount of grass which is provided by nature.
Milk is the greatest food for humans, it helps among other things build brain tissue, the cows dung has anticeptic properties within it, and is used to build huts which keep very cool in the burning sun, when she dies her body is used for so many useful things.
At present human society is in a deplorable position, in that it is killing ‘mother’ en-masse, so we can enjoy a beefburger, or a fabulous leather setee or outfit. We are for the most part all caught up in this conspiracy. So nature (who is also mother) acts accordingly, and the result is, abortion en-masse, miscariges en-masse, war, murder, pestilence etc.

Doctors and scientists are all part and parcel of this game we call life, God provides everything we desire, that is His mercy.

God blesses life at conception. It seems strange to bless a life just to kill it before it has any chance to ... well, has it sinned yet?

As I said earlier the soul is always blessed, but a blessed life depends on the nature of activity.

The question is what God is doing blessing and then murdering.

God does not murder, that is a low down human concept.
If anything the mother has murdered, due to her past inauspicious activity.
But that is due to ignorance.

In fact, don't make such statements. I would hope, as I do with all people, to call you friend. But if I met you in a tavern somewhere and you behaved according to your online persona, I would buy you a beer just to make you go away.

As far as online persona is concerned, I take it you don’t favour mine, that’s fair enough.

I didn’t say we ‘were’ friends, I said I am ‘your’ friend.

But apart from that, I was just messing around, so no worries there.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

....the fact that you attribute God to acts of murder, widens the debate.Jan, do you realize that had nobody attributed the direct and conscious blessing of conception to God, had nobody attributed the omnipotence of God, and had nobody used the claim of God's blessing of conception in the abortion debate, we would not be having this particular Sciforums debate.One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again. BG.2.27Switching scriptures and switching theologies is, essentially, irrelevant. When Operation Rescue is vedic, we'll chat. This is why your attitude concerns me, you are not looking at the whole issue.Why don't you do me a favor and summarize for us the vedic influence in the American anti-abortion debate? You know, the great vedic speakers and writers who contribute to the philosophical considerations which the anti-choice wing promotes?I didn’t say we ‘were’ friends, I said I am ‘your’ friend.I don't find "my" friends to be so disrespectful. Well, I do, but because they're my friends I can tell them to f--k off when they are behaving like snakes.

It was a nice attempt, though, Jan.

Pretend I just gave you a beer.

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

The score so far:

One vote on the survey, which isn't even mine ... here we see an indication that perhaps people don't grasp the topic. Hmmm ... something to think about.

However, the response has been at once a philosophical curiosity and a disappointment of my faith in my fellow posters. Shall we review?

• Topic post asks two direct questions up front, and only Xev answers them.
• Topic post gives example drawn from life.
• Topic post asks further questions about the extremity of diminishing human life for ... what reasons?

Now then, the responses:

• Xev admits confusion and states the point upon which that confusion reigns. (You'll note that this point is addressed and declared understood by Xev in later post.)
• Truthseeker chimes in with a counterpoint: How can the church agree with abortion? (Note that, despite the irrelevance of this counterpoint, it is addressed in accord with the topic post.)
• Truthseeker continues to advocate an irrelevant point, and makes no real effort to show that the point is, in fact, relevant.
• When asked to clarify, Truthseeker reiterates, once again, an anti-abortion paradigm and still fails to address the actual topic issue.
• Jan Ardena responds that Tiassa, in examining a miscarriage, must take in the whole aspects of birth. Specifically, Jan does not mention miscarriage, and Tiassa asks what the heck he is talking about.
• Jan Ardena offers no perspective on the topic post, and advises Tiassa to find deeper understanding, and notes that Tiassa is pissin in the wind.
• Jan Ardena wrongly accuses Tiassa of atheism, and bases a post on that assumption, demanding a theological resolution of the existence of God, and questions the purpose of the topic.
• Jan Ardena shifts to a new theological paradigm in order to address the topic post, and reduces the scope of God's authority and executive power, and excuses God from morality.

Omitted from the above are posts from Xev, Adam, and Blonde Cupid (and from Truthseeker) which actually explore the issue of when life occurs. I'm not going to complain about that portion of the debate at all, as it has become its own topic, as well, and is, as we note, a facet of the topic.

Now, goat-skin prophylactics aside, I agreed entirely when advised by Xev to not expect an answer to the topic post, but neither of the primary theistic responses have even demonstrated an understanding of the issue. On the one hand, it is a fine line, to the other, it is a difficult issue.

