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

[The Alma Mater]

But then again, screwing people over is justified because your god said so, right? And since you know you've picked the only real god anyone with different opinions just needs to open their eyes, right?

As it was for over a thousand years unfortunately. What do you think happened to the pagans in tribal Europe who did not accept the new thing known as Christianity? The Protestants under bloody Marry, etc?

Sundiata basically wants to return to doing things that way. Not by going as far as burning people (as far as I can tell), but you know what I mean.

Do note that sundiata deliberately refused to answer the question if an organisation that causes death is good or not as long as it promotes more breeding.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

It's mutilation to voluntarily render oneself sterile for the sake of sterility. A vasectomy is an immoral decision for a man but generally for reasons separate from the immorality of abortion. Life is good and vasectomies don't perpetuate life and so don't perpetuate good.

I never thought I'd hear a Catholic suggest that priests don't perpetuate good. But there you go.

A priest never has, or never succeeded in fully doing that. In fact, as history will tell you, the Church had turned from a group of wholesome yet persecuted people, to greedy, money grabbing fools who think they can buy their way to heaven when that was clearly not what Jesus said in the Bible.

[Neanderthaland]

Neither produces life. Your premise is that sterility is bad because it doesn't produce life. Neither does celibacy.

The only difference between the two is that one still gets to have sex. Its very obvious that sex, and sex without consequences, is exactly what the Catholic church objects to. Despite their protestations to the contrary.


And it's so obvious that everyone realizes it, except for those who have a religious obligation to pretend they don't. If you could get outside yourself for one second, you would see it too.

Celibacy can absolutely create life

No. It can't.

I understand their may be some confusion here. Since your examples of celibate priests so often have sex. But if you're actually doing it right: it can't.

You'd think someone who plays up the effectiveness of abstinence in avoiding teen pregnancy would realize that.

but not if one's end is celibacy. The means of celibacy to create life is a good thing.

This is actually meaningless. The fact that you think it means something is delusional.

Before we continue, do you have any questions so far? The goal or end of priestly celibacy is not to avoid birth or the creation of life, for example.

Oh? You want to answer questions? You about you answer all the questions other's have asked you, and that you've been avoiding? That would be a good start.

[The Reformed American Republic]

As it was for over a thousand years unfortunately. What do you think happened to the pagans in tribal Europe who did not accept the new thing known as Christianity? The Protestants under bloody Marry, etc?

Sundiata basically wants to return to doing things that way. Not by going as far as burning people (as far as I can tell), but you know what I mean.

Do note that sundiata deliberately refused to answer the question if an organisation that causes death is good or not as long as it promotes more breeding.

Not surprised. Hens, why I judged him as harshly as I did. The only thing that could be worse is if he went all out Roman Inquisition on us.

[Sundiata]

@Sundiata: Is the organisation good if it causes more births than deaths ?

Ends matter but so do means. Why does it cause death? Why does it cause birth? How does it cause either? And so on.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

Abortion is somehow removing the fetus before it is born right ?
If you don’t think the fetus is alive, then abortion is just contraception.
But if you do think the baby is alive, that’s where the main argument is.
So I ask this question.
How can we know, if, and ultimately when the fetus becomes a baby ?
I would argue that is the point abortion goes from contraception to Something much tricker.
But it seems, the only answer is a religious one, and until we get a better answer, we can’t let the religious beliefs of some, govern all.
So then, the question is, when does the fetus become a baby ?

And then I guess the follow up question would be, if it does turn out to be a baby, alive, during pregnancy ,then what ? (If it’s not then it’s just contraception, and the argument agents contraception is a different one).

Let’s assume it is for a moment, just because it would be a done deal otherwise.
Let’s assume that a living person, is some how connected and taking from another person, to stay alive.

Maybe someone is in a coma, and to not die, someone has to be hooked up to the machine to keep them alive, at risk to themselves. And that they are the only match.

Can the state force them to go, and go to the machine.
What about if they woke up, and were connected while unconscious, (as many unintentional births happen).
Can the state force them to not leave ?

One would be forcing someone to help.
The other would force someone to keep helping.

If we look at legal precedent, nobody is required to jump in front of a bullet for someone else. Even if they have a bullet proof vest and are at lower risk. To stop helping, to let go of the person who is dangling from a cliff though might be different.

