Abortion!

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming


Innocent what? cells?
Again, until we can truly establish what consistutes life, there is no murder and no innocents.

Same deffinition as at all other times, when there are brain waves. We use this definition at the end of life. Why don't we use it at the beginning of life?

And I am fine with euthanasia (of those in pain).

I recognise that what needs to be done is for people to be convinced. There really needs to be a change of society. Homosexual marriage I beleive is a step in the right direction, another step would be to pay women (because of the discomfort they have in having the child).

I think that every woman who has a healthy kid, should recieve 10k or perhaps more from the government. We need to value eachother and if we are valuing money too much right now, then we need to add value to human life by adding monetary incentives.

I have just given facts currently. That human life, at its end, is determined by the presence of brainwaves.

Also, you have continued to show that you lack reading comperhension, as I have said again and again and again that I support the scientific determination of life beginning as when brainwaves start.

The US doesn't even follow what you say, abortion is allowed in the US after the child is viable.

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

Abstinence just doesn't happen. It's been shown that it's a joke. If you take the positions that birth control is evil and abortion is evil, the result you get is a ****load of unwanted children. YAY!

Not necessarily. Suppose you have a husband and a wife who want a big family? Why would they end up having all these unwanted kids even if they eschew abortion and contraception? Wouldn't the kids in fact be wanted?

Secondly, as for abstinence, do you believe that people have no control over their sex drives? If they do, then why is abstinence impossible?

I can at least understand being anti-abortion. I cannot understand being against birth control/sex ed.

I didn't really understand the Catholic position on birth control myself, but there were a few points that really helped me understand.

The first has to do with how sex is supposed to be. Sex is the union of a man and a woman together where two become one flesh. How is it possible for them to become one flesh, when both parties are holding back from each other? That is really what contraception is about, you are saying that I want this part from you, but not all of you.

The second is the problems that arise from contraception. People have said that in using contraception, you enhance the pleasure because you no longer have to worry about kids, and everything else. Yet at the same time, we see people say that sex has become routine. When you take part of the meaning away from sex, it is not surprising to see people become bored.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming


They aren't babies until they are viable...
All you are doing is taking away the right or a woman to have control of her own body.

Since your "opinion" is that life starts right away, you are welcome to practice what you preach and force your wife or girl friend not to have an abortion.

Who gave woman the right to control (And terminate) someone elses life/body?

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

One thing. While I respect Ben Kenobi, and even agree with him at times.

On this position we are not one and the same. The only way that religion enters into my feelings on the subject, is that my religion says that murder is wrong, and places value on human life.

And I think that these things are not only in my version of Christianity (or even in conservative versions of Christianity).

BK looks to the scriptures to determine with life begans. I think that for a pluralistic society, we should look to science. And I am repeating what science has said, and what appears reasonable from a scientific perspective.

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

Having the church teach that people should be married till death do they part is more realistic than teaching that abortion is wrong, but so are contraceptives.

Why? Look at how many people get divorced today. How is it realistic, to expect people to get married and stay married when we see so many other people break up? And is it realistic to expect these people to be faithful to each other while they are married?

They aren't being consistent on their views of sex. They can't give the ole, you only make love to have babies crap, because even the church says that the "rhythm" system is ok... but that the pill or other forms aren't?????

Okay, so let's say that the church goes and says that every time you have to have sex, you have to have a baby. But wait, that doesn't happen all the time. Even if you have sex, and want to have a baby, you are not going to have one everytime you have sex. So the church cannot say that everytime you have sex, you have to have a baby.

Secondly, the church could say that even if the married couple cannot conceive every time they have sex, that they had to have sex all the time. That doesn't work either because different people have different drives. Some want to have sex more often then other people, so why should we say that those who want sex less often are doing wrong by not having sex as frequently as other people?

Instead, the church says two things. First, a husband and wife have a claim on the body of the other person, and that neither is to deprive the other. Second, that it is okay to abstain for a time given mutual agreement. This is where the whole natural family planning comes into play. If it is okay for a couple to abstain for a time, by mutual agreement, then it should also be ok to abstain during the fertile periods.

I should think the differences between this and contraception is obvious. Isn't the whole purpose of contraception to have sex with each other whenever you want?

They can still challenge people and be realistic at the same time. IF the church hadn't changed over time, one might be able to use the argument that "the church is the church" and that the times need to adjust to them.
But that's crap... because the church has changed a lot since the early days... It really needs to take a hard look if they want to impact in the future. More and more people are turning away from it. And while some maybe doing so because "god" is not important... but many still believe in God, and want to follow his teachings... but the Church makes it almost impossible.

