[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I blame religion. If you attribute pregnancy to a loving "god," you expect him to make pregnancy as safe as possible, and are therefore biased in favour of blaming miscarriages on those who miscarry.

If you attribute pregnancy to cold and unfeeling evolutionary forces, you realize that a 9 month gestation period that's efficient for propagating our genes will nonetheless have some civilian casualties, often through little to no fault of those involved.

Even if we were to speak of religion, even those that are more antagonistic to the idea of abortion access were not always so. I'd go so far as to say that it is not the religion that is the problem, so much as it is the people who use religion to justify oppressive positions.

Then explain why the same people are opposed to embryonic stem cell research.

I changed my mind on that after learning that medical professionals couldn't tell between abortion and miscarriage.

The fact that you would be ok with it if medical professionals would be able to do so after subjecting a woman who just had a miscarriage to a barrage of invasive test is sadistic enough.

To be fair, if it were the death of a person instead of a fetus, cops would probably have to investigate the death to make sure it wasn't just some murder made to look like an accident, no matter how offended people are by that. As evidenced by the fact that we can still type this because we haven't been murdered by someone who made it look like an accident.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

They also cannot assume God supports their opposition to abortion because the Bible explicitly states that if a woman has become pregnant as the result of cheating on her husband, God wants you to yeet that fetus.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Yet another thing Christianity has in common with the Chinese Communist Party.

[Godular]

Even if we were to speak of religion, even those that are more antagonistic to the idea of abortion access were not always so. I'd go so far as to say that it is not the religion that is the problem, so much as it is the people who use religion to justify oppressive positions.

Then explain why the same people are opposed to embryonic stem cell research.

If I recall properly: "OMG YOU'RE KILLING BABIES!" (nevermind they're already dead or had no hope of making it to term anyway or any number of other things that would go completely over the head of somebody who's relying solely on knee-jerk emotional appeals for their arguments)

The point was that I don't blame the religion, I blame the people. It's the people making the stupid arguments, anyway.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Then explain why the same people are opposed to embryonic stem cell research.

If I recall properly: "OMG YOU'RE KILLING BABIES!" (nevermind they're already dead or had no hope of making it to term anyway or any number of other things that would go completely over the head of somebody who's relying solely on knee-jerk emotional appeals for their arguments)

The point was that I don't blame the religion, I blame the people. It's the people making the stupid arguments, anyway.

“Making it to term” nothing, they wouldn’t even have been implanted in the first place. Or are you implying that embryonic stem cells come from fetuses?

In any case, such are stupid arguments that correlate with religion. Does this strike you as a coincidence?

[Godular]

If I recall properly: "OMG YOU'RE KILLING BABIES!" (nevermind they're already dead or had no hope of making it to term anyway or any number of other things that would go completely over the head of somebody who's relying solely on knee-jerk emotional appeals for their arguments)

The point was that I don't blame the religion, I blame the people. It's the people making the stupid arguments, anyway.

“Making it to term” nothing, they wouldn’t even have been implanted in the first place. Or are you implying that embryonic stem cells come from fetuses?

You're skating very close to the line of putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about whether it was a fetus or a zygote or a blastocyst or a barely-fertilized ovum. My use of 'killing babies' was a representation of the argument as I've heard from others, not my own position.

In any case, such are stupid arguments that correlate with religion. Does this strike you as a coincidence?

I've heard bad arguments from religious and non-religious sources. They are just bad arguments.

[Great Algerstonia]

I changed my mind on that after learning that medical professionals couldn't tell between abortion and miscarriage.

The fact that you would be ok with it if medical professionals would be able to do so after subjecting a woman who just had a miscarriage to a barrage of invasive test is sadistic enough.

It disgusts me, but it's one of those things where I support it despite my personal greivances to it. All deaths should be subject to investigation for their cause.

[Crysuko]

They also cannot assume God supports their opposition to abortion because the Bible explicitly states that if a woman has become pregnant as the result of cheating on her husband, God wants you to yeet that fetus.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

And now watch as they twist themselves in knots to justify this

[The Alma Mater]

The fact that you would be ok with it if medical professionals would be able to do so after subjecting a woman who just had a miscarriage to a barrage of invasive test is sadistic enough.

It disgusts me, but it's one of those things where I support it despite my personal greivances to it. All deaths should be subject to investigation for their cause.

So the tampax police should check the tampax of every sexually active woman for the presence of fertilised eggs that failed to implant ?

[The Blaatschapen]

It disgusts me, but it's one of those things where I support it despite my personal greivances to it. All deaths should be subject to investigation for their cause.

So the tampax police should check the tampax of every sexually active woman for the presence of fertilised eggs that failed to implant ?