And what about the fact that baby has never known life, would that make a difference. What if they are expected to have a genetic defect. These start to become cold calculations about the utility of life. Is the reason why one chooses abortion a factor of it being allowed or not? (Like I wanted a girl not a boy). What about if the baby threatens the life of the mother. Trade one life for another ? Do the right of a person who exist trump the rights of someone who may or may not exist, or would not exist yet ?
(Most people seem to agree that if the baby threatens the mother then abortion is ok)


If we can answer these questions, I believe we can answer abortion.
Of course, the answers to many are possibly philosophical and we may never be able to answer them.

Personally, I would argue that the baby should be protected after a brain is developed, as that is what we know to contain the soul in some way, and that if after, the mother wants an abortion, we should have a system set up where they can safely remove the baby, at no cost to the mother, and then the baby would grow in the hospital and eventually go to an orphanage.
That’s the only way I can think of that preserves the rights of the mother and the (potential) baby.

I’m curious to see what other people think about this. I’m afraid there may very well be no good answer. But maybe technology could help.

(And in lieu of a good answer, one way to help may be to avoid the issue, by keeping it from coming up more, like increased contraception)

Of course this is in a perfect world, in our not so perfect world, besides the merit of abortion itself, it has been used to take away the rights of women.


Anyways, these are my thoughts. (I fully acknowledge they are in no way perfect)
“How to find a solution where everyone can be happy, or how to find the moral answer, without religion”

To be honest, I’m too lazy to know whether this is wise or just plain stupid. Again, at the end they said this is their thoughts and that is respectful so I would assume this is a wise post.

[Alcala-Cordel]

But then again, screwing people over is justified because your god said so, right? And since you know you've picked the only real god anyone with different opinions just needs to open their eyes, right?

As it was for over a thousand years unfortunately. What do you think happened to the pagans in tribal Europe who did not accept the new thing known as Christianity? The Protestants under bloody Marry, etc?

Sundiata basically wants to return to doing things that way. Not by going as far as burning people (as far as I can tell), but you know what I mean.

You can probably find instances of this happening before the establishment of civilization as a concept, but even after all these thousands of years we still haven't found a good way to get it to stop.

[Neanderthaland]

Sterile people can't live fruitful lives?

That's a cruel thing to say.

In the context you're thinking maybe. Explain further.

You're just being deliberately obtuse now. I don't believe for a second that you're so dense you need this spelled out for you. But since you insist:

You said that deliberate sterility is evil because it doesn't create life.
You said that celibacy is not evil because, even if they don't create life, they have "fruitful lives."
By necessity you must be saying that sterile people have cannot have fruitful lives. Or else the logic of point two falls apart.

This isn't hard. Please stop being evasive. It's very dishonest of you.

[Sundiata]

Celibacy can absolutely create life

No. It can't.

I understand their may be some confusion here. Since your examples of celibate priests so often have sex. But if you're actually doing it right: it can't.

You'd think someone who plays up the effectiveness of abstinence in avoiding teen pregnancy would realize that.

but not if one's end is celibacy. The means of celibacy to create life is a good thing.

This is actually meaningless. The fact that you think it means something is delusional.

Before we continue, do you have any questions so far? The goal or end of priestly celibacy is not to avoid birth or the creation of life, for example.

Oh? You want to answer questions? You about you answer all the questions other's have asked you, and that you've been avoiding? That would be a good start.

You don't understand the purpose of priestly celibacy. It's not the same purpose as a vasectomy to impede life or a direct abortion. I can explain it but it's not that important now.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

As it was for over a thousand years unfortunately. What do you think happened to the pagans in tribal Europe who did not accept the new thing known as Christianity? The Protestants under bloody Marry, etc?

Sundiata basically wants to return to doing things that way. Not by going as far as burning people (as far as I can tell), but you know what I mean.

You can probably find instances of this happening before the establishment of civilization as a concept, but even after all these thousands of years we still haven't found a good way to get it to stop.

Indeed. I agree religion was always, and will always be a decisive and even bloody topic. Not that that would change my belief.

[Thepeopl]

Sterile people can't live fruitful lives?

