I would like to discuss the issue of abortion.

I am sure this has been discussed so many times but nevertheless I feel strongly such topics should not be swept under the carpet as it involves lives.

Do we believe in the sanctity of human life?
If we do, other issues like choice, lifestyle, economics etc should pale in comparison when the issue of abortion is contemplated.
In fact, there should not even be any comparison as the life of the unborn takes supreme precedence.

Official statistics put the number of murders through abortion at 80-90,000 per year in Australia. This figure does not include chemical abortions, ie the morning after pill. If we add these abortions, the figure easily swell to 150,000 if not more.
In just 10 years, 1.5m innocent unborn babies are murdered by their parents who are either careless or plain uneducated on the sanctity of life.
If these precious lives are saved, we do not need new immigrants!

1 in 3 women in Australia had at least one abortion in their life!
Are these women taking abortion as a form of birth control?
Do they realize that the only person whom their unborn babies depend on for protection is its parents? And it is precisely these parents who choose to murder them.

NO, I do not believe in burning abortion clinics.
BUT YES, I do believe very strongly that abortions should stop.
All unwanted babies for whatever reasons should be born and put up for adoption to married couples who will care for these children.

The only time I will support the termination of an unborn child is when it medically threatens the life of its mother.
That I will leave it to the medical profession to decide.

Dear Platypus,

From what I've read on the subject it seems
that the great majority of the population
supports abortion in cases of rape, incest,
or a threat to the mother's health, but
support for a mother's right to abortion
on demand fluctuates between just over and
just under half of the population.

It seems that quite a few people wonder
whether their own position on abortion is right,
regardless of whether they oppose or approve it.

Some people argue because abortion will occur
whether it is legal or not, it's better that it take
place legally and under proper medical supervision.
Others claim that the welfare expenditures and other
costs of raising thousands of unwanted and often
illegitimate children must be taken into account in
any decisions about abortion. Others have firm
personal opinions about abortion, but are unwilling
to impose their views on others who may have different
views.

This is an issue that as time goes on, the legal, ethical,
and medical complexities will not abate.
To some people, abortion is a matter of no particular
significance; to others, it is little short of mass murder.
At the root of this controversy is a basic value judgement
about the human status of the foetus. If the foetus is
considered a baby, then abortion is a form of killing. If it
is considered a mere collection of cells and tissue, then
abortion is a morally neutral surgical procedure.

For the record, thankfully I've never had to make that
difficult decision and I don't know what I would do if
I did. My husband and I wanted children so very much -
and we've been blessed with two boys. I can't even
begin to imagine the difficulty for someone with this
kind of decision - and I am happy that I've never had to
be put in a position to make it.

platypus1900

those that support murdering the unborn nearly always speak of the 1% or less cases where the child is a result of rape or the mother's health is at risk. It is a dishonest tactic used to mask the mass slaughter of innocent lives. Now the same want to trust is with their dishonest euthenasia arguements. The murdering of the unborn is a national disgrace.

Hi Platypus.

What is the significance of 1.8? Do you think there a number above which it is okay for a woman to abort her child? Also, do you think that control of a woman's fertility is her business or the government's? Then I would guess that the discussion might progress to what justification we might have in equating a bag of acorns to a forest of oaks.

Platypus,
What I do not understand is why there are so many abortions.

There are many options for contraception available these days and even the morning after pill.

While I believe women should have a right over their own bodies, that should start with contraception. I am very concerned about late term abortions as modern medicine can now save many premature born babies.

I just do not understand the need for most abortions.

Are people becoming less and less responsible for their actions?

Platypus1900 "Do we believe in the sanctity of human life?"
You obviously don't, given that you advocated to have murderers murdered by the state on another thread?

Abortion is always a difficult issue, but the fact remains that women can legally have abortions in this country, so it is not legally called 'murder'.

This will never change, because NO-ONE, least of all any males, can force a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

Her body, her choice.

No one is happy with the unacceptably high numbers of abortion, so I think that free contraception should be available for all.

Maybe we should advocate that no sex can take place unless we are actively trying for a baby?
Or maybe men should wear condoms at all times, except when trying for a baby?
Just a thought...

@Lexi
I am a realist.
There will always be abortion.
I cannot expect every couple to be 100% careful.
And when they are not, and a child is conceived, I also do not expect everyone to share my strong views.
Yes, there will be abortion clinics and it is much better than driving this underground and threatening the lives of women (even though i strongly oppose abortion in the first place)

I cannot believe you will murder your own child.
No, life starts at conception, the moment the egg is fertilised.
Some country says it is 4 mths...some say 6 mths.
Arguments will then be what about 3 mths 29 days etc etc
That is why I always say if we want to talk about moral issues, we must do it in the context of God, not the country's legal framework.
Human laws and govt are amoral.
You would have noticed how convenient it is for humanists to change the goal posts.

@banjo
morning after pills?
i dont agree to this form of contraception
same for IUDs
any form of contraception that happens AFTER fertilisation is murder
life has already started
the correct contraception will be condoms or spermicides etc.

we see more abortions because youths and their parents are not taught the sanctity of life
we live in a very "me" "I" centric society
this new generation are taught from young they have a right
their own happiness
their own point of view

when confronted with the decision between their own life and blood vs their lifestyle, freedom...financial position or just pure convenience etc, they will not hesistate to terminate a life
they were taught from young, the unborn fetus is not life but a group of cells

@runner
i believe that as a nation, we will have a lot to answer to God for murdering so many unborn babies

@Fester
my apologies
i should have been clearer
the 1.8 is to say we are already below replacement rate for a culture to be sustainable (2.1 is the minimum)
since we are already so short of babies, why are we still not treasuring them
yes..you are most right, even if we are at 2.1, the argument remains
thks for pointing this fine line

let's take the govt out of the equation for now
i am trying to convince every woman that the child in her womb is a human life
i am trying to tell them if they dont want a baby, take responsible actions to prevent one
i am trying to tell them if they dont want to raise a baby, there are many childless couples...many families who will be happy to adopt the unwanted baby

human life is not acorns

'Her body, her choice. '

thats right susie murder or nuture the unborn babies. Unfortunately selfishly many choose murder.

@suse

precisely because i believe in the sanctity of life that i support capital punishment

i think you can figure that out after a while

yes...her body...her choice, she can have sex
but when she conceives, then a higher moral law takes over...the life of the unborn human
she then loses that right to do what she wants

contraception is not expensive is it?
we are in wealthy australia arent we?
maybe we are really poor after all
killing our own babies because we cannot afford the condoms?

i see so many adverts selling insurance to old people so they have money to cover their funeral expenses (how tragic)
we are not only $$ poor, but also morally bankrupt

@poirot

you must be pro-life, i assume?

Platypus,
The point I was making is that there are many options of contraception available, so I don't believe there is a need for many abortions. I do not particularly care if you do not like the way some contraceptives work.

The 1.8% you quote has nothing to do with abortion and you wrongly call it a fertility rate. It is a birth rate. If you count the number of abortions and miscarriages that take place the actual fertility rate is much higher. i.e. Women becoming pregnant.

The birth rate of 1.8% has to do with population increase or decrease and has nothing to do with peoples culture, but population. The population of an area, state or country will decrease at a birth rate of 1.8%. We use immigration to counter that.

Hi Platypus,

I agree with you that government has no business in what is a personal moral choice, but at what point the person? You say that life starts at conception, but aren't human gametes also living? And what of identical twins or triplets, or even chimeras for that matter? I have trouble with according to that which something may attain in the future. I live in the present, so for me un-united gametes and embryos are potential people, not actual people.

Platypus1900. "yes...her body...her choice, she can have sex
but when she conceives, then a higher moral law takes over...the life of the unborn human"
Really? What higher moral law is that then?
Your law?
Your God's law? The one where you decide who gets to die...like murderers?

Australian law says abortion is legal.

Where does the daddy stand in this choice?
Can't he take care of the contraception?
It takes two to have sex...but many men seem to have a problem with the fact that only the female can become pregnant, and that the people unrelated to her pregnancy have no control over her decisions about that pregnancy.

Thankfully, we have moved on from the 50's...

Yes, platypus,

"Do we believe in the sanctity of human life?"

In light of your previous comment:

"this bloke should have been shot or hanged"

Tell me again about "the sanctity of human life"?

Is the sanctity of life absolute?

@fester
my view is life begins when an egg is fertilised
billions and trillions of sperms are lost every day...that is not life
eggs are lost every cycle..that is not life

@suse
when we discuss moral issues such as life
then it must be God's law
i do not think it is meaningful to discuss morals outside God

man made law without God is unreliable
they are like goal posts that moves
like you said... you are thankful it moved from the 50s

a couple should take joint responsibility
a man who does not take that view is not worth you having sex with

Just a few tough questions....
What if someone was to have that child but not really be able to afford to raise that child?
What if the child suffers because the parents come to resent the child for been born and been a "burden"?
What about post natal depression?
Is it really better for the child to be born and possibly unwanted?
What if the pregnacy is caused from a contracepive failing?

And a small correction.
IUD's are designed to stop sperm from reaching the egg...therefore fertilisation rarely occures, and if it does the device must be removed ASAP.

I am on the fence because as much as I would love to be pro life I beleive there are to many questions that only the couple who are pregnant can answer.

Hi Platypus,

Human gametes are living and capable of fusing and forming a human life. But for you, they become a person at the point of fusion. Could I conclude from this that you are according human gametes the status of a potential human, and do not consider the destruction of this life a crime?

Dear platypus900,

You say “we will have a lot to answer to God for murdering so many unborn babies”.

Well the rate of 'natural' abortions, those where the fertilised egg does not reach a live birth without human intervention is estimated between 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 of all pregnancies. This is a far higher rate than women deciding to abort their pregnancies.

This makes God the great aborter.

It follows then, based on your logic, that God has a lot to answer for for 'murdering so many unborn babies'.

Personally, I fail to see how anyone has the right to decide what another person can do.

Besides, just being on the pill is an act of abortion to a certain extent, it's intent is not so much to end life, but to prevent it from happening.

So what's next, do we stop people taking the pill as well.

Mind your own business I say.

@reh

hi there
we are talking about life
sanctity of life
taking a pill to prevent life is way way different from ending a life?

@fester

yes, that is the position i am taking
an unfertilised egg is not a life

@Bec

i like your post
very good and honest questions and best of all
you honor the sanctity of life

let me see if i can help you

a. as in all things in life...if you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers to the issue at hand. And if you start from the wrong perspective, you end up again getting a muddled up and possibly wrong answer

b. in this case, the question to ask is how much importance you put to life, a human life, your own flesh and blood. If that is the highest order of importance, then the other problems need to be solved, resolved accordingly.

c. no baby is ever unwanted. If the destitute mother cannot look after the baby, put the baby up for adoption. Many childless couples will love the baby with all they love they can give. And then may i add to that destitute parents, please engage in safe sex and better still, if they already had enough children, go for a ligation (male or female, up to them).

d. IUD does not prevent fertilisation. It prevents a fertilised egg from implantation on the uterus wall. It literally strangles a developing life to death. You can find out more from our wiki fren.

platypis1900,

You wrote; "That is why I always say if we want to talk about moral issues, we must do it in the context of God, not the country's legal framework."

Have you been talking to God? To justify one's opinions by saying that is what God wants is plain arrogance. I once believed in God. I no longer believe in God, but I never took it upon myself to decide what God wants. The country's legal framework is what determines our actions in most cases. Our conscience may tell us that we should not follow that framework, but it is delusion to say that is what God wants.

I think it is more reasonable to allow the pregnant woman to decide what she wants and to see that gets her abortion in safe conditions if she wants. The World Trade Center is no longer standing possibly because a group of men decided that's what God wanted.

When I was a child and heard the nauseating Abraham and Isaac story I asked my father what he would do if he heard God telling him to sacrifice me. My father told me he would see a psychiatrist.

People who tell me what God wants give me the creeps.

platypus,

"we are talking about life
sanctity of life"

You neglected to reply to my enquiry....is the sanctity of life absolute?

And if it is, why do you call for the death penalty?

@david
i pray to God
He speaks to me through His written Word and also His Spoken Word
My views are formed through the study of the Bible and from discussions with fellow believers who are more diligent and wiser than me.
I never for once will base my moral behaviour based on the legal framework of the country.
That is from an amoral basis...a humanistic and arbitrary approach.
But that does not mean i will not submit to the laws of the land.

Abraham story?
I think you and your father missed the point completely.
Contrary to how you and your father feel, I think that is one of the most moving passages in the scriptures about Abraham's faith in the sovereign God.
We can start a religious thread and discuss this.
Not my intention to do that in this Thread.

WTC? Airing views in this Forum is not WTC right?
No, I do not subscribe to the methods used by militant religious fundamentalist.
As i said, i have my set of beliefs but i will not go burn clinics or stalk or harassed women who wants abortion

I respect (sadly) the fact you have chosen not to believe in God but that does not mean those who chose to believe in God are misled.