The tampax police gets paid in blood money *nods*

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The fact that you would be ok with it if medical professionals would be able to do so after subjecting a woman who just had a miscarriage to a barrage of invasive test is sadistic enough.

It disgusts me, but it's one of those things where I support it despite my personal greivances to it. All deaths should be subject to investigation for their cause.

Emphasis mine. This is a sign of cognitive dissonance, you should ideally strive to resolve this issue by either accepting the "collateral damage" of your ideas or abandoning them in the name of Christian compassion.

[Crysuko]

It disgusts me, but it's one of those things where I support it despite my personal greivances to it. All deaths should be subject to investigation for their cause.

Emphasis mine. This is a sign of cognitive dissonance, you should ideally strive to resolve this issue by either accepting the "collateral damage" of your ideas or abandoning them in the name of Christian compassion.

"Christian compassion" is a phrase that never fails to get a snort of derision out of me

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Emphasis mine. This is a sign of cognitive dissonance, you should ideally strive to resolve this issue by either accepting the "collateral damage" of your ideas or abandoning them in the name of Christian compassion.

"Christian compassion" is a phrase that never fails to get a snort of derision out of me

There is this ex-leader of the Christian Democrats in Sweden that really tries, but honestly in most other cases the complete lack of that compassion they so preach is pretty disgusting.

[Esternial]

They also cannot assume God supports their opposition to abortion because the Bible explicitly states that if a woman has become pregnant as the result of cheating on her husband, God wants you to yeet that fetus.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

And now watch as they twist themselves in knots to justify this

To be fair this is Old Testament, though I'm guessing any justification opposing abortion is mostly (if not exclusively) from the Old Testament as well.

It disgusts me, but it's one of those things where I support it despite my personal greivances to it. All deaths should be subject to investigation for their cause.

Emphasis mine. This is a sign of cognitive dissonance, you should ideally strive to resolve this issue by either accepting the "collateral damage" of your ideas or abandoning them in the name of Christian compassion.

As Matthew said: "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be subjected to a stringent investigation to ensure their mourning is genuine."

[GuessTheAltAccount]

And now watch as they twist themselves in knots to justify this

To be fair this is Old Testament, though I'm guessing any justification opposing abortion is mostly (if not exclusively) from the Old Testament as well.

Question: If the "new" Testament supposedly displaces the old, how does this not constitute goalpost-shifting? If the old testament was rubbish why should we assume the new testament is the divinely inspired word of "God" for realziez this time? If the new testament strayed from the old testament by rejecting centuries-old scripture, doesn't that mean that now that the new-testament is centuries old, it should be rejected too in turn?

[Esternial]

To be fair this is Old Testament, though I'm guessing any justification opposing abortion is mostly (if not exclusively) from the Old Testament as well.

Question: If the "new" Testament supposedly displaces the old, how does this not constitute goalpost-shifting? If the old testament was rubbish why should we assume the new testament is the divinely inspired word of "God" for realziez this time? If the new testament strayed from the old testament by rejecting centuries-old scripture, doesn't that mean that now that the new-testament is centuries old, it should be rejected too in turn?

It's difficult to apply reason in this topic since we're talking about a centuries old religious scripture. From my perspective the Bible and how it is interpreted is a personal thing, for a multitude of reasons.

God is a divine, incomprehensible entity. Assuming that mortals can comprehend its true will is arrogant. The Old Testament was written by fallible mortals, allegedly transcribing the Word of God onto paper. However, how sure can we be about the accuracy of the hand of a mortal in transcribing the word of an Almighty being?

That said, the New Testament contains words of Jesus. Unlike mere mortals, Jesus is the Son of God. Therefore I would feel more inclined to take the word of Jesus as a more reliable translation of God's will.

To use a crude metaphor, I would liken the Old Testament to using Google Translate to translate a different language to something we understand. Plenty of important nuances will be lost in translation. Compare the New Testament as having a capable translator (i.e. Jesus) to properly translate this language for the authors. Ultimately, I personally can't get around the conclusion that holy scriptures are flawed as they are written by mortal beings.

That's just my view on the subject. Had holy scriptures been fit enough to be taken by the letter there wouldn't be so many different viewpoints throughout a single religion. Read the Bible, make your own conclusions, but don't pretend you are following His Will, for God's will is incomprehensible by mere mortals. We are all sinful, we are all mortal, none of us can pretend to know the truth. Thus we should know our place and act accordingly.

[Elwher]

To be fair this is Old Testament, though I'm guessing any justification opposing abortion is mostly (if not exclusively) from the Old Testament as well.

Question: If the "new" Testament supposedly displaces the old, how does this not constitute goalpost-shifting? If the old testament was rubbish why should we assume the new testament is the divinely inspired word of "God" for realziez this time? If the new testament strayed from the old testament by rejecting centuries-old scripture, doesn't that mean that now that the new-testament is centuries old, it should be rejected too in turn?