That's a cruel thing to say.

In the context you're thinking maybe. Explain further.

That's what you claim.
Priests who are celibate and don't physically procreate have fruitful lives.
Sterile made fathers are sinning because voluntary stopping physical procreation.



https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2021/07 ... -opleiding

Its dutch, but:
Children of smaller families fare better (education, financial and social area) than children of large families.
(Large is 5 or more children)
The big exception: only child. They aren't as successful than children with a (few) sibling(s).
Probably because they never get to teach others at a young age. Because if you can explain something, you yourself have a better grasp of the matter.

[Alcala-Cordel]

You can probably find instances of this happening before the establishment of civilization as a concept, but even after all these thousands of years we still haven't found a good way to get it to stop.

Indeed. I agree religion was always, and will always be a decisive and even bloody topic.

For the record I don't think religion is bad in itself; like almost everything it is fine unless it's harming people.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

Indeed. I agree religion was always, and will always be a decisive and even bloody topic.

For the record I don't think religion is bad in itself; like almost everything it is fine unless it's harming people.

The only problem is that people for some weird reason get pissed when they see another person practicing their religion lol.

[Sundiata]

In the context you're thinking maybe. Explain further.

That's what you claim.
Priests who are celibate and don't physically procreate have fruitful lives.
Sterile made fathers are sinning because voluntary stopping physical procreation.

I'm not talking about sin at the moment, nor was I then. The case of fatherhood isn't binary but more a question of degree. A life with a vasectomy wouldn't be as fruitful as a celibate priest's in the context of purpose. The purpose of our focus being life.

[Neanderthaland]

No. It can't.

I understand their may be some confusion here. Since your examples of celibate priests so often have sex. But if you're actually doing it right: it can't.

You'd think someone who plays up the effectiveness of abstinence in avoiding teen pregnancy would realize that.


This is actually meaningless. The fact that you think it means something is delusional.


Oh? You want to answer questions? You about you answer all the questions other's have asked you, and that you've been avoiding? That would be a good start.

You don't understand the purpose of celibacy. It's not the same purpose as a vasectomy to impede life or a direct abortion.

The fact of celibacy is no babies. The fact of vasectomy is no babies.* The fact is that these things are equivalent.** Except that one gets to have sex.

And it's very obvious that the Catholic church cannot abide their being no consequences for that.

*usually
**With vasectomy being slightly superior. In the sense that it does, rarely, produce babies. Which is what you want.

[Alcala-Cordel]

For the record I don't think religion is bad in itself; like almost everything it is fine unless it's harming people.

The only problem is that people for some weird reason get pissed when they see another person practicing their religion lol.

Oh yeah. Practicing a religion, practicing the "wrong" religion, practicing their religion the wrong way, practicing no religion... there's soooo much tension.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

The only problem is that people for some weird reason get pissed when they see another person practicing their religion lol.

Oh yeah. Practicing a religion, practicing the "wrong" religion, practicing their religion the wrong way, practicing no religion... there's soooo much tension.

I feel like many people misinterpret all these books. The only place in the Bible where it says gays shouldn’t be allowed is in the Old Testament, which isn’t that factual as the New one because it wasn’t written as soon as the new one was written. Same goes for women except there is nowhere that says women shouldn’t be lower than men. In fact, the Bible openly states that a woman was the first person to see Jesus after he died. If it was some historical book, it probably would have said a man saw Jesus first. So yeah Another Mistake of the Church

[Sundiata]

You don't understand the purpose of celibacy. It's not the same purpose as a vasectomy to impede life or a direct abortion.

The fact of celibacy is no babies. The fact of vasectomy is no babies.* The fact is that these things are equivalent.** Except that one gets to have sex.

And it's very obvious that the Catholic church cannot abide their being no consequences for that.

*usually
**With vasectomy being slightly superior. In the sense that it does, rarely, produce babies. Which is what you want.

Let's not focus on the teachings of the Catholic Church. People should not make like rabbits, no?

[Neutraligon]

The fact of celibacy is no babies. The fact of vasectomy is no babies.* The fact is that these things are equivalent.** Except that one gets to have sex.

And it's very obvious that the Catholic church cannot abide their being no consequences for that.