@poirot
absolute?
as in no exceptions?
you are not reading my posts carefully
i can think of 2 exceptions

a. when the mother's life is threatened by the fetus' continued growth and there is nothing modern science can do to save the unborn
b. when a man has taken the life of another human with proven (100% without doubt) evidence. The murderer has lost his right to live. That dear poirot, is upholding the sanctity of life. I thought you would have figured that out yourself?

platypus,

That's a bit convenient isn't it?

Either human life is sanctified, or it isn't.

You can't just make it up as you go along to conform to your personal mores.

If there is a sacred principle dictating the "sanctity of human life", then that principle should apply to "all" human life.

From Wiki:

"In religion and ethics, inviolability or sanctity of life is a principle of implied protection regarding aspects of sentient life which are said to be holy, sacred, or otherwise of such value that they are not to be violated.

The concept of inviolability is an important tie between the ethics of religion and the ethics of law, as each seeks justification for its principles as based on both purity and natural concept, as well as in universality of application."

Ah - "...universality of application."

Interesting concept, don't you think?

(One gets a little weary of hypocrisy)

David f, it would be easier just to bang your head against the wall, however the unevolved have the right by the constitution to believe in whatever they like:) Poor runner, still can’t see the overpopulation problems of the world even after all that I’ve high-lighted, OH dear:) Just to refresh your memory dear runner and clan, the world with 7.7 billion people, human climate change, 300 million starving to death as we speak, planet drying out… sped up by our short sightless, religious cults stopping contraception to poor nations, hence the food shortages just mentioned with the starving and growing by the second, and I can go on and on and on as we know:)
“Now the same want to trust is with their dishonest euthanasia arguments. The murdering of the unborn is a national disgrace.”
The disgrace runner, is the fact that religion needs these poor people to validate the singular reason for existing, and that the realists of this world “if they had any guts” to override ancient stupidity and bring the planet under control as quickly and quietly as possible.

David F….some people are certifiable in this world, they really are:)

Planet3

Dear platypus1900,

I didn't claim that those who believe in God are misled. I claimed that it is arrogant to claim you know what God wants and base your actions upon that.

I think I know full well what the story of Abraham and Isaac signifies. It exalts blind obedience without question. It is an ugly story that exalts the morality of the devoted slave who follows the dictates of master without question. I think it better to question and to ask if you are doing the right thing than to commit an atrocity because God told you to do it. Murdering one's son because God told you to do it is an atrocity. Of course the story ends with the son spared. However, later in the Bible Jephthah murders his daughter to fulfill an oath. Both Abraham and Jephthah to my way of thinking were insane or profoundly evil. You see a different meaning to the story. I think it is pathology to kill because God tells one to. You are right. It goes counter to a country's legal framework. It would not be admissible in a court of law as a legitimate reason. One might be found 'not guilty' by reason of insanity and confined to an appropriate institution.

I know this is not the main thrust of the thread, but I feel compelled to protest when people claim they know what God wants rather than give a good reason for their opinions or actions.

For the benefit of those who fail to understand the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was a convert from polytheism to monotheism and the Hebrew text of Genesis 22 it is the elohim {Gods plural] and reflected the culture in human sacrifice current of his time. Abraham was changing his mind to sacrifice in another way, and not in the culture of his countrymen. The sacrifice of infants is an abomination to God.

the usual suspects who misrepresent God and then put themselves in His place. Quite pitiful and pathetic to see humans thinking they know better. The same people who support murdering the unborn then want to display their moral superiority. May God open their owns to their arrogrance.

platypus wrote: "I never for once will base my moral behaviour based on the legal framework of the country.
That is from an amoral basis...a humanistic and arbitrary approach."

The above is also an arrogant statement. If one's morality is not derived from your superstitious mumbojumbo then it is amoral to you. Humanistic morality is based on a respect for other human beings, oneself and the world.

http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/humoral.htm contains some principles of humanist morality.

Non-malificence: Do not harm yourself or other people.
Beneficence: Help yourself and other people.
Autonomy: Allow rational individuals to make free and informed choices.
Justice: Treat people fairly: treat equals equally, unequals unequally.
Utility: Maximize the ratio of benefits to harms for all people.
Fidelity: Keep your promises and agreements
Honesty: Do not lie, defraud, deceive or mislead.
Privacy: Respect personal privacy and confidentiality.

Some humanists disagree with the above. I question the one on justice. Humanists are very concerned with morality. However, we recognise that we cannot depend on outdated principles of a society such as that described in the Bible. That society accepted slavery.

If one has a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Is one morally obligated to kill him oneself, or should one ask the police to do it?

Of course the truth is that Jews and Christians generally have too much good sense to take the Bible seriously unless they want to use it to claim justification for their positions.

If you go to the mentioned site you may see how much humanists are concerned with morality.

runner,

You should stop parading around here as if you're a personal spokesman for "God".

Frankly, you do a terrible job at representing Christ's ethics - displaying for the most part, exactly those qualities which he pleaded against.

@david
thks for the comments
are you a christian?
do you believe in a divine sovereign God of all creation?

what i post here are what i learn from the Bible
i didnt say God speak to me as in an audible voice, of course He can if He wanted to

i am just telling you my convictions, and yes, rather strong convictions

but i will not push it down your throat

@josephus
i certainly hope you are not the josephus of old
i have a copy of "The Works of Josephus" which i refers to constantly

"Do we believe in the sanctity of human life?"

No.

Why should we?

What's sacred about a biological organism?

If one organism is holy - then why not another?
What about ants, germs and apple-trees?

We can still voice our opinions for and against abortion, but not base them on the above ridiculous premise!

Dear platypus 1900,

I am not a Christian and never was. I do not believe in a God or any sort of supernatural beings. Many religious people do not believe in a God either. Buddhists are an example.

At some time in history Christianity like all other religions was invented. There is no reason to think that people were any worse or better before the different religions were invented.

If you were alive 2,000 years ago you might have believed in Odin, Zeus or any of the other gods in fashion at that time. Now it is the fashion for people to believe in the biblical god, Allah, the Hindu gods or one or more of the other gods fashionable at this time. You apparently believe in what it is fashionable to believe in at this time. However, you can no more justify your belief in the biblical god than an ancient Greek could justify a belief in Zeus.

There is no evidence for the belief in Zeus or the biblical God. Belief takes a leap of faith or a lack of questioning. Many if not most people who are born to parents with a particular religious belief merely accept the belief of their parents. That’s possibly the way you became a Christian. I was brought up to believe in god but can no longer do so. Apparently throughout history some people have chosen not to believe in the religion or religions around at the time.

I think almost everybody wants to do what is right and live a moral life. However, the fact that one doesn’t have any religious belief doesn’t mean one is amoral.

I think it is moral to be kind, to act so the world is maybe better for me being here and to question. I think questioning and doubt is a motivation for learning and asking if we are doing the right thing. In general I don’t think faith is a good thing since it can lead us to accept things that aren’t good.

That’s the limit of my posts for the day.

The conflicting value judgements about abortion stem from
the fundamental ambiguity in the status of the fetus.
The status of the fetus is inherently ambiguous: it's
neither self-evidently a human being nor self-evidently
just tissue. If these matters were self evident, there
would be little disagreement about abortion.

On the one hand, the fetus is not a human being in the usual
sense, for it is generally not viable. Indeed, no society
treats the fetus as human. For example, if the mother
miscarries, the fetus is not given a funeral, it is simply
disposed of like any other tissue. On the other hand, the
fetus is not like just any other tissue, such as
discarded nail or hair clippings. The fetus is potentially
a human being, one that might become as alive an unique
as you and me.

The conflicting value judgements about abortion stem from
this fundamental ambiguity in the status of the fetus.

The question is compounded by a related issue, the right of a
woman to control her own body.

Many women feel that a decision about abortion should be
a strictly personal one, and they deeply resent other
people insisting that they should bear a child they do not want
to have.

But here too there are ambigueties. Half the genes in the
fetus were contributed by the father, and although the
woman must bear the child, society may make the father
responsible for the child's support for nearly two decades
thereafter. If the father waives his responsibilities - for
example, by deserting the mother - then of course he has no
further rights in the matter. But if he accepts his
responsibilities and wants the child born - what are his
rights in relation to the mother's right to control her
body?

And, for those who believe that the fetus is human, there's
a third party present: the mother is controlling not only
her own body, but somebody else's potential body and life.

These legal, ethical, and medical complexities, as I stated
earlier will not abate any time soon.

Dear Lexi,

<<it's neither self-evidently a human being nor self-evidently just tissue.>>

But why should it matter? a human being IS a tissue!

Considering one tissue disposable and another sacred is totally irrational. A tissue has no cares or feelings and all tissues, whether we sanctify them or not, end up the same, as star-dust.

The reason we should not murder has nothing to do with tissues, but with the fact that someone else does care (albeit irrationally) about a particular piece of tissue which they call 'their body', thus if we injured that tissue we would cause that other grief, of a kind that we wouldn't want to cause ourselves.

Going a step further, the reason we don't want to cause another grief of a kind that we wouldn't want to bring on ourselves, is that in truth we and that other are the same, we are not different, we are both God, therefore treating another different than how we would like to be treated ourselves draws us further away from God: murder draws us away from God - ultimately there is no other reason for not doing it.

Hi Platypus.

I still have trouble with equating a fertilized egg with a person. Isn't it like equating an oak with an acorn? The plans are there with the building approval, but no construction has taken place.

'Frankly, you do a terrible job at representing Christ's ethics - displaying for the most part, exactly those qualities which he pleaded against. '

would be much more concern to have your endorsement Poirot. Your endorsement of killing the unborn is abhorrent along with others.

platypus1900
"In just 10 years, 1.5m innocent unborn babies are murdered by their parents"
Really! I am sure that if such were the case the the police would have taken their dutiful action to have these dastardly deed doers before the courts and locked away where they can do no more murders.
I think that abortion for abortion sake is wrong but I do not subscribe to the action as bloody murder.
I feel that there are a lot of women out there who have a genuine fear of the actual birth process and want to avoid it. Abortion provides a way out but Murder? Sorry.
Then there is the result of rape or child abuse. Should the woman/girl be further traumatized by giving birth to what she may well see as the "Spawn of the Devil"? Murder you say> Again, Sorry!
Every case has to be tested in the light of common sense, common decency, common morality and above all the common law.
Under the common law the rights of the mother will always be ascendant over the unborn child.
Now if you want to deepen the waters you may bring religion into the argument.
I actually have some truck with your reference to the fertility rate and the relevance of abortion. The more children that are born the higher the rate and the less importation necessary. But murder?

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You for your opinion and as I stated in my
previous post - these ethical and medical and legal
questions will not abate any time soon.

runner,

".....Your endorsement of killing the unborn is abhorrent along with others."

Full of hot air as usual.

Please direct me to anywhere on this thread where I have endorsed anything?

Dear david f,

>>When I was a child and heard the nauseating Abraham and Isaac story I asked my father what he would do if he heard God telling him to sacrifice me. My father told me he would see a psychiatrist.<<

I remember you saying this a couple of times, and it is well put. I never asked my father that question, only asked what it was supposed to mean. He said something like these things should not be told children. I later found out that there were many shocking passages in the Bible (especially in the Old Testament/Tanakh, if I may) but this one is particularly unsuitable for a child’s mind.

At about the same age (12?) we had an old physics teacher who argued strongly against Einstein’s relativity theory. When I asked my father his opinion, he reacted similarly: Einstein’s relativity theory is not something that can be grasped - including the arguments for and against - by a twelve years old.

My father was not a biblical scholar, and he most certainly did not understand Einstein’s theory (he was a lawyer). But he apparently understood what was and what was not appropriate for a twelve years old.

Lexi,

What a clear analysis of the complexities of the problem!

I wonder if the “right of a woman to control her own body” is not somehow like the obsolete “right of the breadwinner to control the financial situation - and other matters - of his family”. This other “right” was not only superseded by the fact that today both man and woman can become “breadwinners”, but it was also wrong for more principal reasons, even though seen only retrospectively.

Of course, there is a difference: the “right of the breadwinner” to determine what happens to his wife and family, was dictated by the social system and economy, whereas the “right of the woman” to determine what happens to her body is dictated by biology.

In the first case, the circumstances have been superseded. I wonder whether we are not approaching a situation - well, probabIy in the far future, I am not a biologist - where a man and a woman (or perhaps two women) will bring their genetic material to an institute housing laboratories as well as artificial wombs, and then in nine months (or less) return to pick up their baby. That would mean the final divorce of sex and its reproductive function.

Of course, this is just a speculation that probably goes against some fundamental laws of biology.

@david

One thing at a time.

Yes, you can choose not to believe in God.

I would rather see you believing in God though, but I can respect your decision.

If you do not believe in God, you can still have morals, not amoral.

What I am saying is from a humanistic point of view, morals to a person who does not believe in God can at best be relative… there is no absolute.

Take Roe vs Wade for eg.