But neither of those hands excuses the poor anti-abortionist response to the topic. Is the apparent lack of comprehension an unwillingness to undertake the topic or an inability to undertake the topic?

So far, we see that the primary response has been to change the topic and talk about something else.

Anyone? Anyone? Please?

This is just sad :(

thanx anyway,
Tiassa :cool:

tiassa,

• Truthseeker chimes in with a counterpoint: How can the church agree with abortion? (Note that, despite the irrelevance of this counterpoint, it is addressed in accord with the topic post.)
• Truthseeker continues to advocate an irrelevant point, and makes no real effort to show that the point is, in fact, relevant.
• When asked to clarify, Truthseeker reiterates, once again, an anti-abortion paradigm and still fails to address the actual topic issue.


Can someone understand me at least once in a while???:bugeye:

I clearly said that a baby is a human being and that you should not kill a human being. I said that the church is completly against abortion! Do I have to say it again? Do I have to talk like if I were talking with dumb people? I know you are not dumb... don't dissapoint me!

When you abort, you are killing someone that has no defence. It's very coward... :(

Love,
Nelson

I clearly said that a baby is a human being and that you should not kill a human being. I said that the church is completly against abortion! Do I have to say it again? Do I have to talk like if I were talking with dumb people? I know you are not dumb... don't dissapoint me!It's not that we don't understand you. It's that this position has nothing to do with the topic post. It's a valid point in a different debate. Would you like to tie it into the topic post?

You can say it as many times as you want, Nelson, and it won't change the fact that it has nothing to do with the topic post until you find a way to tie it in. There is at least one way that pops to mind right now, but the absurdity of that tie-in makes it a dubious undertaking.

So rather than making absurd leaps of logic and guessing what it is you're saying in the context of the topic post, I'm happy to wait for you to figure out how to tie it in. Don't know about you, but I've got the rest of my life to wait for that answer. It's not a big deal, since it's not like I've ever had the answer, and the issue is slowly sinking back out of my immediate living experience and into abstraction.

So whenever you're ready to establish the relevance of your point to the topic post ... I'm here.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

When you abort, you are killing someone that has no defence. It's very coward... Well and fine. And according to the topic post we are referring to a condition in nature whereby God is the coward killing the defenseless.

At this point, I'm not sure you actually read the topic post. It looks more like you saw the word abortion and went into automatic mode: Abortion is murder. Murder is wrong. Abortion is murder. Murder is wrong ....

Do you understand that what we're discussing is not the act of intrusively aborting a fetus, but a natural condition whereby a lack of artificial intervention results in the death of the fetus, a result which is generally determined before conception?

Well? :mad:

--Tiassa :cool:

Nelson, et alia:

I believe Tiassa's point is this:

The religiously based anti-abortionists claim that 'killing' a fetus is wrong
However, artifically induced abortion is equivalant to a miscarriage
If God causes miscarriages, how is this different from an abortionist inducing abortion?

Another issue being: If God is responsible for the creation of life, why does God 'kill' this life so soon after he creates it?

Now, Lexx is on. I hope this clarifies.

Nelson, you wonder why a topic turns from an attempt at proving the existance of God to 'my God can beat up your God'? This is why.

Topic drift is normal, but in the absence of substantiative debate....well it is also normal to babble about Cthulhu and dominatrixes under such conditions.

The religiously based anti-abortionists claim that 'killing' a fetus is wrong
However, artifically induced abortion is equivalant to a miscarriage
If God causes miscarriages, how is this different from an abortionist inducing abortion?While that is an eventual destination of the argument, for once it's not the one I'm actually after. What I'm more interested in is the integrity of the rhetoric that God blesses life when God blesses a life that is predetermined to never make it out of the womb alive.

We are all familiar with the poor excuse that "God works in mysterious ways." But given all the attributes Christians normally assign God, what of this specific form of miscarriage, where nature allows conception of a doomed pregnancy?

Perhaps God intends to demonstrate something when a woman becomes pregnant and miscarries in a car crash, or a fall down the stairs, or a beating at her husband's hands. These things, for all of God's omnipotence, are out of His hands in a sense--that is, the miscarriage requires the intervention of an external factor, e.g. car crash, fall, or beating. In an Rh-sensitized pregnancy, though, the mother's body naturally attempts to kill off the fetus as if it was an infection, and if the fetus is developed enough, it can fight back. Sometimes it does happen that both mother and fetus die. This condition is becoming more and more rare, though, as the doomed pregnancies allowed by nature or blessed by God can be preserved through external intervention.