*usually
**With vasectomy being slightly superior. In the sense that it does, rarely, produce babies. Which is what you want.

Let's not focus on the teachings of the Catholic Church. People should not make like rabbits, no?

Depends if you mean have a shit ton of children...probably not. If you mean have a lot of sex, then have at it, just use contraception, sterilization, abortions.

[The Alma Mater]

The fact of celibacy is no babies. The fact of vasectomy is no babies.* The fact is that these things are equivalent.** Except that one gets to have sex.

And it's very obvious that the Catholic church cannot abide their being no consequences for that.

*usually
**With vasectomy being slightly superior. In the sense that it does, rarely, produce babies. Which is what you want.

Let's not focus on the teachings of the Catholic Church. People should not make like rabbits, no?

I would indeed prefer it if people did not merely copulate 24/7 and also did some other things, like baking bread or solving complex mathematical equations.
But when the choice is between them dumping children in a hole, building concentration camps or them having an orgy - I would prefer the orgy.

[Sundiata]

Let's not focus on the teachings of the Catholic Church. People should not make like rabbits, no?

Depends if you mean have a shit ton of children...probably not. If you mean have a lot of sex, then have at it, just use contraception, sterilization, abortions.

No, no, no. By all means have a big family but just remember why and do not cease to use reason.

[Neutraligon]

Depends if you mean have a shit ton of children...probably not. If you mean have a lot of sex, then have at it, just use contraception, sterilization, abortions.

No, no, no. By all means have a big family but just remember why and do not cease to use reason.

Or have no children and enjoy having sex with whoever you want and who wants to have sex with you, just use the above methods, with a preference for the first 2.

[Sundiata]

I would indeed prefer it if people did not merely copulate 24/7 and also did some other things, like baking bread or solving complex mathematical equations.

There is enough time for all of these things but our love of each thing cannot be unbalanced, overcoming the others.

[Thermodolia]

Texas has now officially asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

Texas fired back at the Biden administration’s challenge to its nearly complete ban of abortions in a response brief filed Thursday asserting the government’s lawsuit was out of bounds, while also suggesting the court take another look at the validity of its landmark abortion decisions Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[…] The Biden administration then sued to challenge the law and U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, blocked SB 8, ruling it unconstitutional. Only 48 hours later, the Fifth Circuit, seen by many as the most conservative appeals court in the country, overturned Pitman's ruling in a 2-1 decision.

On Monday, the Department of Justice formally asked the Supreme Court to lift the Fifth Circuit's order that has allowed the law to continue to be enforced.

In its response filed Thursday, Texas claims the DOJ lacks equitable cause and jurisdiction to sue Texas over SB 8. The government alleges the law violates the 14th Amendment, but Texas argues the right to an abortion is not required by law.

“The idea that the constitution requires states to permit a woman to abort her unborn child is unsupported by any constitutional text, history, or tradition,” the brief states.

The Department of Justice suggested the high court could bypass the Fifth Circuit and hear arguments in the case. Texas says that if the court decides to take that route, it should consider overturning Roe and Casey.

“The Court erred in recognizing the right to abortion in Roe and in continuing to preserve it in Casey,” the response brief states. “Properly understood, the Constitution does not protect a right to elective abortion, and any laws affecting abortion should be subject only to a rational-basis test …. If it reaches the merits, the Court should overturn Roe and Casey and hold that SB 8 does not therefore violate the Fourteenth Amendment.”

SB 8 should be found unconstitutional not only for the abortion rights but because it undermines the entire rule of law and will open the door to undermine the entire constitution including the second amendment Texas holds so dear

[Grave_n_idle]

There isn't even any scriptural justification for such moral takes. What does it all hinge on, "be fruitful and multiply"? I don't see any reason why that implies humans need to be maximizing the population, one could just as easily interpret it as "just don't let yourselves go extinct."

It's mutilation to voluntarily render oneself sterile for the sake of sterility. A vasectomy is an immoral decision for a man but generally for reasons separate from the immorality of abortion. Life is good and vasectomies don't perpetuate life and so don't perpetuate good.

You might want to read the scripture. Vasectomies are not only moral, scripturally - but specifically advocated for as desirable by Jesus, himself.