Take the American laws on gay marriage for eg.

It changes.

Politicians and lawmakers move along with time and demands of the people.

What is considered immoral will in time be ok.

Just look at some members here.
They are dead against ending the life of a convicted murderer but when asked if it is ok to kill an innocent unborn, they hesitate.
Have I proven myself that with reference to God, morals means different things to different people at different times.

There is a comment here that says killing an unborn child is not murder because the law says so.

I am accused of being hypocritical but sometimes I wonder who is being hypocritical about the whole matter?

Can I suggest you listen to Ravi Zacharias on this matter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyKR6IQBDGg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDfJsYgGZMU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf1SPPHDlfc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIx_TUKNgF8

The last one is applicable to many of your questions…go to 7:00 and listen

It was expected that abortion would be safe, legal and uncommon. The expectation of society was also that abortion would rarely be late term.

However there appear to be far more abortions than predicted. It is not known how many are late term, or for what reasons.

Unlike almost every other medical procedure, where science and the need for accountability dictate that statistics be kept and analysed, there does not seem to be the same concern to gather data and report where terminations of pregnancy are concerned. In fact the opposite appears to be the case and the lobbying is coming from outside of the medical profession, but why?

While society is led to believe that many terminations are for vulnerable young women -who presumably don't know enough to take due care- the evidence points to an early reduction in such unplanned pregnancies years ago and the number has stayed low.

It seems that the bulk of terminations are for women who are in their best childbearing and child raising years - their twenties to early thirties. Why this is apparently so and why the overall number is so high (and growing?), require study.

It is also known from government reports that regrettably young couples are putting off having children for financial reasons and secondly, that they do not then go on to have the number of children they wanted.

In turn this could indicate more fundamental problems affecting society, for example that the casualisation of employment that has paralleled the increased participation of women in the workplace and the rising unemployment that accompanies it, is acting against women being able to have the children they want and when.

What if overzealous immigration is ramping up house prices and that, together with the loss of permanent work mean that young couples cannot plan for the families they want? It is hard to commit where employment is risky.

There have to be very compelling reasons why young women at the height of their physical and mental powers in their twenties and early thirties are having so many terminations.

Dear platypus1900,

There is no absolute morality. The God of the Bible changes from time to time. The Jewish Bible requires certain dietary habits which the Christians do not follow. The God of the Koran you really should make the trip to Mecca. The God of Jews and Christians doesn't require you to make that trip.

You have just chosen to call absolute the morality prescribed by a particular religion. It is no more absolute than any other morality.

It is just a morality of a particular group of human beings who follow a particular religion generally because they were born into it.

Humanist morality is a morality determined by questioning and examining. It think it much better than following the morality of another people living two thousand years ago in different circumstances from that of our world.

The Bible does not condemn slavery. It accepts it as a fact of life. I don't think it condemns abortion either. If I am wrong in that possibly you can cite the passage where the Bible condemns abortion.

however, I think it better not to follow a book collecting the writings of superstitious people a long time ago.

There are other sacred books besides the Bible. There are the Upanishads of the Hindus, the Tripitaka of the Buddhists and the Koran of the Muslims. Religious people in those areas follow those books.

They may claim that the morality derived from those books is absolute. It is no more absolute than the morality you call absolute.

Circumstances change. In the Bible people are told to "be fruitful and multiply." We live in a world today where we are in trouble because our population is increasing beyond the capacity of the world to sustain. No species, human or not, can increase indefinitely. A human population grown beyond reasonable bounds will be reduced by famine, pestilence and war unless we control our population by more reasonable means. "Be fruitful and multiply" is bad advice in the current world. In the current world we should not follow the Bible where it is no longer applicable.

platypus,

Regarding your comment:

"What I am saying is from a humanistic point of view, morals to a person who does not believe in God can at best be relative… there is no absolute."

Where is your God-influenced "absolute" when you pronounce:

"this bloke should have been shot or hanged"

So it seems that even though you profess to believe in God, your own ideas on the sanctity of life are "relative".

While I have serious reservations about the need for many abortions, because of availability of contraception, I agree that women have the right over their bodies.

How ever it seems the government needs to rule about late term abortions and put a time on that procedure. If medicine can now save a premature baby's life at say, 24 weeks, that should be an absolute limit for induced abortion. Say 20 weeks max, after which it is an illegal procedure.

Want others views on this.

Dear platypus1900,

One of the good things about humanist morality is that is not eternal and unchanging. It deals with the world as it is.

Actually religious morality is the same. Although it claims to be eternal it changes with the times. It just takes a while longer to change. It is also not absolute. You support capital punishment. Other Christians are against it. If Christian morality were absolute all Christians would be like-minded.

In nineteenth century US before the Civil War the Southern Baptists split off from the other Baptists. They supported slavery and justified it from the Bible. Other Christians such as William Wilberforce and John Brown were very opposed to slavery. During the Civil Rights era when black people in the US were struggling to get equal treatment and eliminate segregation most Southern Baptists supported segregation. Now that most of the racist laws in the US have been eliminated Southern Baptists mainly accept that. Their eternal morality has been changed to accept the current situation.

Humanist morality is more straightforward in claiming to be neither absolute nor eternal. Some humanists claim there can be an objective morality. I don’t.

Dear Banjo,

I think a woman should not be forced to carry on an unwanted pregnancy at any stage. A 24 week old fetus may be kept alive. However, most will be defective children due to early termination of pregnancy.

Dear George,

As a child I was given the Bible unvarnished without cutesy pix of animals going into the ark 2X2. You are right. A lot of the Bible is not fit for children. I don’t think the nauseous Abraham/Isaac story is fit for adults either.

Religion operates on different levels. A friend was a pastor at a Lutheran church. He told me of the sophisticated discussions at St. Olaf’s Seminary where they questioned the origin of the Bible, the historical reality of Jesus and many other contentious subjects. I asked him if he discussed these matters with his parishioners. He said he didn’t want to disturb their simple faith. That kind of religion exalts ignorance and stupidity.

@banjo
hi...life begins at conception
any abortion at any time is murder
let us not go down that slippery path

@poirot
when a life is taken in cold murder, the murderer deserves to die
isnt that simple?
i would have thought you can figure that out yourself... of course you need not subscribe to my convictions

now, you are not responding to me on abortion
you fought tooth and nail for the preservation of the life of a convicted murderer but will not stand up for the innocent life of an unborn

@onthebeach
i do not see a single sentence in your entire post about the life of the unborn
to you, it is a convenient mass of cells
how convenient to a young woman's lifestyle...economic situation etc etc
if she is not married, she has no business having unprotected sex in the first place
if she is married, one child is not one child too much...not in australia where the society will help you support the child
if you are married and have enough children, go for more permanent protection

i believe God will hold us all accountable as a country on the way we kill our unborn

@david
i missed the portion on the Olaff's
to a comment like that, i can cite you just as many serious theologians who continues to ask, to search in humility
if they are what your friends portrayed to you, or you portrayed his words to your convenience, they are not a humble lot then

ignorant and stupid?
that is your view of believers in God
how sad
i assure you Christians take their faith seriously
they do study the Word themselves and do not swallow everything the pastor teaches
they are good Bereans

God's ways are not our ways
How in the world can a 4D creature like us fathom the ways and the mind of the dimensionless eternal God?

David, if you are serious about such matters, go youtube some of the teachings and explanations by the finest theologians of our day.

a. John Macarthur
b. John Piper
c. Ravi Zacharias just to name a few

Let us stay on the topic under discussion... the murder of the unborn child by its mother.
yes murder (not a colored word..it is the right word)
killing with premeditated intention is MURDER
it is legal but that does not make it morally right, not in the eyes of God.

George,

Your post to david f reminds me of the hypnotic bait and switch tactic.

In your first paragraph, you mention the Abraham and Isaac story’s unsuitability for children by rightly referring to it as “shocking”:

<<He said something like these things should not be told children. I later found out that there were many shocking passages in the Bible… but this one is particularly unsuitable for a child’s mind.>>

But then you go straight on to talk about a child’s ability or inability to understand the meaning of the story - without the slightest hint of a transition statement - as if it had anything to do with the shockingness of it:

<<…we had an old physics teacher who argued strongly against Einstein’s relativity theory. When I asked my father his opinion, he reacted similarly: Einstein’s relativity theory is not something that can be grasped - including the arguments for and against - by a twelve years old.>>

Furthermore, this is a false analogy fallacy on two levels: firstly, the shockingness (or immorality, as david f was actually referring to) of the Abraham and Isaac story isn’t negated by an adult understanding of it, as misunderstandings Einstein’s theory of relativity would be when one becomes educated in the relevant fields; secondly, shockingness is a reason why one must not tell the story of Abraham and Isaac to a child, whereas there is no reason why one must not try to explain the theory of relativity to a child.

Anyway, whether or not the story of Abraham and Isaac should be told to children is irrelevant. The problem is that it is a story of astonishing immorality. It doesn’t matter that God knew he would stop Abraham (especially when one also considers the story of Jephthah, but I digress). The bottom line is that Abraham was willing to obey and felt that it was his moral obligation to do so just because God asked it of him. In Abraham’s mind, it was within the moral character of God to ask of such a thing.

platypus1900,

What you missed in my reply is concern that, through some foolhardy, short-sighted, politically convenient government policies:

- young women are delaying pregnancy past their intended time, the best years for them to have and raise their children;

- delays that disadvantage and harm them in various ways including not having the children they wanted, having a higher likelihood (age of mother) of birth and foetus problems and adding to costs of health care; and

- fragmented government policy contributes to much higher than expected (or reasonable) number of terminations because young couples are continually beset by unanticipated changes that de-stabilise and challenge their employment status and financial viability.

That is a bit garbled, nonetheless it should underline the urgent need to research the reasons for terminations and age groups affected.

I do not oppose abortion, but I am concerned that government policy and lack of planning are increasing the number and seriously so. While the war between the pros and antis dominates the debate, social changes are being wrought that are disadvantaging young couple now and will continue to do so in the future.

To be blunt, government is continually putting young couples in the sad situation where they must abort, even where the pregnancy was planned.

Dear platypus1900,

You wrote: i believe God will hold us all accountable as a country on the way we kill our unborn,

Can you cite any verifiable evidence of God holding anybody accountable for anything?

The above is group guilt. By that standard you are also guilty because you live in this country. That is an obnoxious idea – guilt not for what you have done, but because you belong to a group.

During WW2 my cousin farewelled her boy friend who was going overseas. Shortly after she found she was pregnant. Her boy friend was killed in action shortly after he left. She committed suicide and was a beautiful corpse.

If she had had access to abortion there would have been one life lost rather than two. I am glad that women in her situation now have that access.

I am against capital punishment for murder. It is merely the state killing a human being. The Nazis committed mass murder. After the war the victors brought the vanquished to trial and hung some of them. It brought none of the victims back to life. The victors had also committed crimes. The Katyn massacre had been carried out by the Soviet. The bombing of Nagasaki (One might find justification for Hiroshima.) and Dresden had been carried out by the Americans and English. Victors don’t get tried for war crimes. That points out one thing that is wrong with the death penalty. I don’t think it can be applied fairly. If one is a victor in war, rich, belong to a favoured group etc. the chance of receiving the death penalty is less than one who doesn’t belong to such a group. My sense of morality tells me the death penalty is immoral. I was a juror in a murder trial. I voted to find the man guilty since the evidence showed it. The death penalty was not at issue. I feel if I had been subjected to the same pressures that he had I would have done the same thing.

platypus,

"when a life is taken in cold murder, the murderer deserves to die
isnt that simple?"

So - your conviction of "the sanctity of life" is not absolute - nor applied universally.

Okay....

platypus,

"you fought tooth and nail for the preservation of the life of a convicted murderer but will not stand up for the innocent life of an unborn"

Where did I fight "tooth and nail"?

I'm more interested in your "relative" convictions.

Is the "sanctity of life" a God-given absolute?

If it is, you appear to be ignoring it when it suits your argument.

Dear platypus1900,

You wrote: “ignorant and stupid?
that is your view of believers in God
how sad
i assure you Christians take their faith seriously
they do study the Word themselves and do not swallow everything the pastor teaches
they are good Bereans”

That is not my view of believers in God. I have read the works of some believers such as Saint Augustine’s ‘Confessions’ and found his reflections on time and space sublime and thought provoking.

I was referring to the pastor’s attitude. He had sophisticated discussions at his theological seminary yet he would not bring these discussions to his congregation. He was the one who thought they were too stupid to discuss these matters not I. He was the one who said he would not want to disturb ‘their simple faith.’ He was the one who would keep them ignorant and stupid by wrapping them in cotton wool and keeping questions away from them..

Apparently he was struggling with his own faith since he later gave up the religion. He now heads a non-religious humanitarian organisation.

I don’t think it is a good generalisation to say Christians take their faith seriously. I am sure some do. I am also sure some merely go through the motions, and others take the faith for social reasons. I knew a woman who joined a church because the minister was the best-looking man in town.