In terms of God this seems ludicrous beyond His usual measure; that is, I'm not going to question why God gave my grandpa cancer, as such. But I do look over at my friends and wonder why God or nature endorses such a pregnancy that cannot, without a little help from humans, carry to term.

I don't see it even the same as a developmental problem, where the genetic code of one or other gametes causes a developmental defect that kills the fetus. Rather, what I am getting after is a natural incompatibility of presumed-compatible gametes. That is, how does nature or God allow a fertilization to occur in such a manner? There are certain aspects of human biology which show a certain sense of awareness. It is related to me and I recall even seeing the videotape--a while ago, I'll try to dig up a reference if it's that unbelieveable--that the seminal deposit from two separate males into one woman will compete not only against their fellow sperm of common source, but in a manner in which individual spermata choose not to fertilize, but to "hold the line" on behalf of their common source. Thus, were I to have sex with a woman, and within a certain period, she has sex with another man, a competition will occur not just between the individual spermata, but between the source-groups; that is, the first sperm deposit will, upon encountering a later deposit, attempt to fend it off. Well, in light of this at least, we might wonder why the ovum doesn't recognize the mismatch in the genetic code. Hiya, sailor ... ooh, you're not my type ....

If we do wish to examine it from the abortion standpoint, I'm inclined to put the question thus: Is a failure to administer Rhogam or other drugs intended to prevent Rh-sensitization at the appropriate time an act of murder?

That is, as my friends go through the trauma of miscarriage, have they committed murder because she did not pump herself full of extra chemicals to give nature that little boost, and to legitimize the authority of God's blessing?

In terms of the broader abortion debate, I don't intend to give much to a proper abortion debate until the anti-abortionists do. The last major topic I recall we had on that reduced women to breeding units and left questions of how to guarantee due process when removing from the born child rights it enjoyed as a fetus. Oh, and it also established a mountain of financial recompense owed by the newborn to its mother. (Don't look at me, the anti's tried to make it about rights.)Another issue being: If God is responsible for the creation of life, why does God 'kill' this life so soon after he creates it?This summation, though, is after the heart of the matter. I see where people are getting the broader debate from, but at no time do I feel I've invoked it. Such issues are peripheral to this topic, and the another issue above is, in fact, right where we need to look, for starters.

thanx much ...
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa, the scenario(s) presented in your topic post may (stress the word "may") have lacked sufficient clarification for those who aren’t familiar with the various causes of miscarriage, or the prevention of some types. Your subsequent posts however have more than adequately explained the primary question. (You’re not losing your mind; it did get pretty strange there for a bit, and it doesn‘t appear to have been your fault.)

Good luck,

Counterbalance

tiassa,

Then what's the actual topic of the thread?

Love,
Nelson

Counterbalance

I admit it's a sticky point. Hmmm .... Something to consider for the future. Unfortunately, I've landed myself neck-deep in it :D

Truthseeker

From the topic post:•Specifically, since life begins at conception according to the anti-choice religionists, I submit the following question: having watched three accidental (unplanned) pregnancies go south due to Rh factor, resulting in the death of the embryo and, in one case, the fetus, I'm curious about why God would bless a conception with the full will of not allowing the pregnancy to gestate. In this case, God is the abortionist.

Now, I'm all for the idea that when people can't reproduce without a specific degree of medical assistance, they should not. But this is ridiculous. I cannot hold that God is telling this couple to not reproduce or, given the accidental nature of the pregnancies, to not have sex. After all, isn't the murder of an unborn human being an extreme way to make a point?

