Abortion - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

kerry · #1 01-23-2006, 05:10 PM

Curious as to what people think of the following line of reasoning:

Existence is gratuitous. We had no right to demand to be brought into existence. God or nature or our mothers made a free choice to bring us into existence. Life is a gift. Neither God nor our mothers were obliged to create us. We are absolutely dependent on the will of our creator. Our creator is free to rescind that choice, otherwise, it wouldn't be a free, unobliged choice on their part. The only point at which our dependency on their will is transcended is when someone other than the creator can be the substitute for the will of the creator. Hence, abortion up to the point of viability outside the womb is a permissible act rooted in either divine freedom and/or the free choice of the mother.

Comments?

Kuan · #2 01-23-2006, 05:22 PM

Sounds just like and apology for the problem of evil Kerry, and it's not correct.

1) God does not create life willy nilly. A life has a purpose.

2) God has the power to not create life.

kerry · #3 01-23-2006, 05:36 PM

Are you saying all God's creative choices are necessary since they have a purpose? Can we think that we had to have been brought into existence because God acts with purpose?

I think it is related to the problem of evil, but I'm not exactly sure how right now. I do think that God regrets creating Hitler. If God doesn't then I see no solution to the problem of evil at all, apart from simply denying it exists.

What I'm trying to do is think about our decision to create, metaphysically, to see what the implications are for the ethics of abortion.

koop · #4 01-23-2006, 05:40 PM

Why is "up to the point of viability" the finishing line and indeed what exactly is "viability." Humans aren't born fully formed and functioning. Should a mother choose not to feed a kid it dies. I guess you could make the argument that we aren't viable until we can actually go out and secure food and shelter for ourselves.

Eliminate "viability" and I think this argument was put forth more succinctly as "I brought you into this world and I can take you out"

davidmash · #5 01-23-2006, 05:48 PM

I belive I understand it except the 2nd to last sentence. "The only point at which our dependency on their will is transcended is when someone other than the creator can be the substitute for the will of the creator."

I do not belive in god. The way I look at it is my mom and dad decided to "create" me. I was really happy up untill now in the belief tha tparents did not have sex. OH well, that's another picture I need ot get out of my head. Anyway, since mom and dad created me, they had the right to "uncreate" me if they so chose.

I do not believe that life has a purpose other than to reproduce. Just like any animal on this planet. Any other perceived purpose is one that we have crfeated in our own self absorbed self centered littel minds. Since my wife and I have chosen not to reproduce, we have already failed our purpose in life.I believe I understand it except the 2nd to last sentence. "The only point at which our dependency on their will is transcended is when someone other than the creator can be the substitute for the will of the creator."

I do not believe in god. The way I look at it is my mom and dad decided to "create" me. I was really happy up until now in the belief that parents did not have sex. OH well, that's another picture I need to get out of my head. Anyway, since mom and dad created me, they had the right to "un-create" me if they so chose.

I do not believe that life has a purpose other than to reproduce. Just like any animal on this planet. Any other perceived purpose is one that we have created in our own self absorbed self centered little minds. Since my wife and I have chosen not to reproduce, we have already failed our purpose in life.

The bottom line to me is this. You do what you want, I do what I want. Your (not you specifically, the general "you") may do what ever you want as long as it does not infringe on my rights. What goes on in my wife’s body is first and foremost her business and sure as hell none of 'your' business. No person or government should be allowed the right to determine what I may or may not do to my own person. Whether I chose to put, nicotine, alcohol, class 3 narcotics, tattoos or what ever is my business.

All I want is for all these religious zealot freaks to GET THE HELLOUT OF MY PERSONAL LIFE!!! Is that so much to ask for? If I want to burn in eternal damn nation (or where ever you freaks say I am going) it is my damn choice so butt out.

There. I’m done venting for now. I feel much better.