I ask you again: Can you cite any verifiable evidence of God holding anybody accountable for anything?

@david
you must know when i said christians being serious, i meant it as a general statement
it takes one bad apple to demolish my position isnt it?

let us not look at the world
start with you
God holds you accountable for your sins.
Of course if you do not believe in God, then discussion ends.
But from God's point of view, you are still accountable.
You can read Romans 1.

blessings

Dear platypus1900'

I see no need to believe in anything. If there is evidence for the existence of an entity I will accept that it exists. I gave up the idea of God when I found no evidence to substantiate the existence of such an entity. One of the problems with religious or other belief is that it doesn't depend on evidence. Faith is regarded as a virtue in the Bible. I think doubt is a much more worthy attitude.

That is why I question your statement: i believe God will hold us all accountable as a country on the way we kill our unborn,

Can you cite any verifiable evidence of God holding anybody accountable for anything? If not I see no reason to accept your statement.

@david

your parents gave you the best name ever
david is the 'man after God's heart"
he is the apple of God's heart

wow

listen to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZoRfhyW-vk

may you live up to your name

shalom

Dear platypus1900,

The speaker was obviously bothered by atheists. However, God remains a human invention. You can choose to believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus and Mickey Mouse. Many children do. I prefer not to accept something for which there is no proof only belief.

There is no proof for the existence of God, angels, devils, demons, Zeus, Apollo, Superman, Odin or any of the other figments of human imagination.

Unfortunately, both Christianity and Islam are missionary religions. As such they bug people who don't believe they do. I don't mind if you believe in God. Believe what you will. That is your business. It doesn't go the other way. You apparently are bothered that I don't believe in God. I haven't tried to persuade you of anything. I would appreciate you not trying that missionary business on me. Don't you think I have thought out my position? I will be 88 in a couple of months.

However, if you want to read something you can read "God is a Human Invention".

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10065 will get it. I wrote it, and I don't appreciate being bugged. Believe what you believe and let others believe what they will believe.

You wrote that you respect my position. If you did you wouldn't try to push your beliefs on me. Frankly I don't respect your position because I think it is nonsense. However, I think you have a right to believe what you will even though I think it is nonsense. Please treat me the same.

Dear platypus1900,

The answer to atheism is not polemics, Bible bashing or burning people at the stake although burning at the stake has been tried many times and always works to shut people up. The only answer to atheism is proof that there is a God.

There is no such proof so you will just have to live with us atheists unless you decide as many have done before to murder us.

david f,

Part of your earlier post at 1.42pm today, at page 9 of this thread, is troubling:

> My sense of morality tells me the death penalty is immoral. I was a juror in a murder trial. I voted to find the man guilty since the evidence showed it. The death penalty was not at issue. I feel if I had been subjected to the same pressures that he had I would have done the same thing.<

Do you really mean that, although you are against capital punishment, if subjected to sufficient pressure you would commit murder? (And feel justified doing so?)

I find this very hard to believe.

As for the general discussion, abortion, I am not keen on it, but accept the right of women to self-determination in this matter, and in general, but feel that late-term abortion should only be approved where life or health (of mother or foetus) is at risk.
My greatest concern with the availability of abortion is that it should not promote unfettered promiscuity or a reckless attitude towards conception - for, to me, this would represent an unsavoury attitude towards sex and human relationships, and inappropriate to societal responsibility.
Though I would not subscribe to the withholding of abortion to a multiple 'offender', I would suggest that some 'education' ought be mandatory in such instances.
However, I see abortion as a better option than having young single women struggling with ever-increasing offspring for whom they may offer only poor lifetime prospects.
TBC>

Cont'd:
Sanctity of life is an important moral tenet, and, though we may make exception when it comes to abortion, under suitable circumstances, there can be no exception when it comes to the willing and conscious murder of a living, breathing human being.
Those who seek to conflate these two distinct situations are at best dishonest and at worst being ratbags.
It is this sanctity which warrants an eye-for-an-eye in many murder cases (though not all), and use of the abortion debate to justify not applying capital punishment to convicted cold-blooded murderers is a heinous abuse of moral judgement.

csteele,

Blaming God for miscarriages is a weird attitude for anyone, let alone for such as yourself.

Saltpetre wrote; "Do you really mean that, although you are against capital punishment, if subjected to sufficient pressure you would commit murder? (And feel justified doing so?)"

At the trial I listened to the story of the circumstances leading up to the murder. Although one cannot know for sure what one would do in a hypothetical situation I felt that I would have behaved in the same way as the murderer if I had been in his situation. Whether I would have felt justified or not is another matter.

I don't think anyone can be sure what they would do in an extreme situation. I hope I would not have behaved as he did, and, as I haven't been subjected to those circumstances, I cannot be sure that I would. However, I think I probably would have.

I can be happy that I haven't been in his position.

Dear Davidf,

Please don't try to live up to your namesake as that would entail you lusting after and seducing another man's wife (particularly if you see her bathing on the roof). Then having her husband killed to claim her.

Although if she were particularly beautiful... God might forgive you.

Dear david f,

>Religion operates on different levels. A … pastor … told me of the sophisticated discussions … where they questioned the origin of the Bible … and many other contentious subjects. I asked him if he discussed these matters with his parishioners. He said he didn’t want to disturb their simple faith. That kind of religion exalts ignorance and stupidity.<<

I think many things "operate on different levels". Especially, where one has to distinguish carefully between instructions, popular explanations on one hand, and discussions, including constructive criticism, between specialists on the other. This is true about, philosophy, mathematics, physics etc. And it is especially true about religion, where those siting in the pews do not expect their pastor to read them a research paper as he would - provided he was a professional exegete, philosopher, theologian, etc - to his peers.

I never taught mathematics at secondary level, but if I had to, I certainly would not have had much success had I tried to talk to them on the same level as one does to fourth year university students of mathematics.

AJ Philips,

I agreed with david f that the Abraham/Isaac story was not suitable for children. David f added that it was not fit for adults either. I agree to the extent that it is not fit for SOME adults, and your post - if I understand it properly - testifies that you are one of them. [Nevertheless, there are others, millions of Christians and religious Jews (and Muslims), who perhaps also cannot accept/understand the point of the story, but do not see this as an obstacle to their respective religious affiliations.]

Also, there is a difference between whether one tries to "explain relativity theory" to a child or whether one asks the child to understand arguments for and against it. The same as there is a difference between whether one tries to explain the meaning behind the Bible stories to a child or whether one engages the child in scholarly arguments about the validity of this or that exegesis, interpretation of ancient text.

For the benefit of those who fail to understand the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was a convert from polytheism to monotheism and the Hebrew text of Genesis 22 it is the plural elohim {Gods] and reflected the culture in human sacrifice current of his time. Abraham was changing his mind to sacrifice in another way, and not in the culture of his countrymen. The sacrifice of infants is an abomination to God.
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 12:14:26 PM

Dear George,

I have no argument with you. You have not come after me like a missionary. You don't seem disturbed by the fact that I do not share your faith and beliefs. You don't seem to have the hope that, if I read something compelling, my views will shift.

You are a civilised person who seems aware that we don't all share the same views. You seem secure in your faith and do not seem to be bothered by the fact I don't share it.

I find platypus1900's missionising obnoxious and offensive. I have found none of your posts obnoxious and offensive.

People do have religious beliefs at different levels. However, my friend, he is still my friend, the Lutheran pastor did not seem to accept that some members of his congregation might be able to discuss religious matters on his level. He was treating adults as though they were children.

I feel platypus1900 was basically contemptuous of me. If she could only expose me to the right evangelist my atheism would be cured. I don't have a disease. I do not believe in a human invention for which there is no evidence. My feelings in that matter are the product of a lifetime of reflection which are not to be changed by some trivial argument. You do believe, and I think it is a sincere belief. I would not try to sway you from your beliefs. It gives meaning to your life, and I would not take that away from you even if I could. platypus1900 is not so respectful.

Of course platypus1900 would deny that she (I think platypus1900 is female) is contemptuous of me and claims that she respects my views. However, I still find her missionising obnoxious and offensive.

Few opinions expressed about late abortions.

Maybe the question is just too difficult?

Dear david f,

Thank you for the kind words.

>> You seem secure in your faith and do not seem to be bothered by the fact I don't share it.<<

There are people subscribing to all to sorts of worldviews (whether or not related to a faith) who are secure in their convictions, and those who are not. For those of the second kind a remark somebody posted on this OLO is apt: if they are theists they are afraid “what of if God did NOT exist after all”, and those who are (or became) atheists are afraid “what if God DID exist after all”. [I suppose we shall know for sure, one way or another, during the few moments just before our brains completely stop functioning.]

I agree that somebody thus insecure trying to convince others about his/her basic worldview convictions can be “obnoxious and offensive”. Though I would not use those words, if you follow my contributions here you will have noticed that I also encounter people whom I could thus describe. I prefer to think that it is their insecurity that dictates their “my truth is truer than your truth” attitude.

As for people of the other, “secure” kind, see my recent post to Banjo Patterson in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257#265736.

I forgot to paste this:

I was once asked by a priest to write something apologetic about “our faith”. I answered that all I can tell another person is “Come and look at my (life) equations. They obviously admit a trivial solution but if you look carefully, you will see, as i do, that they admit also other solutions. I don’t know your equations, only you can know them. But maybe they, like mine, also admit other than trivial solutions.” This, of course builds on the double meaning of “trivial”.

"Few opinions expressed about late abortions.

Maybe the question is just too difficult?

No, the question has been noticed, however no-one wants to put a time frame on what constitutes active life concerning brain activity in the developing foetus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJIKe9eJLh4&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4uEZGY6iy0&feature=player_detailpage

While this plays on the minds from both sides, our human impacts to the quality of the unborns life is far more important.

Question.."when our children leave school...where are they going to go?....Just look around the world at the moment and what do you see.

My opinion, if I knew ahead of time before being born, I would at least hope my parents factor in my whole life and the quality of it.

The 300 million starving might disagree about their quality of life, what do you think.

Planet3

Dear csteele,

I posted this to the wrong thread.

Considering King David I consulted the Bible and found:

Kings 1 1:1 Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat. 1:2 Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat. 1:3 So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. 1:4 And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.

I will be 88 on October 31. I certainly would like to get heat from a young virgin. Unfortunately I would have to seek one out. The Queensland police would probably be after me if I advertised for her. My wife would probably object to her joining us in bed. My carnal capacity is pretty limited so I don’t think I would be able to know her, but it’s a nice thought. However, if any young virgins see this and are interested in giving heat to an old man I can be reached. Just send an email to Graham Young and ask him to forward it to me. I shall await with worms in my mouth (baited breath).

Dear platypus1900: I ask you again: Can you cite any verifiable evidence of God holding anybody accountable for anything?

If not will you reconsider your statement: i believe God will hold us all accountable as a country on the way we kill our unborn,

One problem with religious belief of what I think is your type is that you never really examine your statements or positions. Your statement above is clearly without any substance, but I doubt that you will think about it. What will God do? Will he send a tsunami to Australia or make Tony Abbott PM?

@david
you tell me first
can you find evidence there is no God?

playtpus,

If you can show me "evidence" that entire universe isn't contained in the small intestine of a gargantuan turtle.

God is a matter of "faith" - not evidence.

George,

<<I agreed with david f that the Abraham/Isaac story was not suitable for children.>>

No, you didn’t. Not in the post that I was responding to, because up until that point, david f had said nothing about the suitability of the story for children. You had extracted that meaning from what he was saying and then responded to it (commonly referred to as the “strawman”) in order to soften the shock value and immorality of the story. Simply read what you had quoted of him and compare it to your response.

<<I agree to the extent that it is not fit for SOME adults, and your post - if I understand it properly - testifies that you are one of them.>>

You seem to think that being de-sensitised to the thought of such horrible acts is a good thing. Dulling the conscience is not a good thing.

<<Nevertheless, there are others, millions of Christians and religious Jews (and Muslims), who perhaps also cannot accept/understand the point of the story, but do not see this as an obstacle to their respective religious affiliations.>>

I’m not sure why you’re suggesting that I don’t understand the story. Firstly, we established a few months ago that I do (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5580#153706); secondly, as I said before, it doesn’t negate the immorality of the story - which reduces it to nothing more than a message endorsing blind obedience.

<<…there is a difference between whether one tries to "explain relativity theory" to a child or whether one asks the child to understand arguments for and against it. The same as there is a difference between whether one tries to explain the meaning behind the Bible stories to a child or whether one engages the child in scholarly arguments about the validity of this or that exegesis, interpretation of ancient text.>>

Sure. But that has nothing to do with the problems that I pointed out in your other post.

Continued…

…Continued

<<…if they are theists they are afraid “what of if God did NOT exist after all”, and those who are (or became) atheists are afraid “what if God DID exist after all”.>>

Whoever said that was wrong.