•*But come on ... this is ridiculous. It looks to me like God, who blesses conception, does so for the purpose of exploiting this "human life" in a mortal example. By the anti-choice religionists' explanation of it,then, I have to ask why God is diminishing the value of human life through this manner of exploitation? And, from a clarification I offered Xev, separating this form of God's "taking a life" from the standard life-and-death questions:• E and T have sex.
• For whatever reasons beyond their contraceptive efforts, sperm reaches the egg.
• Conception occurs. God blesses life.
• Miscarriage occurs. God terminates blessed life.
_____

• Can you imagine that? Being arrested and jailed for the murder of an "unborn human" because you had sex? I mean, your irresponsible sexual actions--sleeping with someone of the wrong Rh factor--led directly to the conception and death of this "unborn human". Your actions led to the death of an unborn human, and therefore .... (fill in the rest of the anti-choice argument).
_____

• The lord giveth and the lord taketh away. In this case, life is worth nothing more than a philosophical point. And that's what I find odd, watching this microdrama play out in my corner of the UniverseAnd, after you reiterated your point which I found so irrelevant, I explained,• However, what is at issue is that the human body, by design, allows conception of a pregnancy that does not, without artificial intervention, carry to term. That is, God blesses (as accords a particular religionist viewpoint which led me to post this topic) a conception of life that, by nature of design, cannot be.
_____

•*Is one, then, killing a baby by not artificially intervening--that is, helping nature in its apparently imperfect design? (I added that boldface on the word, "not" ... perhaps you missed it the first time?)

And when Jan Ardena kept focusing on birth, I reminded him, I'm talking about a condition whereby stillbirth happens to be the closest thing you'll get.And then before Jan switched theologies on us, I had another opportunity to attempt to explain it to him:It's surprising to me that most of the anti-abortion response--daresay all of it--is choosing to undertake points separate from the topic post.

You know, if a woman conceives, has a child, and that child grows to be 80 and dies of cancer, I'm not arguing that; Xev and I cleared that one off the table immediately.

I'm not even talking about the woman who conceives, gets in a car wreck or falls down the stairs, and miscarries due to external trauma. This is closer to the point, but not quite there.

What I am talking about is a condition whereby conception occurs with the specific result of a miscarriage due to the incompatibility of organisms. The organisms treat each other like infections, and usually the mother's body ends up killing off the gestating organism.

This condition can be worked around with artificial intervention. That is, you can pump chemicals into a woman designed to prevent her body from sensitizing to Rh factor. Nonetheless, the bloods of the two organisms are poisonous to each other. And I even asked Jan the basic questions surrounding the topic itself:The question is what God is doing blessing and then murdering. The organism does nothing but exist in a womb.

Is it an attempt to change the behavior of the host (mother)?

Is it a message of some sort?

Isn't murder a ridiculous measure to undertake in such a circumstance?Xev even put the central consideration there for you:If God is responsible for the creation of life, why does God 'kill' this life so soon after he creates it? I mean, there's the essence of it. It's not like everything else that God wills; this blessed conception is set up to die; God kills the defenseless, an act of cowardice according to some of our anti-choice posters.

Is it still unclear? I can try to compress it for you again, but I'm not sure what good that would do. Right now it's uncannily familiar to something I went through in another post recently. In the meantime, Counterbalance has made an excellent point. Are you aware that if the male human being has a different blood Rh factor than the female, and conception occurs, and the genetic code determines that the baby will have the male's blood factor, Rh-sensitization occurs and causes a spontaneous miscarriage? The mother's body attempts to reject the fetus as a disease, and the fetus, if well-enough developed when sensitization occurs, will fight back. It is a bit frightening to watch, actually.

Now, as if this natural conundrum isn't odd enough, it turns out that we can work around it by pumping a woman full of chemicals. Usually, the first miscarriage is the sign, and a drug called Rhogam is administered after miscarriages. This drug will supposedly greatly reduce the chances of Rh-sensitization. This drug is typically administered before pregnancy in order to be most effective. Does any of this make sense?

If so, go ahead and read the topic post again, or at least consider the above-cited play-by-play.

And then let me know what doesn't make sense.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
Switching scriptures and switching theologies is, essentially, irrelevant.

How so? You accuse God, so I quote from Gods scripture.

Why don't you do me a favor and summarize for us the vedic influence in the American anti-abortion debate?

In your zeal to debase God, you have lost the point of your own thread. Your basic enquiry is, if God blesses life, then why does He then abort it. My point in using the BG, is to show that God is impartial to ‘life or death’, and that the responsibility lies with the living entity. So whether the he/she lives to a 100 or whether he lives 30 seconds, that is the responsibility of the said living entity. That is the law of karma.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

So when a baby is miscarried it's that babies own fault? For what? What horrible sin could the baby have possibly commited while still unconcious and unborn? You say it is the responsibility of the fetus to grow normally, what if it inherits a genetic deformity and is miscarried as a result? Is it supposed to magically cure the deformity while still in the fetal stages?