Depending on the Christian sect in question, there are two logical views on this.

One believes that the Old Testament is completely in force except in those areas where the New Testament contradicts it, such as divorce. They struggle with a great deal of Leviticus, however.

The others believe that the New Testament completely supplants the Old, except for those areas where it specifically reinforces it, such as sexual activity outside of matrimony. They struggle with the fact that many important rules, like those against murder, are not specifically mentioned in the New.

Finally, some sects believe that some of the Old remains in force and they get to decide which parts.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

God is a divine, incomprehensible entity. Assuming that mortals can comprehend its true will is arrogant.

Which doesn't reflect well on religion as a whole, does it?

That said, the New Testament contains words of Jesus. Unlike mere mortals, Jesus is the Son of God. Therefore I would feel more inclined to take the word of Jesus as a more reliable translation of God's will.

Assuming the authors of the Bible didn't put words in his mouth. Or that Jesus WAS the son of God and this wasn't just goalpost-shifting on the part of religious institutions that had been wrong before.

To use a crude metaphor, I would liken the Old Testament to using Google Translate to translate a different language to something we understand. Plenty of important nuances will be lost in translation.

Especially when translating something ancient. When translating something modern, its translation can be disputed in real time (see also "Mokusatsu") and sometimes, even that might not be enough (see also "Mokusatsu".) The Bible authors are no longer around to specify what they meant.

That's just my view on the subject. Had holy scriptures been fit enough to be taken by the letter there wouldn't be so many different viewpoints throughout a single religion. Read the Bible, make your own conclusions, but don't pretend you are following His Will, for God's will is incomprehensible by mere mortals. We are all sinful, we are all mortal, none of us can pretend to know the truth. Thus we should know our place and act accordingly.

Or better yet, throw away religion so that people waiting on cures from stem cell research don't die while you hesitate.

[The Free Joy State]

[/notamod] But the Christian thread, here, might be a better place for the non-abortion-related religion.

What in the actual fucking psychotic fuck is wrong with you?
You actively want women to be arrested ON MURDER CHARGES FOR HAVING A MISCARRIAGE.

I changed my mind on that after learning that medical professionals couldn't tell between abortion and miscarriage.

I genuinely appreciate you changing your mind on that.

I wish the legal system of El Salvador would do the same. Many women are jailed after having miscarriages over there; they face life sentences on no real evidence. It's a true tragedy for them.

[Esternial]

God is a divine, incomprehensible entity. Assuming that mortals can comprehend its true will is arrogant.

Which doesn't reflect well on religion as a whole, does it?

That said, the New Testament contains words of Jesus. Unlike mere mortals, Jesus is the Son of God. Therefore I would feel more inclined to take the word of Jesus as a more reliable translation of God's will.

Assuming the authors of the Bible didn't put words in his mouth. Or that Jesus WAS the son of God and this wasn't just goalpost-shifting on the part of religious institutions that had been wrong before.

To use a crude metaphor, I would liken the Old Testament to using Google Translate to translate a different language to something we understand. Plenty of important nuances will be lost in translation.

Especially when translating something ancient. When translating something modern, its translation can be disputed in real time (see also "Mokusatsu") and sometimes, even that might not be enough (see also "Mokusatsu".) The Bible authors are no longer around to specify what they meant.

That's just my view on the subject. Had holy scriptures been fit enough to be taken by the letter there wouldn't be so many different viewpoints throughout a single religion. Read the Bible, make your own conclusions, but don't pretend you are following His Will, for God's will is incomprehensible by mere mortals. We are all sinful, we are all mortal, none of us can pretend to know the truth. Thus we should know our place and act accordingly.

Or better yet, throw away religion so that people waiting on cures from stem cell research don't die while you hesitate.

We can waste time all day talking about throwing away religion, which likely won't happen and thus seems pointless to me, or find ways to re-frame it back into a positive light so people don't find cause to wield it as justification for the views they hold.

I never subscribed to most notions of Catholicism, but I do still carry its lessons of love and compassion with me. I don't pray and I don't particularly believe, but I live my life and do my best to do good - not to prove myself to a God that most likely doesn't exist, but because people suffer enough already in this world and I don't feel like I need to contribute to it.

Personally I believe acting with kindness and compassion, even without faith, weigh a lot greater than people that prostrate themself before their God in prayer in between condemning others and uttering hateful words about people that don't follow one's flawed, mortal ideals.

The hateful sects of any religion engage in so little self-reflection they're paving their way towards their own personal hell, because what sad life are you living if you spend it hating others and going through such great effort to persecute people? That's no way to live your life.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Which doesn't reflect well on religion as a whole, does it?