As someone who was a little evangelical about their Christian beliefs, I can safely say that evangelism comes not from insecurity, but from a genuine concern about the souls of others (it’s possible there are exceptions to that though). And so they SHOULD be concerned, too, given what they believe. I would be concerned about any theist who is willing to just sit by, arms folded, and not care about others missing out on what they think they’re going to get after death.

As for what this anonymous person said about louder atheists, that’s not just incorrect, but utterly absurd, for three reasons:

-firstly, if an atheist was really that concerned about what might happen if a god did exist, then they would just start believing in some nondescript god, at the very least (as I have mentioned to you several times before, unlike with theism, there is no emotional reason to cling to disbelief);

-secondly, most atheists understand that if a god did exist, then it would be more pleased that they put to use the scepticism that it had endowed them rather than being so recklessly gullible (which would surely be a sin, if that God accepted the notion of sin, that is);

-thirdly, most atheists also understand that if a god did exist, then it certainly wouldn’t be the Abrahamic God (as it is possible to demonstrate that that God does not exist) and thus we’re all in the same boat anyway (unless, of course, that god abhors gullibility or prefers a more neutral atheism over worshipping false gods - in which case, atheists are safer (it’s what I call the ‘Atheists Wager’)).

Dear Banjo,

<<Few opinions expressed about late abortions. Maybe the question is just too difficult?>>

It is a continuum. The degree of sin increases with the development of the baby. Nothing particularly drastic occurs when a foetus grows for an exact number of weeks or when it is born and starts breathing (unless you believe in astrology...).

Murder is sinful (e.g. removes you away from God) because by taking away another's body you cause suffering to that other which you wouldn't want inflicted on yourself. That suffering includes physical pain, the thwarting of the other's plans and ambitions and the loss of their education, hence it increases as they grow, become more aware of their body, develop more plans and ambitions and invest more in their education.

Taking the life of an early-stage foetus is comparable perhaps to killing a mosquito or a beetle, taking the life of a late-stage foetus is comparable perhaps to taking the life of a carp, while taking the life of a 1-day-old baby is comparable perhaps to taking the life of a sheep or a cow.

Now you face the consequences - how much do you love God, to what degree are you willing to forego your instincts and worldly desires in order to come close to Him and be good.

Dear Platypus,

<<can you find evidence there is no God?>>

Of course not - there is nothing but God, so how could one ever step out to find such evidence?

However, 'existence' is a relatively modern idea - it did not concern the ancients, it is a material/scientific concept rather than a religious one. The idea as if God exists is an error, because it leads to a logical contradiction: everything that exists is limited while God is not. In the least, everything that exists cannot unexist, so what kind of a god is thus limited? limited gods are not God but mere idols, so we should have no interest in them nor worship them.

its likely out of context
but noted..it regardless

dear david..quote..<<..but the king knew her not.>>

this is a key point..she was still a virgin.
thus a 'new' one was utilized..just to warm up..one we could loose

[ie a test/clean sheet..if you will
so..*any wrong 'doing'..would be easily detectable/provable..ie a test

...after warming the old mans heart..
giving him..*memories of his better younger days..
both helped..the other..as things should be..

[in a perfect world]..the old and the young..
would share common area's..where one teaches..the other learns
thus we dont loose the old..as they loose the will..feeling the chill

in this day and age
what your referring to..is called ..having a suger daddy
or become the guru..via teaching your life skills

build it they will come
in their own time..own way..if only in a dream

According the Christian theology, rampant pregnancy and abortion is a good thing. Souls, that would have otherwise never existed, are being created and sent straight to heaven, without the chance of eternal damnation (or nothingness, for those who prefer that interpretation).

The positive results exceed the breaking of any perceived rules.

I could imagine God would be like the proud grandparent of a child that was born to their teenage daughter - initially disappointed, but ultimately glad that it happened, and wouldn't change things for the world.

@yu
i believe there is one God
the Almighty God who created the heavens and the earth
the Triune God who is One.
that the 2nd person of the Godhead who came to die for my sins...and the sins of homosexuals too.

@OUG
how come no one has issues with Gandhi getting young girls to sleep with him (naked i was told) so he can prove to the world he is beyond lusts of the flesh??

so much abrianic thinking..[jesus refutes eye for eye
turn cheek..70 times 70 times

csteele,<<..Those who seek to conflate..these two distinct situations are at best dishonest..and at worst being ratbags.>>..[retained for context

<<..It is this sanctity which warrants an eye-for-an-eye in many murder cases (though not all), and use of the abortion debate to justify not applying capital punishment to convicted cold-blooded murderers is a heinous abuse of moral judgment.>>

firstly..death..isnt dead
thus any murder is technically void..
BUT..as yu has pointed out there is intention..

and those killing..must not be exposed..
to the benefits availed..'the departed'..in the next life
and they are many..

see

anyhow the first link..is here..[gone wast]
[the best exposure..of after life][and of our ongoing redemption]

http://new-birth.net/booklet/Gone_West.pdf

the others like ..*"the officer"
http://new-birth.net/booklet/Subaltern_Spirit_Land.pdf

''30 years among the dead ''
http://new-birth.net/booklet/30_years_among_the_dead.PDF

[i recommend for you..the last one
its a science text

it proves some of the 'powrers'..of the dead
PROVES..you cant end vile..via killing....it only gives them universal ability to..reap worse evil..[via possession]..[dont laugh till you read it

[in fact the egyptians got it right..
keep the vile attached to their rotted corpse..]
as proved in gone west/see the drugged [dead by overdose]..the 'sleepers'..that validates uses..the ego attachment..to body..to keep the dirt from doing more vile

think of the coma sleepers..currently held in stasis..by machines

anyhow
any death
insults the life sustaining god
no death honors..the living good

murdering the youth..emerges them into hell
see the officer..[they must CHOSE..to reject vile
thus sit between..heaven/hell..being taught..but free to leave..up or down

we must not think taking the drunks car[body]
fixes the drive to drink..

killing anything IS wrong..
[it insults..our own life gift]

[but we been here before..

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=0#265736
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2909&page=0#66836

but heck
we all got eternity*

so whats the rush

Dear platypus1900,

If an old geezer like me, Gandhi or King David can get a young woman to sleep with him that is great. However, I would much prefer an experienced young woman to a virgin. That would make it better.

There is no more evidence for the non-existence of God than for the non-existence of Zeus, Apollo, tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Mr. Pick (That was my cousin’s imaginary friend when he was a child) or the other creations of human imagination. However, the existence of God seems to me no more reasonable than the existence of those other imaginary entities.

I repeat my question to you. You wrote: i believe God will hold us all accountable as a country on the way we kill our unborn,

Your statement above is clearly without any substance, but I doubt that you will think about it. What will God do? How will you know when he does it?

Until you give some evidence of thought or answer my repeated question I will not respond to you further.

@david

have a good day

Dear platypus1900,

Thanks. That post is much better. May you also have a good day.

platypus1900..ghandi did whatever ghandi did..
via the morality..in his time's

see how humanity has evolved..from..in abraham's time..

from him..getting the revelation..of NOT KILLING..his only begotten son..to killing a scapegoat..through to thou shall NOT MURDER..[ie not thou shalt not kill]

[that abrahamic evolution..at least stopped that murder..
then..demanded by his multiple theos detritus]..

n other words peer pressure insanity..of that time
just ass jesus fought..in his time..

[ie the miracle on the mount..wasnt about feeding..
but about how fixation of belief..ie based..upon the creed of that time..THAT DEMANDED..clean hands..BEFORE eating

[recall the handwash jars/shew bread
hanwash jars at the canna wedding]

the abrahamic scape goat deciete..was repeated sadly
..in the lie 'jesus died*..for our sins'..
scape goating wasnt what jesus came to reveal..
nor turn filthy handwash water into the best wine

[that was done by his slaves
not wanting..the master to loose face
[ps on slaves..forgetting morality..how else to pay back debt?]

jesus didnt come to do miracles/scape goating
in fact he refuted it most comprehensively..[let the tares live with the wheat..till harvest..[ie mortal death]..

dont judge
lest we be judged of the same insane measure
and so muchmore..as humanity..*evolved..[the only truelly valid evolution[that of spirit]..we all began as lower life..in time wee came to command our flesh/blood body..the next incarnation from here is..as demon..or angel

and killing any..opens that door
YOU KNOW ALL life is sacred..there but for the grace of god go we

you should try to read gone-west
it explains..where the unborn go to..[nursery schools.ithinkits the 3rd school they visit..described as mere specks]

you are right..life begins at the grey streak stage
and much spontaneously self aborts..

[eg in the officer..he begins his next rebirth..
but escapes the womb..to redeem..himself most thoughtfully

its a great read
but remember..ALL LIFE IS SACRED*

you are correct..in what you try to do..
but remember..mums feel trauma too..[especially mums]

All religion is about sex.
Either lots of it or none of it at all.
All children are the result of sex
therefore kill the sex not the unborn child.
Remember when it was a crime to have sex with a person under 16 years of age. Now schools have cribs for pregnant girls and unmarried schoolgirl mothers and the government pays for them.
Funny world isn't it?

Dear Chris,

<<All religion is about sex.>>

Religion is about God.

Having sex or not having it, or having it in certain circumstances and not in others, can at times be used as a religious technique - a practice which may help to lead us towards God. Please do not, however, confuse the means with the end.

Dear Yuyutsu,

God is only a belief in some religions not in others. Your view of religion is limited. Buddhism is a religion which does not assume any God. Religion is a very varied phenomenon. You would limit it to your narrow definition. Tribal people may see spirits in rocks and trees. That is also religion. Monotheism is only one of many forms of religion. Emile Durkheim wrote "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life" which is mainly a study of the religions of various Aboriginal peoples in Australia. Sacredness, the soul, spirits and gods, asceticism, communion and mourning are some of the elements in religion which may or may not exist in a particular religion. People who have not studied religion tend to define religion in terms of the religion with which they are familiar. If they are familiar with a monotheistic religion they tend to equate lack of belief in a God with irreligion. Religions are tremendously varied, and seeing religion as only about God excludes many religions.

Dear david f,

Somebody said that there were 300 different definitions of religion. I myself know a few. I often referred to Geertz’s anthropological definition (see e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816&page=0#124645).

Rodney Stark in the book “Discovering God: The Origins of the Great religions and the Evolution of Belief” I have also mentioned here a couple of times, writes

“Durkheim dismissed belief in the supernatural from any acceptable definition of religion on the grounds that many primitive religions, as well as some advanced faiths including Buddhism and some Eastern religions, not only are entirely Godless, but even reject the supernatural. This was a howling error. No one can credibly identify a primitive group devoid of supernaturalism. As for Buddhism, although a few Buddhist intellectuals and monks pursue a relatively Godless Buddhism, popular Buddhism abounds in Gods of many sizes and shapes, as a visit to any Buddhist temple reveals.”

Stark offers the following definition:

“Religion consists of explanations of existence (or ultimate meaning) based on supernatural assumptions and including statements about the nature of the supernatural, which mey specify methods or procedures for exchanging with the supernatural.”

He adds that “By use of the term supernatural this definition of religion leaves room for Godless religions, Gods being defined as supernatural beings having consciousness and intentions.”.

Dear David,

Would you believe politicians who promise heaven-on-earth if elected?

Then why believe everyone who claims that their way is a religion?

Yes, my view of religion is strict and my standards are high: I don't care what people say, what they believe or how much they praise their own religious skills. I don't even care if they are able to perform miracles, see spirits and the like - sorry for those who feel excluded, but what matters, the final and only test, is the actual results of their doctrine: does it bring people closer to God, or does it not.

On the other hand, others may be very religious without even knowing it or consciously naming their spiritual path.

Mainstream/Science..Finally Recognizes
*The*..Consciousness..of Animals
http://intellihub.com/2013/08/22/mainstream-science-finally-recognizes-the-consciousness-of-animals/

After over a century,..mainstream scientists finally got around to acknowledging something..that has been completely obvious..to most ..*animals..*are conscious beings.

Graham Hancock..found himself under attack..from the scientific community..and censored..by the TED organization..for his talk,

The War..on Consciousness

his major crime..against established consensus
was to reject the materialistic view..which relegates consciousness to nothing more than the product*..of electrical impulses in the brain rooted entirely in our physiology,

..and suggest's..that the use of shamanic visionary plants
can teach us..that we are immortal souls*..temporarily incarnated in these physical forms..to learn and to grow.

Given the inability..for any form of consensus on the nature of human consciousness,..it is little wonder that the scientific community has taken so long..to concede that animals,..particularly birds and mammals,..are conscious too.

Another problem derives from cultural values.
Historically throughout the West,..non-human creatures have been relegated....to the status of “dumb beasts” incapable of love or happiness,..thus..nor oof pain or suffering.

Aristotle viewed the function of animals..as serving human beings as “natural and expedient”,..and the Bible states..that animals are there to be used by mankind –>>>?

no not really
the 4th eon*[day]
when the beasts were created

when god spake,,:..from..the skeptics bible
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html

<<1:19..And the evening..and the morning
were the fourth day.