In some twisted way I can see and understand what you're saying, I just flat out don't agree with it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xelios
So when a baby is miscarried it's that babies own fault?

What we see is a babys body, the soul within the body although conditioned, is eternal and primeval, and consequently it is the conditioned soul who has transgressed the law.


what if it inherits a genetic deformity and is miscarried as a result?

Genetic deformity can come at an early stage or late stage of life, it is the condition of the body or linage of the body that creates the deformity, not God.


Is it supposed to magically cure the deformity while still in the fetal stages?

Once the deformity has set in, it acts accordingly. You are in the hands of prividence

In some twisted way I can see and understand what you're saying, I just flat out don't agree with it.

I can understand that, i didn't agree with it at first, but in the clear light of day, it makes complete sense.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

Jan: The BG is hardly a Christian scripture. I've not read it, but I am fairly sure of that. I think that may have been Tiassa's point.

In your zeal to debase God, you have lost the point of your own thread. Your basic enquiry is, if God blesses life, then why does He then abort it. My point in using the BG, is to show that God is impartial to ‘life or death’, and that the responsibility lies with the living entity. So whether the he/ she lives to a 100 or whether he lives 30 seconds, that is the responsibility of the said living entity. That is the law of karma.

How can a fetus be responsible for its life? I mean, it's not even really alive...separate issue.

So basically, it is because the fetus did somthing wrong in a previous life and is being punished?

You know, other than the utter and complete lack of evidence, that does work....in a twisted sense.

I wonder how a conventional Christian would explain this.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xev
Jan: The BG is hardly a Christian scripture. I've not read it, but I am fairly sure of that. I think that may have been Tiassa's point.

Christian means followers of Christ, by following the example set by Jesus Christ, they can come to the platform of Christ-consciousness. Christ is God, the term Christ is a translation of the term Kristos, which derived from the term Krishta, which comes from Krishna. Krishna means ‘all attractive’. Krishna is the speaker of the Bhagavad Gita.

How can a fetus be responsible for its life? I mean, it's not even really alive...separate issue.

A fetus is basically a body, albeit an undeveloped body, it is due to the presence of the soul that the fetus/body grows, without the soul the fetus would die, therefore the soul/living entity is responsible.

So basically, it is because the fetus did somthing wrong in a previous life and is being punished?

The fetus is brand new, it has just come into being, it is the living entity that has to accept karmic reaction.

I wonder how a conventional Christian would explain this.

A ‘conventional’ Christian believes in the word of Lord Jesus Christ. The subject of Karma does not straightforwardly appear in the new testament. However, I have heard Christians talk about the soul and body being different, in that one is eternal and the other temporal. This is the knowledge, it is only that in the Bhagavad Gita, it is perfectly explained, by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
There are texts that chart the missing 18 years of Jesus Christ, part of those years Jesus travelled in India, where he taught this philosophy.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

How so? You accuse God, so I quote from Gods scripture.But you're still switching scriptures. Did you miss the two bullet-questions at the beginning of the topic post?• Among other things, do anti-choice religionists still hold that abortion diminishes the value of human life?

• Against what standard would we compare that?So, again, I invite you to enumerate the Vedic influences in the American anti-choice movement.

Until you provide that tie-in, and legends about Jesus' life don't count, since (A) they're legends and not even officially part of the scriptural canon, and (B) not verifiable in history.

In other words, how many of those anti-choice religionists have considered your assertions about Jesus in India in such a manner as to affect their stance in the debate?

I consider your insertion of Vedic justifications to be quite irrelevant.

Were this debate, by circumstances described, a broader debate about theology and human life, I would have no problem giving consideration to the Vedic points offered. But it's rather like you're trying to throw a penalty flag in an American football game and calling a balk against the quarterback.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Christ is God, the term Christ is a translation of the term Kristos, which derived from the term Krishta, which comes from Krishna. Krishna means ‘all attractive’.

Umm... No.