Assuming the authors of the Bible didn't put words in his mouth. Or that Jesus WAS the son of God and this wasn't just goalpost-shifting on the part of religious institutions that had been wrong before.



Especially when translating something ancient. When translating something modern, its translation can be disputed in real time (see also "Mokusatsu") and sometimes, even that might not be enough (see also "Mokusatsu".) The Bible authors are no longer around to specify what they meant.



Or better yet, throw away religion so that people waiting on cures from stem cell research don't die while you hesitate.

We can waste time all day talking about throwing away religion, which likely won't happen and thus seems pointless to me, or find ways to re-frame it back into a positive light so people don't find cause to wield it as justification for the views they hold.

I never subscribed to most notions of Catholicism, but I do still carry its lessons of love and compassion with me. I don't pray and I don't particularly believe, but I live my life and do my best to do good - not to prove myself to a God that most likely doesn't exist, but because people suffer enough already in this world and I don't feel like I need to contribute to it.

Personally I believe acting with kindness and compassion, even without faith, weigh a lot greater than people that prostrate themself before their God in prayer in between condemning others and uttering hateful words about people that don't follow one's flawed, mortal ideals.

The hateful sects of any religion engage in so little self-reflection they're paving their way towards their own personal hell, because what sad life are you living if you spend it hating others and going through such great effort to persecute people? That's no way to live your life.

I'm going to reply to this here.

EDIT: Decided to post a more generalized, nonspecific reply here.

[Katganistan]

I strongly hope Roe v Wade gets overturned. My state Iowa is very politically conservative right now and will pass sweeping abortion restrictions if this gets overturned.

Lovely to know which states to avoid like the plague because they think The Handmaid's Tale is superawesome.

[Katganistan]

You are talking to a guy who thinks the "solution" to an ectopic pregnancy is a complete hysterectomy, no matter where the fetus has implanted itself. Like "Fetus is latched onto the intestines? Off with the womb." shit.

Actually no, you're mistaken. You only remove an organ that can be removed without the mother dying. In the event that the fetus implants itself on an organ that can't be removed without her passing then death is unfortunately more likely.

That is revolting, seriously.

[Katganistan]

Then you'd probably have the even worse outcome of having a dead mother and fetus.

As they have previously stated, the only thing that matters to them is that the fetus has not been 'actively' killed. Even if the woman dies as a result, apparently not 'actively' killing the fetus takes precedence over any form of anyone else's well-being.

I can't even begin to understand what kind of religious dogma actually condones this kind of action.

None, thank God, that I have ever heard argued in church, or from any priest I've spoken to.

[Katganistan]

Why do we always talk about GOD, when we will never be able to prove its existence, we don't need to wait for something to decide for us, if abortion is good or bad, we can decide by ourselves.

We discuss God in abortion-related matters because God and religion are relevant arguments in abortion, especially for those who believe in a higher power.

Then let them follow their religion and conscience, and let others follow theirs.

[The Free Joy State]

As they have previously stated, the only thing that matters to them is that the fetus has not been 'actively' killed. Even if the woman dies as a result, apparently not 'actively' killing the fetus takes precedence over any form of anyone else's well-being.

I can't even begin to understand what kind of religious dogma actually condones this kind of action.

None, thank God, that I have ever heard argued in church, or from any priest I've spoken to.

I have heard it from the Quiverfull cult: all abortion is impermissible -- even if death will be the result; as is birth control. Risking your life in pregnancy is viewed as martyrdom. There's a case of a woman shopping for a casket while pregnant.

From the first one:

"There was a lot of talk of women being submissive and anti-birth control or, as we put it, 'radically pro-life,'" [Vyckie] Garrison [former member] said. "I had health complications that made [getting pregnant] a life-threatening condition, but it's really pushed on the moms that you should be like Jesus and you are willing to sacrifice whatever it takes."

Garrison, who was married at this time to a man named Wesley Bennett, went on to have six more children despite the health risks because it's what she thought the Bible called her to do.

"The women would tell me, 'Missionaries risk their lives every day and they do it because it's their calling,'" she said. "'When they get to heaven, they'll get their martyr's crown.' There's a huge martyr's mentality."

It's a very cultic mindset.

Not one I've heard in mainstream religion; most denominations -- while they generally state abortion is a sad thing, and not to be taken lightly -- acknowledge incidences where it is permissible. Furthermore, Catholic hospitals commonly use saplingectomy (removal, without waiting for tubal rupture) and also methotrexate; with only 5.5% of Catholic hospitals limiting treatment options for ectopic pregnancy with regards to the accepted (saplingectomy or methotrexate) standard.

Note, this is only official bodies. Though, worth saying a sizable percentage of religious people support abortion (except for white evangelical Protestants).