1:20..And God said,
Let the waters bring forth abundantly*..he moving creature that hath life,..and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

1:21..And God created great whales,
and every living creature that moveth,..which the waters brought forth abundantly,..*after their kind,..and every winged fowl..*after his kind:and God saw that it was good.

1:22..And God blessed them,..saying, Be fruitful,
and multiply,..and fill the waters in the seas,..and let fowl multiply*..on the earth.

1:23..nd the evening*
and the morning..were the fifth day.>>..[eon*]

back to..*article ..<..while this..was originally not intended as a license for abuse,..history has demonstrated that as a species humans have failed to adhere to the proverb,..”A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal,..but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.”

WE..cannot serve..two masters/fairly/equally

one=light/love/logic/life/living..etc
the other..darkness/death/fear/hate/greed/envey..etc

REFERENCES:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201208/scientists-finally-conclude-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious-beings

http://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/6/847.full

http://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions

http://news.discovery.com/animals/rats-empathy-111209.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3818833.stm

ifth day.
1:24 And God said,
Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth..*after his kind,
and cattle after..*their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness: and let them have dominion*!*!..

..over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion!*!

do·min·ion

1. Control or the exercise of control; sovereignty:

eg.."The devil..has their souls in his possession,..and under his dominion" (Jonathan Edwards)...soul=ego/works..

[yet our life GIVING spirit belongs to god]

2. A territory or sphere of influence or control; a realm.
3. often Dominion Abbr. Dom. One of the self-governing nations within the British Commonwealth.

from Latin dominium, property,
from dominus,lord;

dominion
n
1. rule; authority
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy)
the land governed by..one ruler or government
3. sphere of influence; area of control

collectively..we [life]..own the lot
thus are held responsible..see we each..are the living material*..heirs..[inheritors/trustees]..*of all created..of the immortal eternal/living good..light..sustaining life..via logic to love

[ye to whom ,much was given..somuch more is expected]

Dear Yuyutsu,

You have your own idiosyncratic definition of religion. Your definition of religion is not strict nor are your standards high. Your definition simply excludes many religions.

George is a religious man. However, he does not claim that religion is restricted to his belief nor does he insist that religions must conform to his type of belief. Although I do not share his belief I can discuss religion with George. I can learn from him because he is knowledgeable in that area.

You will probably continue to repeat your limited definition that excludes many religions. However, your definition neither has high standards nor is it strict. It is just unreasonable.

You have a right to define a word in any way you want to. However, your communication is then limited to those who define it in the same way that you do. That excludes those who have some knowledge of different religions.

I think I have just wasted both our times.

Dear David,

George certainly gives me the impression of a religious man. We can agree on that.

I also do not claim that religion is restricted to my belief or insist that religions must conform to my type of belief.

My definition only excludes such organisations that call themselves 'religious' without actually being so.

Whether and to what extent someone is religious does not change by beliefs - theirs or mine.

lets get to the meat..of the maTTER
for too long we have been fed milk

see this materialist world..is divided..
into fixtures..and fungibles...each having its own duties/dominion

[recall cain and able..]
one presented..the fat..of his fungibles..[LAMB]
to god..

and god was pleased..
WHY?

because able..the 2 de born..was a good Sheppard*
who helped..*put the fat on..his sheep/fungibles..via just doing his job..!

ie keeping his flock safe..
finding good water..good grass..
letting them rest..not stress out..not letting wolves kill them..etc

and the fat ..even of one dead lamb
witnessed*..PROVED/VALIDATED..his good shepherding...via his dominion*..over his flock

cain however..was keeper of the fixtures..[first born]
thus inherited his fathers curse..[land that refused to yield]
he KILLED the few..*LIVING SEEDS..burnt them..then presented the dead corpses to god..

[and god was displeased....

not only MURDERING manYfold seeds..[in ignorance]
ie murdering seeds..only god can make to live..but further despoiling..their corpses.into some mushy burnt mess..

well the keeper..of the fixtures
killed the lord..of the fungibles..

having dominion,,over things..needs wisdom
and what a difference..between the first/last

further expanded on..in the lost sheep parable
except the lost sheep..in that case..was his first sheep..[that is the sole..inheritance of the 2/3rd born..as the estate goes to the 1st

anyhow in-time..
the 2 de born..has 100sheep
but one goes missing..and he deserts the 99.looks for the 1..why?

she was the mother..of the rest..[MOTHER'S DUTY DOMINION]
she did most of the work..of finding good grass/good water/safety/shelter etc

[for her to leave..may indicate a huge problem..
so..love..plus a little self interest..sees him DESERT..the 99
[who without the TRUE live-in living Sheppard/MOTHER..would surely die at any rate]

the same protector issue..arises from the fo0l who caught one big PROTECTOR fish..plus 100small..[it was protecting]..he took the big protector fish..and the 100..were soon KILLED/EATEN/DISPERSED..BY bigger

BECAme fish food

as..jesus said..more blessed is the lion..that become man
[ie is eaten to sustain man]..than is blessed a man become meat for lion.

Dear david f and Yuyutsu,

“If we are isolated in ourselves, we only have what we have we cannot grow culturally. But if we instead go to meet other people, other cultures, other ways of thinking, other religions, we go out of ourselves and we begin that so beautiful adventure called dialogue. When there is a problem, dialogue, this is what brings peace! In comparison with the other person, in comparison with other cultures, even in the healthy comparison with other religions, one grows and matures.

Of course there is a danger if the dialogue closes and one gets angry, one can fight… It is the danger of fighting, and that's not good for us because we meet each other to dialogue, not to argue. … If you don’t think like me, I think in a different way and you don’t convince me but we are still friends, … I’ve heard how you think and you’ve heard how I think.” (Pope Francis to Japanese students, 21. August 2013)

Dear Yuyutsu,

Your definition still excludes real religions which do not fit your definition. I think we have reached an impasse.

Dear George,

Pope Francis made a good statement.

Dear David,

Earlier you wrote that my definition of religion "is just unreasonable".
I think I now understand why you believe so: because it relates to God.
For one who pays no importance to God, it is understandable that ANY definition that includes God seems unreasonable.

I am aware that dictionaries have different definitions for 'religion', but who wrote those dictionaries?

A house from outside is bricks and roof - from inside it is painted walls and decorations, etc. An aeroplane from outside is a buzzing shape in the sky - from inside it is seats, little folding tables and screens, overhead lockers, etc. Think for example on how the first European settlers viewed the Australian aboriginals compared to how aboriginals viewed themselves - my description of 'religion' is how it looks from inside, by religious people - yours seems to be how it looks from outside, by non-religious people.

Of course your eye may catch certain external features of people that you believe to be religious, then you may think that this is what makes them religious:

Is an organisation religious because it makes people sit in pews every Sunday? or collects donations? or sing certain songs? or eagerly promotes a common cause?

- A football club may also answer that definition!

Then why do I exclude a football club from the list of 'real religions'?

- Because religion has a unique function that football clubs have not - to bring people closer to God.

Similarly if a particular church fails to bring its followers closer to God, then it is no longer a religion - perhaps it was a religion 200 years ago (or perhaps it never was), but if now it no longer performs the function of a religion, then it is not.

- But I do understand that when viewing religion from the outside, my definition seems to you meaningless because from that outside perspective nothing ever brings anyone closer to God. Why then you don't simply state, "there is no such thing as religion"?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I don't state there is no such thing as religion because there is such a thing as religion. I face reality.

Religion exists, and any definition of religion must take into account all types of religion or it is not a reasonable definition of religion. God is a feature of some religions and not of other religions.

You simply restate your definition which excludes some religions.

As Moynihan said, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

I see no point in continuing this discussion.

im not content..<<There is a danger
if the dialogue closes..*and IF..one gets angry >>>

one can CHOSE..to fight…
or one can chose to turn..the other..[what cheek?]


<<It is the danger [LOVE OF}..of fighting,[that attracts demons..whotoo love a goopd blue...<< and that's not good for us because we meet each other to dialogue, not to argue. >>

just like warmonger..hear the voices of war]\let us jointogather inthe peace,,not pieces

<<If you don’t think like me,>>
thats just perfect,,as youhavethyownguides..thy ownreasons for being ..just as dowe all

<<..I think in a different way>>..
and EVEN IF..you don’t convince me..you must KNOW..<<we are still friends,>>

NOWthat,,<< … I’ve heard how you think
and you’ve heard how I think.”>>..itrust we both feel we have recieved as much as we have given

(Pope Francis to Japanese students, 21. August 2013)
johannine..to a few of gods good minds..of the many truly good men

People you are turning this forum into a religious joust. Please give a miss and allow that person who say he is "one under god" get back there.

While I don't mind that some want to hold a religious debate, there are posts that do not get addressed while the well-practised duel on religion (or does only the Christian religion offend on OLO?) continues.

It was expected that abortion would be safe, legal and uncommon. The expectation of society was also that abortion would rarely be late term. However there appear to be far more abortions than predicted. It is not known how many are late term, or for what reasons.

It is not the 'kids' needing abortions. That number dropped with sex education and easier availability of contraception. There have to be very compelling reasons why young women at the height of their physical and mental powers in their twenties and early thirties are having so many terminations.

Or is it as simple and stupid as more opportunist sex? Rage and leap into action? People who should know better not taking precautions and practising withdrawal? Hard to imagine in a steady affair or marriage where you'd think the couple would have contraception sorted. Or is it casual encounters - emulating the Hollywood opportunism and sex positions and either going for withdrawal or having the condom come loose? In that case STIs would be high. HIV is on the increase in heterosexual women, so it is likely that women's attitudes to casual sex have changed. Raunch culture rules?

im..IN-spired..by

Raunch culture rules?
ON THE BEACH..?

..<<..Or is it as simple..and stupid as more opportunist sex?>>''

MY THOUGHTS ARE..sex is a comforting thing..so in times of discomfort..we may need the sex..but be too stressed..to remember the pill[etc]

ok unlikely

but..then there are other factors[im presuming]..
like two wages NEEDED..to pay the bills..or rape..[one in four woman get raped..and keeping the child of a rapist..may be that step too far..

the biggest upset..by far is murdering ..[as opposed to killing]
the law reads thou shalt not murder..but murder is a big call..for trying to save the life of a grown mother

lest we forget..we murder*
thousands of living seeds..just to make bread
[we pray..over food..*for that murdered..died..to bring it to our plate

we only live
by killing living vegetables/seeds/beasts

what im saying is
NO-one has clean hands
so lets not blame..the kids

further..
lets see why..mass-debation..masters-baton..is a bad thing
it murders billions...trillions..no googillians of living sperm annually

just breathing we murder many living pollen
just eating ..we murder many bacterium...molds yeasts

in short living..means other things need to die
every second of our lives we killed..something

no one has clean hands
as jesus wrote in the dirt..at the stoning..thou shalt not deliberately murder..but to..*err is human..to forgive is divine*

one under god,

Accepting that the morality of killing is a continuum. It is not black and white, right or wrong.

What hasn't been explored is the number of abortions, who are having them and why.

Why aren't there comprehensive audits to report publicly on the outcomes of new policy?

Onthebeach "Why aren't there comprehensive audits to report publicly on the outcomes of new policy?"

Is it a new policy?

Late term abortions are extremely rare, and almost always used only when there is an extremely disabled baby, or a mothers life is at stake.
Late term abortion lies are trotted out by hysterical pro-life activists and their gullible followers.

Reasons for abortions are between the parents and their doctors.
It is no one else's business...

@sus

"Reasons for abortions are between the parents and their doctors.
It is no one else's business..."

Double standards.

when i cane my children, it is everybody's business
when convicted murderers are to be hanged...everyone shouts foul

and when innocent babies are murdered, you give me such views?

warped values based on humanistic idealogy

Suseonline, "Is it a new policy?"

Do you dispute the changes in common law interpretations of the Crimes Act or Criminal Code? It is a very different environment to (say) 20+ years ago when you could have been raising children.

However I am sure you are missing my point because I am not challenging what has changed and nor am I talking solely about late term. Although feminist Leslie Cannold an 'ethicist' (is there such an occupation?) who was to be a running partner with Assange believes in abortion up to the moment of birth with no limitations - healthy, normal infants. Even that is not what I am wanting to address ATM.

What I am concerned about is that the unforseen negative consequences of economic and social policy might be higher abortion numbers among couples who want children. There are government reports stating that young couples who want children are having to put them off because they cannot afford them. As well, they are not having the number of children they want. Could it be that poor Government planning is contributing to that sad state of affairs where it is likely that wanted children are being aborted? Secondly, there is oddly a dearth of data on abortions, why so?

I am not pointing the finger at one political party. Just asking why women at their best childbearing age are being forced by financial circumstances to abort.

Why is it so do you reckon?

Correction: I should have said that reportedly Leslie Cannold believes in abortion up to the moment of birth etc. One never knows if people are reported correctly. Perhaps she has some limitations that were not reported.