Christ n. The Messiah, as foretold by the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures. Often used with the. Christianity. Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English Crist, from Old English Crst, from Latin Chrstus, from Greek Khrstos, from khrstos, anointed, verbal adj. of khrein, to anoint. See ghri- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

christ
\Christ\, n. [L. Christus, Gr. ?, fr. ? anointed, fr. chri`ein to anoint. See Chrism.] The Anointed; an appellation given to Jesus, the Savior. It is synonymous with the Hebrew Messiah.

and finally

It was Crist in Old English, having derived from Latin Christus, which itself was adopted from Greek Christos “Christ”, the noun use of the verb meaning “anointed”. Incidentally, that was a direct translation of Hebrew mashiah “anointed” (English messiah), which was short for m’shiah yahweh “the Lord’s anointed”. The ch- spelling of Christ in English did not become prevalent until the 15th century (and that applies to related words like chrism, as well). The earliest recorded use of the word in English is found in the Lindisfarne Gospels (from about 950):

This last from:
http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

~Raithere

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jan Ardena
without the soul the fetus would die, therefore the soul/living entity is responsible.

Proof?

P.S.

One of the most popular of the thousands of Hindu gods is Krishna (literally "the dark one" in Sanskrit). He is considered to be the eighth of the ten avatars ("incarnations") of the great god Vishnu. There has been one avatar since Krishna and the tenth will be a white horse called Kalki who will usher in the end of the world.

You have an amazing facility for redefining words for your own uses Jan.

~Raithere

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere
Umm... No.

Christ n. The Messiah, as foretold by the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures. Often used with the. Christianity. Jesus.
ddle English Crist, from Old English Crst, from Latin Chrstus, from Greek Khrstos, from khrstos, anointed, verbal adj. of khrein, to anoint. See ghri- in Indo-European Roots.]

The Dravidians of South India reffered to Krishna as 'Krishta.' At the time of the incursion of Alexander the Great, some 350 years before the birth of Jesus, Krishta becaume pronounced as 'Kristos'.

Proof?

As the embodied soul continuosly passes in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at the time of death.
BG.2.13

One of the most popular of the thousands of Hindu gods is Krishna (literally "the dark one" in Sanskrit).

'Krish'= attractive 'na'=all--'Krishna' all attractive.
Krishna does not mean 'the dark one' it also means 'black.'

He is considered to be the eighth of the ten avatars ("incarnations") of the great god Vishnu.

...er no!

He advented Himself as the 19th and 20th incarnation as Lord Balarama and Lord Krishna in the family of Vrishni (the Yadu dynasty).

He is not an incarnation of Vishnu, He is the source, not only of Vishnu but all incarnations. Although the Hindus worship Him, He Himself is not Hindu. That is like saying, because the sun rises in the east it therefore belongs to the east.


There has been one avatar since Krishna and the tenth will be a white horse called Kalki who will usher in the end of the world.

Where do you get your information?
It depends on what type of avatara you are refering to.
Lord Kalki is going to be the 22nd avatar.

You have an amazing facility for redefining words for your own uses Jan.

You need to redifine your information, then maybe you will have more understanding.

Love

Jan Ardena.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jan Ardena
The Dravidians of South India reffered to Krishna as 'Krishta.' At the time of the incursion of Alexander the Great, some 350 years before the birth of Jesus, Krishta becaume pronounced as 'Kristos'.

Your references?

See below from www.takeourword.com (an etymology site). Sorry, but I'm trusting the etymologists and linguists from this site and the three dictionaries I referenced as better sources than you in correctly determining the roots and meaning of words.

"Christ means "anointed" and is a Greek translation of the Hebrew mesiach (messiah). Krishna means "dark". We realize that Krishna looks a little like Christ but there is actually no letter I in Krishna. It's just put there to make it easier for Westerners to pronounce. When written in the standard Sanskrit transliteration, Krishna looks like Krsna but with little dots below the R, the S and the N. There is no connection either in their meaning or their etymology."

'Krish'= attractive 'na'=all--'Krishna' all attractive.
Krishna does not mean 'the dark one' it also means 'black.'

Therapist: 'The' = 'Denotes particular, specified persons or things.' 'Rapist' = ' One who commits rape.'
Adamant: 'Adam' = 'The first man of the Bible.' 'Ant' = 'An insect'.

That a word can be arbitrarily broken down into other words does not necessarily mean that the word developed from the combination of those words, although that is sometimes the case.

Where do you get your information?

Sorry, I should have referenced the information about who/what Krishna is better. I didn't mean to get into a debate about that. What I was trying to point out was the meaning… I found several references for black as well. Nolo contendre.


As the embodied soul continuosly passes in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at the time of death.
BG.2.13

This is not proof, simply a religious quotation.

~Raithere

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere
I didn't mean to get into a debate about that. What I was trying to point out was the meaning…

Thats alright. :)

Love.

Jan Ardena.