The bottom line to me is this. You do what you want, I do what I want. Your (not you specifically, the the general "you") may do what ever you want as long as it does not infringe on my rights. What goes on in my wifes body is first and foremost her buisness and sure as hell none of 'your' buisness. No person or government should be allowed the right to determine what I may or may not do to my own person. Whether I chose to put, nicotine, alchol, class 3 narcotics, tattoos or what ever is my buisness.

kerry · #6 01-23-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

Why is "up to the point of viability" the finishing line and indeed what exactly is "viability." Humans aren't born fully formed and functioning. Should a mother choose not to feed a kid it dies. I guess you could make the argument that we aren't viable until we can actually go out and secure food and shelter for ourselves.

Eliminate "viability" and I think this argument was put forth more succinctly as "I brought you into this world and I can take you out"

By viability I meant capable of surviving with the help of another person, outside the mother's body. I thought it was relevant because at that point, other people's will to keep a child alive become much more easily applicable. They don't have to coerce the mother to do anything the mother doesn't want to do.
I think your close on the succinct version, although I was intending, "I decided to bring you into this world, and I can decide not to go thru with it." I think that's different from 'I can take you out'.

Kuan · #7 01-23-2006, 05:49 PM

By Medieval logic, the world we live in is necessary. All that is in the world necessarily exists. God created our world and therefore everything that God created is necessary.

I guess purposeful or not doesn't matter. You can throw it in the argument to obfuscate things a bit but if you stick with necessity you don't need to bring in value judgements, good, evil, all that stuff. It's just necessary therefore it's justified.

davidmash · #8 01-23-2006, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

Are you saying all God's creative choices are necessary since they have a purpose? Can we think that we had to have been brought into existence because God acts with purpose?

I think it is related to the problem of evil, but I'm not exactly sure how right now. I do think that God regrets creating Hitler. If God doesn't then I see no solution to the problem of evil at all, apart from simply denying it exists.

What I'm trying to do is think about our decision to create, metaphysically, to see what the implications are for the ethics of abortion.

Perhaps I am confused but I thought the author was saying that people are random happening with no input from god. If that’s the case (which I belive it is) then the existence of Hitler and all the Hitler’s still to come are just a product of the environment in which they were raised.

kerry · #9 01-23-2006, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I belive I understand it except the 2nd to last sentence. "The only point at which our dependency on their will is transcended is when someone other than the creator can be the substitute for the will of the creator."

I do not belive in god. The way I look at it is my mom and dad decided to "create" me. I was really happy up untill now in the belief tha tparents did not have sex. OH well, that's another picture I need ot get out of my head. Anyway, since mom and dad created me, they had the right to "uncreate" me if they so chose.

I do not believe that life has a purpose other than to reproduce. Just like any animal on this planet. Any other perceived purpose is one that we have crfeated in our own self absorbed self centered littel minds. Since my wife and I have chosen not to reproduce, we have already failed our purpose in life.I believe I understand it except the 2nd to last sentence. "The only point at which our dependency on their will is transcended is when someone other than the creator can be the substitute for the will of the creator."

I do not believe in god. The way I look at it is my mom and dad decided to "create" me. I was really happy up until now in the belief that parents did not have sex. OH well, that's another picture I need to get out of my head. Anyway, since mom and dad created me, they had the right to "un-create" me if they so chose.

I do not believe that life has a purpose other than to reproduce. Just like any animal on this planet. Any other perceived purpose is one that we have created in our own self absorbed self centered little minds. Since my wife and I have chosen not to reproduce, we have already failed our purpose in life.

The bottom line to me is this. You do what you want, I do what I want. Your (not you specifically, the general "you") may do what ever you want as long as it does not infringe on my rights. What goes on in my wife?s body is first and foremost her business and sure as hell none of 'your' business. No person or government should be allowed the right to determine what I may or may not do to my own person. Whether I chose to put, nicotine, alcohol, class 3 narcotics, tattoos or what ever is my business.

All I want is for all these religious zealot freaks to GET THE HELLOUT OF MY PERSONAL LIFE!!! Is that so much to ask for? If I want to burn in eternal damn nation (or where ever you freaks say I am going) it is my damn choice so butt out.

There. I?m done venting for now. I feel much better.