Dear platypus1900,

You continue to be insulting. You wrote: "warped values based on humanistic idealogy".

Humanistic values are no more warped than Islamic or Christian values. I do not call your values warped, but you apparently feel free to denigrate those values which are different from yours. On hearing you were a Christian I did not bombard you with suggestions that you go to websites that attack Christianity. You did not show the same restraint.

Please be civil. One can differ without calling names or using insulting language.

I can't say what values other humanists have regarding abortion, but I have the view that the woman who is carrying the fetus should have the right to terminate her pregnancy if she wants to. It is she who will have to care for a baby if she keeps it. It is she who will have endure the gestation period and labor even if the baby is given to someone else. it is she who will have to fulfill its special needs if the baby is in some way abnormal. Even if she wanted the baby circumstances may have changed since she became pregnant. Maybe my cousin would not have committed suicide if her boyfriend had not been killed in action. I am sure she would not have done so if she could have had an abortion.

It seems to me that those who oppose the choice of a woman to have an abortion are placing the rights of a fetus over the rights of the woman who is carrying that fetus. I support her rights. I think that those who deny her the right to have access to abortion will not have to care for the child if there is one. They will not have to go through pregnancy or labor. They can deny her at no cost to themselves.

Platyps1900, it isn't called murder, it is called abortion, and it is legal.
Caning your children and being a murderer are both illegal.
You are being hysterical...

Onthebeach . "Just asking why women at their best childbearing age are being forced by financial circumstances to abort."

I am not sure if the abortions are being carried out mainly for financial reasons?
I believe there is usually much more involved in the decision to abort than financial reasons.

There is still a stigma attached to single mothers (religious or cultural)or very young mothers, as well as some fathers may be taking off when they find they are to be a daddy, and the women don't want to do it alone.

At the end of the day, it is the woman's decision, but I do believe that free contraception would help lower the unacceptable abortion rate.
Nobody wants to see such large numbers ( or any) abortions continue.

i thought it..may help..to find the place,where the unborn fetus go
http://new-birth.net/booklet/Gone_West.pdf
pdf page..60
page 48..proper

<<..I found..we were in a
kind of crèche,..where all the immature..and premature children went.

“‘How soon may it be said..that a soul comes into existence
when a child is conceived?’ I inquired...‘It is evidently not at birth.’

My guide replied,..‘Even I cannot tell you the precise moment when the soul..enters the fleshy home..which clothes it..but it is extraordinarily early...[gray-streak stage]

*As soon..as the germ has..definitely ceased to be a germ
and has begun to grow..into a human body,..then..a soul enters it.

But we do not know..how God performs this wonder.
That is hid,..even from us to whom much is plain.

Of this..at least..you can be sure..that long before the child “quickens,”..a soul has become enshrined in it.’

“I now directed..my attention to the scene around me,
and saw that the creche..was full
of gentle,..sweet-faced women..who watched over the little immature atoms.....

We passed to other rooms,..and found that in each new one..the babes were more advanced..than in the last.
At length we reached a long room..with a table down the middle. ..his was the one
you saw in the mirror,..and I gathered it was..the ‘top form’..[graduation room used..prior to leaving]..of the school.

“Here I met Sister Maria,..whom I greatly liked,..but found she was so much more spiritual than I..that it was difficult to keep in touch with her...‘Do you have a chapel with
continuous service?’ I asked.
“‘Oh yes’” she replied... ‘“Work and pray.”..You know the old monastic proverb.’

edited

This is not a House of Refuge,..and no lost
souls from Hell come here..to pollute this happy spot.

The children..are borne here..by their
guides,,or guardian angels,..who though they have no work to do on earth,..yet have the same sort of work..as any of us here.

Generally,..if possible,..a relative of the “dead” child
is brought,..*if suitable,..to mother it;

but,alas,..many have no such relatives here.

They..(the relatives)..are often too evil to be permitted..to help.

No evil thing..is admitted within these
walls,..although it stands..in Hell...>>..

http://new-birth.net/booklet/Gone_West.pdf

Suseonline,

Thank you for your reply which I read closely.

As I write this I am reminded of my many relatives and friends in the group that (sadly) leads in the number of abortions, the 25-35 age group.

If you are implying that women are finding it hard to find a life partner, I reckon you are right. Why is another thorny issue that is not solved by the countless 'He lacks commitment' articles in women's mags. Knowing young men I would caution women against ever telling them that they are not interested in marriage or children though. Because young men have been strongly conditioned by feminists not to ask again. They accept the statement and move on, never to ask again. Rejection and pain develop a long memory, which is fair enough.

However I do believe that both sexes put off the serious commitments of life, examples being marriage and children until they have finished the level of education apparently demanded by employers. [I could go off on a side street to wonder why teachers and others give youth the target and expectation of university study when there are perfectly good careers going begging that don't require it.]

I sense too that some are too 'into' consumption and cannot easily control their expenditure on lifestyle and depreciating 'assets' to be able to build a financial base, or even think that doing that is possible.

However, the loss of full-time work and the casualisation of employment must be having an impact. One cannot overestimate the effect on the psyche of young people of seeing their parents, their friends and possibly themselves, of the bargaining and contracts that were introduced, and the restructuring that made old men out of fifty year olds and cast them on the scrap heap.

Perhaps I will leave it at that, except to confirm that the public should be concerned if so many young people are being forced by circumstances beyond their control to abort children they want. It is a national calamity.

Without the gathering and analysis of data, who is to know?

I agree with everything you said onthebeach (rare, I know : ).

I still think free contraception for both men and women would help.
Surely that would be worth a try, and would probably be cheaper than the cost of all the abortions?

It really is a national disgrace...

Dear Suseonline,

Free contraception for men and women is not enough. It also requires a cultural change in men and women. It is a while since I was in the army, but I doubt that the attitude has changed enough. Some men regard it as macho to go in 'bareback'. They have contempt for condoms.

Some women also feel that sex should be spontaneous and not something planned for. Use of contraceptives would indicate that it was anticipated and planned for.

It would also help to avoid alcohol and other drugs as those mitigate against taking precautions. Unfortunately alcohol and other drugs are often a prelude to sex.

Full instruction in the use of contraceptives and effective programs to change attitudes towards their use are also necessary. It is easy enough to get contraceptives so those who want them can get them.

I agree that free contraceptives should be available but think that by itself would make little difference.

Health costs have increased. That could be one factor.

Unfortunate that some people, including people on fixed incomes and low wage earners cannot afford the doctor's visit any more.

@suse/poirot

you are married?
you have children?

you feel the baby moved in your womb?
that is not life?

the problem with depending on moral values defined by the law is precisely that

today, life is at 3 mths
then next year life is at 6 mths
and then it is 6 months 2 days
then it is 6 months 4 days

and you say it is legal because the law say so

how naive
how hypocritical and you call me hysterical?

you compare killing your unborn child with hanging a convicted murderer?
have more love and respect for your children you killed
you compare hanging a convicted murdurer with me discipling my children

wonder who is lost?

platypus,

You held up the notion of "the sanctity of human life".

You represented it as an "absolute morality" handed down from on high - "God".

I asked you that if the "sanctity of human life" is an absolute morality handed down from God, then how can you make exceptions in your call to take a human life?

my dear poirot
you do not take another life on your own
it is handed down by the courts of law
if you do, it will be revenge
if the courts sentence it, it is justice
we can discuss the issues of kangaroos courts in a seperate discussion

it is sad that members here cannot see the need for us to have moral values higher than the law
of course we need to have moral values in line with the law...higher yes and i believe we should ( theistic vs humanistic)
God forbid... and you should never have moral values below the country's law...you end up running foul of the law then

i submit myself to the country's law because Bible teaches me to submit to authourity
BUT... no way will my values go down to the common humanistic level
for moral issues, i follow the law of God

you had abortions before
you should ask God for forgiveness for the babies you killed..your own children
dont call murder any other name
you cannot kid yourself

i am glad Lexi never had any abortions
good on her

Dear platypus1900,

The law does not define what is moral. The law defines what is legal. Morality is not the same thing as legality. It can be monstrous when government tries to enforce morality. The purpose of the law is to maintain social order not to enforce morality. Giving pregnant women the access to medically safe abortions is better for social order. It fulfills the needs of those who want or need abortions. It eliminates the backyard butchers and the DIY coat hanger abortions. It eliminates corruption since illegal abortionists generally make payoffs to the authorities to continue their practice. Outlawing abortion would take us back to an ugly past.

Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, said, “In a civilized society, all crimes are likely to be sins, but most sins are not and ought not to be treated as crimes. Man’s ultimate responsibility is to God alone.”

You are free to regard abortion as a sin. However, it is not a crime under the laws of Australia. There is no reason that the laws of Australia should enforce your idea of sin. You believe in God. Why not leave the determination of sin to her?

@david
surely you will know i understand what you wrote?
i am talking about life
your own baby
i understand it when a careless man ignores a life he helped created
what surprises me is when a woman is just as flippant

when is a life not a life?
30 days?
31 days?

again please dont be like one of colleagues
she foolishly said..90 days
i then asked her why about 89 days?
she said i am being difficult

i just cannot understand poirot and suse when they are willing to end their baby's life but fights tooth and nail for a convicted murderer

at least Lexi is more consistent... or at least she tries to be

You married?
Your wife had abortions?
both of you felt it was convenient as the baby is not wanted?
you end your child's life when it depended on you for protection
your baby didnt ask to be conceived
you and your wife conceived your child in heats of passion or parental love?
careless?
dont bother with contraceptions or selfish desires at condoms will spoil your spontaneity in love making
killing your child as a form of contraception?

How sad and tragic.
And you folks come to this forum to preach about protecting rights and the life of criminals?

platypus,

"you do not take another life on your own
it is handed down by the courts of law
if you do, it will be revenge
if the courts sentence it, it is justice
we can discuss the issues of kangaroos courts in a seperate discussion"

My question (as you well understand) goes to the notion, put forward by you, that the sanctity of human life is an "absolute" God-given morality.

You said:

"this bloke should have been shot or hanged"

So I'm not talking about taking the "law" into your own hands. I'm referring to you advocating that some humans be "shot or hanged" by authorities.

That view would seem to suggest that your version of the God-given morality on the sanctity of human life is "not" absolute.

Hi Platypus,

By equating abortion with murder, you would equate a person with the plans for a person. Such is unlikely the case, even in God's eyes. Take the many cases of identical siblings, where the same sets of plans produce different people. Consider also chimeras, where two sets of plans make one person. What makes the person from the plans is the mother, and I cannot see how a decision not to proceed can be murder, when clearly no person has been created at that point.

Dear Platypus,

<<i submit myself to the country's law because Bible teaches me to submit to authourity>>

What in hell are you referring to?

Yes, the bible has some verses about submitting to the Israelite elders and priests: it also instructed the Jews not to eat camels and rabbits, not to mention pigs (do you do all that?); there is also the famous words of Jesus - "give unto Caesar", e.g. if you're going to use Caesar's coins, then don't complain when he takes them from you.

How convoluted can one's interpretation of the bible be? Were any of the authors of the bible even contemplating the idea that one should submit to the modern secular state (which did not even exist at the time), born in sin and bloodshed?

There is hardly any institution less moral than the secular state. Suppose the state prohibited communion and prayer (as did the soviets and other communist countries), or suppose the state ordered everyone to worship its leader(s) as god(s) - would you still feel obliged to submit? Actually, the state of China does force families with more than one child to abort their babies!

The last thing we need is for the state to tell us what we can or cannot do with our children, including whether we kill or discipline them, whether we educate them in our own ways and morals and whether we allow them to be injected with unwholesome or toxic elements. It comes as a package, so you have no right to demand that the state allows you to do what you want with your children but does not allow another to do what they want with theirs. Surely killing one's children is immoral (and so is killing animals), but that should be none of their dirty business. In that regard I fully agree with David F. ("There is no reason that the laws of Australia should enforce your idea of sin.") - it's all between you and God and there it should remain.

Dear david f,

>> The law does not define what is moral. The law defines what is legal. Morality is not the same thing as legality. It can be monstrous when government tries to enforce morality. The purpose of the law is to maintain social order not to enforce morality. <<

What a clear statement about the need to distinguish between what is legal (in this or that country) and what is moral (with respect to these or those norms, whether or not rooted formally in a codex). Unfortunately, many people - those who sweepingly condemn abortions as well as those who see them as a woman’s right - are missing this distinction.

In particular, when speaking about one’s “right”: most of us would agree that a genuine (as hard as this is to verify) refugee should be allowed to find refuge and even settlement in Australia, however, there is no “right” to an Australian passport for everybody who asks for it. I think there is a similar difference between allowing a professional abortion to women who for serious reasons (however hard to define) cannot or will not carry out their pregnancy, and between proclamations of an a priori (i.e. irrespective of the legal system) “right” to abortion.