How is being realistic a challenge? I thought being realistic meant accepting things the way they are today.

You ask a good question. Yes the church has changed, from the things that they have done before. If the church never changed, would it still be possible to call the church the church, and that the times should change to them?

I don't think this is possible. People are a part of the church, and the church will change with the people that are a part of the church. With respect to doctrine, that is another matter. Has the church changed their doctrines over time, or just the traditions?

[Ben Kenobi]

Jon:

BK looks to the scriptures to determine with life begans. I think that for a pluralistic society, we should look to science. And I am repeating what science has said, and what appears reasonable from a scientific perspective

Repeating what science has said?

Where does science say that life begins when we can detect brain waves?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Instead, the church says two things. First, a husband and wife have a claim on the body of the other person, and that neither is to deprive the other. Second, that it is okay to abstain for a time given mutual agreement. This is where the whole natural family planning comes into play. If it is okay for a couple to abstain for a time, by mutual agreement, then it should also be ok to abstain during the fertile periods.

So... it's natural family planning... ok to abstain during the fertile periods...

I should think the differences between this and contraception is obvious.

Let's see... abstain during fertile periods = avoiding having children

Contraception = avoiding having children

The difference is just a few days... They are BOTH forms of contraception. Why the Church should view one as ok and others not is just plain stupid...

[Provost Harrison]

Because every sperm is sacred...

[Ben Kenobi]

So there is no difference between abstinence and contraception?

Gosh, I wonder why contraception is so popular.

I'm surprised to hear you say this Ming, that there is no difference between being able to sleep with your wife, and not being able to sleep with your wife.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Same deffinition as at all other times, when there are brain waves. We use this definition at the end of life. Why don't we use it at the beginning of life?

Because all it means is that the their is "some" activity... it could mean no more than than a battery showing it has some power in it. I believe in viability, because until a baby can survive on it's own, it's still the mothers body. Granted, with medical technology, viablity is now measured in the 20 week range than the 30 week range... and it can vary by baby... but until the baby can survive on it's own... it's not a baby.

So which opinion is right????? who knows. But pro choice allows for people to support their own beliefs.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Jon:



Repeating what science has said?

Where does science say that life begins when we can detect brain waves?

The medical community ('science' in this case) has said that they consider life to have ended when brain waves end. I am just saying that that seems correct to me, and we should follow it.

And sorry if I mispresented you earlier, I have not read your posts this thread that much (as I haven't been arguing with yuo).

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming


Because all it means is that the their is "some" activity... it could mean no more than than a battery showing it has some power in it. I believe in viability, because until a baby can survive on it's own, it's still the mothers body. Granted, with medical technology, viablity is now measured in the 20 week range than the 30 week range... and it can vary by baby... but until the baby can survive on it's own... it's not a baby.

So which opinion is right????? who knows. But pro choice allows for people to support their own beliefs.

So now you want to kill retards or drug users? As in there is 'some' activity there as well.

If we want to remain humane, than we can't differentiate levels of activity.

Note, I am fine with allowing abortion up until the brainwaves time frame (~10 weeks? I am not even really sure).

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

Jon Miller:

I haven't been arguing against you either, so I was concerned...

The medical community ('science' in this case) has said that they consider life to have ended when brain waves end. I am just saying that that seems correct to me, and we should follow it.

Ah, okay. Yes, that is true. You are making the argument that if we say life has ended because brainwaves have stopped, that life has not begun until brainwaves have begun.

The difficulties with this approach is that if you look at brain death, is that it isn't the temporary cessation of brain activity, rather it is the irreverseable cessation of brain activity that marks the death of someone.

This is a really important distinction because when we look at the beginning of life, we see that the lack of brain activity is temporary. You wait another week, and you can expect to see brain activity, whereas before you did not.

[Provost Harrison]

Yes, but the issue is, that is merely an undifferentiated cluster of cells, a precursor to life...there is no harm caused in aborting it...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
So now you want to kill retards or drug users? As in there is 'some' activity there as well.

More straw man crap...

You are claiming that ANY brain activity proves it's now a person... yet, who really knows what that really means at that point in the development of the fetus.

Note, I am fine with allowing abortion up until the brainwaves time frame

Note, I am fine with allowing the woman a choice of having an abortion up to current medical viablity, which would be about 19 to 20 weeks these days... because up until then, it can't survive without the mother.

(~10 weeks? I am not even really sure).

Actually... it can be as soon as 40 to 45 days, meaning around 6 weeks, not 10.