The bottom line to me is this. You do what you want, I do what I want. Your (not you specifically, the the general "you") may do what ever you want as long as it does not infringe on my rights. What goes on in my wifes body is first and foremost her buisness and sure as hell none of 'your' buisness. No person or government should be allowed the right to determine what I may or may not do to my own person. Whether I chose to put, nicotine, alchol, class 3 narcotics, tattoos or what ever is my buisness.

What I meant was, that if a pregnant woman decided to abort, and the fetus was viable and someone else wanted to take care of it, that other person should be able to do so. We allow people to give up their children for adoption. It's a similar situation. As soon as the point of viability is reached in pregnancy, the fetus is no longer dependent solely on the will of the mother. It can now depend on other people if other people chose to let it.

I think the ethics of abortion has very little to do with religious justifications. There's no clear 'religious' position on abortion, just a clear conservative position in contemporary politics. In other words, I don't see any specifically religious reasons why a person would go one way or the other on the question of the legality of abortion.

kerry · #10 01-23-2006, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuan

By Medieval logic, the world we live in is necessary. All that is in the world necessarily exists. God created our world and therefore everything that God created is necessary.

I guess purposeful or not doesn't matter. You can throw it in the argument to obfuscate things a bit but if you stick with necessity you don't need to bring in value judgements, good, evil, all that stuff. It's just necessary therefore it's justified.

I get it. I definitely disagree with that position. It's logic requires that there be no freedom whatsoever in the universe, neither for us or God. It's possible to interpret the world that way, but it fails to make sense about much or our experience. Responsiblity is nonsense in such a world.

davidmash · #11 01-23-2006, 06:01 PM

I am far from an authority on religion but I was under the impression that abortion, in the religious sense is considered murder. I thought this where the "when does life begin" debate was started. Religion I thought defined it as the point of conception where as folks like me say it is life once it exits the womb.

kerry · #12 01-23-2006, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Perhaps I am confused but I thought the author was saying that people are random happening with no input from god. If that?s the case (which I belive it is) then the existence of Hitler and all the Hitler?s still to come are just a product of the environment in which they were raised.

I was trying to formulate a theory of reproductive choice, that was applicable to both human choice and divine creativity which took freedom and responsibility seriously. You could leave out the God part, and I think it may still make sense but I am interested in keeping the God part in because many religious thinkers on the question seem to assume that if God is a part of the discussion of abortion ethics, it requires that humans can't responsibly change their minds after conception.

kerry · #13 01-23-2006, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I am far from an authority on religion but I was under the impression that abortion, in the religious sense is considered murder. I thought this where the "when does life begin" debate was started. Religion I thought defined it as the point of conception where as folks like me say it is life once it exits the womb.

I think lots of people do define a person as beginning at conception but I don't know of any specifically 'religious' arguments that support that view. The main one seems to be that's when our complete set of DNA first comes together.

davidmash · #14 01-23-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

I was trying to formulate a theory of reproductive choice, that was applicable to both human choice and divine creativity which took freedom and responsibility seriously. You could leave out the God part, and I think it may still make sense but I am interested in keeping the God part in because many religious thinkers on the question seem to assume that if God is a part of the discussion of abortion ethics, it requires that humans can't responsibly change their minds after conception.

I was not a religion / ethics / logic major (or minor for that matter) so this is getting way over my head.

I view this as a personal issue. God or no god, ethics or no, it’s a private issue for me that does not require intervention or ‘approval’ from society at large. A woman, in my opinion must have the right to do as she chooses with her body and what ever she ‘creates’. I may not like it, but it is her right in my opinion.

davidmash · #15 01-23-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

I think lots of people do define a person as beginning at conception but I don't know of any specifically 'religious' arguments that support that view. The main one seems to be that's when our complete set of DNA first comes together.

I take that to mean that there is no scripture that supporst the claim one way or the other?

If that is the case, the religious 'belief' whether scripture based or not still seems to be that it is at conception and that since it is 'life' aborting it would be a sin right? So isn't that they same as saying that "religion belives that abortion is a sin and life begins at conception"? I know it's a generalization but you get the gist of what I am getting at right?