>>Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, said, “In a civilized society, all crimes are likely to be sins, but most sins are not and ought not to be treated as crimes. Man’s ultimate responsibility is to God alone.” <<

A good illustration of your point. It has many implications, also unrelated to abortions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_streak

<<..Ethical implications

The primitive streak is an important concept in bioethics, where some experts have argued that experimentation with human embryos is permissible, but only before the primitive streak develops, generally around the fourteenth day of existence.

The development of the primitive streak is taken, by such bioethicists, to signify the creation of a unique, human being.

In some countries, it is illegal to develop a human embryo for more than 14 days outside a woman's body"">>..
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2008C00694/Html/Text#param16

Formation

<<The formation of the primitive streak relies on a complex network of signaling pathways that work together to ensure that this process is highly-regulated.

Activation of various secreted factors (Vg1, Nodal, Wnt8C, FGF8 and Chordin) and transcription factors (Brachyury and Goosecoid) adjacent to the site of streak formation is required for this process.[9][10][11][11][12]

In addition, structures, such as the hypoblast, also play an important in the regulation of streak formation.

Removal of the hypoblast in the chick results in correctly patterned ectopic streaks, suggesting that the hypoblast serves to inhibit formation of the primitive streak>>

Developmental biology > Human embryogenesis (development of embryo) and development of fetus (TE E2.0)
First three
weeks
Week 1

* Fertilization
* Oocyte activation
* Zygote
* Cleavage
* Morula
* Blastula
o Blastomere
* Blastocyst
* Inner cell mass

Week 2
(Bilaminar)

* Hypoblast
* Epiblast

Week 3
(Trilaminar)
Germ layers

* Archenteron/Primitive streak
o Primitive pit
o Primitive knot/Blastopore
o Primitive groove
* Gastrula/Gastrulation
* Regional specification
* Embryonic disc

Ectoderm

* Surface ectoderm
* Neuroectoderm
* Somatopleuric mesenchyme
* Neurulation
* Neural crest

Endoderm

* Splanchnopleuric mesenchyme

Mesoderm

* Chorda-
* Paraxial (Somite/Somitomere)
* Intermediate
* Lateral plate
o Intraembryonic coelom
o Splanchnopleuric mesenchyme/Somatopleuric mesenchyme

i take leave from this forum

adieu

Platypus, I never had an abortion, but if I had, it would not be your business.

You are getting hysterical again, about legal abortions.
Yet, you seem to have no problems with illegal activities like caning children or murdering murderers.

Many women have spontaneous abortions (miscarriages), of which there are far more in the world than surgical abortions.
If you believe your God both creates and destroys, as he sees fit, then why would he cause all those babies deaths?
Do you call that murder?

Dear Saltpetre,

You wrote;

“Blaming God for miscarriages is a weird attitude for anyone, let alone for such as yourself.”

Not a point I'm going to die in the ditch over but it might be instructive to return to the Bible to see what God's Law, that thing that apparently sanctifies the innocent life of the unborn and is so revered by those who profess unfortunately often without much justification to be Christian (yes dear playtupus900 I am referring to your type), really says about God's attitude to the matter.

Firstly let us explore Exodus 21

“22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

So causing a miscarriage obviously isn't considered murder otherwise those responsible would be facing the death penalty, however if the woman comes to harm in the process then 'eye for eye' stands.

To find an appropriate age for when a foetus/infant is considered a being of worth we travel to Leviticus 27:6

“6 for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver;”

It further details amounts for those who are older but there is no amount proclaimed for those unborn or those born but under 1 month. Until that age they appear not to be regarded as children.

This point is further reinforced in Numbers 3;

15 “Number the children of Levi by their fathers’ houses, by their families; you shall number every male from a month old and above.”
16 So Moses numbered them according to the word of the Lord, as he was commanded.

Cont...

Cont...

Hosea is particularly instructive about God's attitude to Platypus900's 'innocent unborn'. In chapter 9:14 we have God's prophet Hosea extolling him to;
“Give them, Lord—
    what will you give them?
Give them wombs that miscarry
    and breasts that are dry.”

But God goes one better, even perchance if one is fortunate to be born then this is what God promises will befall them in verse 16;

“Ephraim is blighted,
    their root is withered,
    they yield no fruit.
Even if they bear children,
    I will slay their cherished offspring.”

And in 2 Samuel we see that what God promises to do to a new born, innocent child is invariably carried out;

13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.
17 And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.
18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.

So let us countenance no more, talk from the likes of Platypus900 about God's Law being morally superior to our secular offerings, it isn't.

All hail the embryo! The woman who bears that embryo is a living creature who has sinned. She has had sexual intercourse and like other human beings is a sinful lost creature, but the embryo within her is pure and without sin. We can disregard the interests of that sinful creature to preserve the holy life of the embryo. Its life is no longer holy after it is born. Then it may sin. If only we could preserve the holy life of the embryo, but all good things must come to an end. If the pregnancy comes to term the issue will enter this sinful world. Oh, lamentation and sorrow!

Fifth Philosopher’s Song – Aldous Huxley

A million million spermatozoa,
All of them alive:
Out of their cataclysm, but one poor Noah
Dare hope to survive

And among that billion minus one
Might have chanced to be
Shakespeare, another Newton, a new Donne-
But that One was Me.

Shame to have ousted your betters thus,
Taking ark while the others remained outside!
Better for all of us, forward Homunculus,
If you’d quietly died!

csteele

Thank you for pointing out biblical sources of God's views on young humans, but I doubt it will encourage the pro-lifers to read more and thump less. Heaven forbid that they may become more christian.

Dear Fester,

None of the biblical sources that csteele pointed out were actually written by Christians. They all came from the Jewish bible which has been integrated into the Christian scriptures.

Dear david f,

>>And among that billion minus one
Might have chanced to be
Shakespeare, another Newton, a new Donne-
But that One was Me. <<

This sounds like the ancients’ view that the woman provided only a passive vessel into which the man placed his seed, the potential new person, i.e that - in contemporary language - the sperm on its own was the “potential Shakespeare, Newton”, no mention of the mother’s ovum.

Of course, Huxley knew better, but still - you seem to know so many things - do you happen to know when did our ancestors discover that the male as well as the female contribute “on equal terms” to the formation of the new person? In other words, when did they come to see procreation as a sperm joining an ovum, rather than a seed being implanted?

Usually the male ancestors are listed, on the other hand I think a person is formally regarded a Jew only if his mother was Jewish. Well, you will know better. That would contradict my assumption about the ancients' views, so maybe its completely wrong, and they always knew of the contribution "on equal terms". Also, in the New Testament one Evangelist traces Joseph's, another Mary's, lineage to David.

george..,,<<..In other words, when did they come to see procreation as a sperm joining an ovum, rather than a seed being implanted?>>.

that would be when..[in the old testiment]
one clever fella got the spotted goats..by understanding resessive genes

ps has anyone e\..heaRD THE 13THE SPERM thesis?

it seems the first dont get in..
nor 2..through to12

BUT the egg membrane is tight enough..then
that the 13 th gets in..does the job

so none of us are here cause we wonthe race
we won..because 12 faster/stronger of us helped us win

This guy is a complete nut...somebody shut him down please

Dear George,

I don’t think recognising a child’s membership in a group by maternal descent has anything to do with ancient knowledge of the mechanics of reproduction. It merely recognises that we can be more certain of the identity of a baby’s mother than of its father.

The knowledge of the mechanics of reproduction came fairly recently in history. Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) was the first to see sperm through a microscope and to recognise that organisms were composed of cells. Linnaeus (1707-1778) was accused of being dirty minded when he maintained that flowers were the sexual organs of plants. Until then most scientists regarded them as having to do with nutrition. Many beekeeping books of the seventeenth and eighteenth century wrote of the largest bee in the hive as the king bee. The role of the queen bee was only recognised in the nineteenth century. It was only toward the close of the eighteenth century that the mammalian ovum was recognised as a single cell, and the knowledge of the union of sperm and ovum to form a new individual was not recognised until the nineteenth century.

I am now reading “Origins of Sex” by Margulis and Sagan. It has 13 chapters, and the book does not get around to the origin of gender, the differentiation into male and female, until chapter 12. They regard sex as genetic recombination which has been going on for over three billion years. It’s only 600 million years ago that differentiation of organisms into male and female developed.

I wrote: ", and the knowledge of the union of sperm and ovum to form a new individual was not recognised until the nineteenth century."

Please forgive me. I was writing off the top of my head, and that knowledge may have come before the close of the eighteenth century.

Dear david f,

Thanks; that really clarifies the matter for me.

By Joe OUG:)...the understandings of your mind to the public is so great, I want to hear more please:)

Planet3

<I wrote: ", and the knowledge of the union of sperm and ovum to form a new individual was not recognised until the nineteenth century.">

Um, but it doesn't define a specific person. A fertilised ovum carries the plans,not the person. Have you ever wondered why identical siblings are different?

fester/quote..<<..Have you ever wondered..why identical siblings are different?>>

fair enough..how i see it
is say your genes..setup..the right physiology..to make an adrenilin junkie..or a tyrant..thats fine if an only child

raised to think..its special..[the chosen one]
but gets harder..if your the 2 de born..control freak..
dominated to the point of repression..suppression/OPPRESSION..by his identical..but more matured SIBLING genes..

ACTING upon his siblings..
never ever..to be equals..peers
[many murderd.. by elder or younger..siblings..from the times of cain/able

ENVIRONMENT
environment
en-vision-it

enlightenment

Dear Fester,

Human beings exist in two very different life forms. One form is multicellular. That form has 100% mortality. The multicellular form alternates with a unicellular form. The unicellular forms have a very high mortality, but a very few unite with other unicellular forms produced by another multicellular life form to produce another unicellular form called a fertilised egg. The fertilised egg may divide into two or more copies. Each copy if there are any and the original will tend to develop into the multicellular form. If the multicellular form lasts long enough it will generally start producing the unicellular form. This process will continue until the species become extinct. However, before it becomes extinct it may evolve into one or more different species.

Is that better?

fully agree with davidF/quote..<<..This process will continue..until the species become extinct...>>

spoton..
but that reminded me of an important point
darwins 1000..pigeons retaining wild type

if there are inbred populations[small]
then a mutation..canbecome homogenised..BUT restore the 'evolved'..critter BACK into a far larger gene pool..any DOMINANT 'evolution'..will soon be culled oput

yet any recessive..still be there
yet is so small a number..[one in 7 billion]
so as to be..as if nuthing effecrtivly mathematically speaking

[like darwins 1000 pigeons

<<However, before*..it becomes extinct..
it may evolve into one or more different species.>>

that ALL will remain..within the genus mean

except for a very chance occasion..of fertile offspring..
that will yet again..get drowned..out of the gene pool..
like dogs budgies pigeons..[all after their own*kind]

Hi David.

I agree that life is a continuum, but I cannot see how a single human cell is a human being. I think that such an idea is degrading and dehumanising.

Dear Fester,

Degrading and dehumanising are your value judgements. Women and men are diploid humans. Sperm and egg are haploid humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternation_of_generations

Alternation of generations (also known as alternation of phases or metagenesis) is a term primarily used to describe the life cycle of plants (taken here to mean the Archaeplastida). A multicellular gametophyte, which is haploid with n chromosomes, alternates with a multicellular sporophyte, which is diploid with 2n chromosomes, made up of n pairs. A mature sporophyte produces spores by meiosis, a process which reduces the number of chromosomes to half, from 2n to n. Because meiosis is a key step in the alternation of generations, it is likely that meiosis has a fundamental adaptive function. The nature of this function is still unresolved (see Meiosis), but the two main ideas are that meiosis is adaptive because it facilitates repair of DNA damages and/or that it generates genetic variation.

Hi David,

If you are using "humans" as an abbreviation of "human cells", then I would agree with you. "humans" as an abbreviation of "human persons" I cannot agree with. Not equating a human person with a human cell is about as much a value judgement as not equating an acorn with an oak tree.

Dear Fester,

An acorn is not an oak tree, but it is as much an oak as is an oak tree. A sperm is not a multicelled human, but it is as much a human as is a multicelled human.

I cannot swim up a vaginal canal and enter an ovum. A sperm cannot post to olo. We are different individuals with different capabilities. One of the cells of my liver is part of me. However, a sperm is not only a human cell. It is an entire individual. It is an one celled individual and not part of a larger assemblage as a liver cell is. A sperm is admirably suited to its function. I am suited to the things that I do.

I do not feel denigrated that I cannot fly high in the sky and discern small objects at great distances like the eagle. I do not feel denigrated that I cannot live deep in the earth as some bacteria do. I do not feel denigrated that I cannot swim up a vaginal canal and enter an ovum. The eagle, bacterium and sperm are individuals with different capabilities from me. However, a sperm is as much a human individual as I am. We are merely different forms of human beings as an acorn and a tree are different forms of oak.

i wondered..if anyone ever classified sperm..by conduct
at best i only found info..on the doners

but first..<<..Recent studies have shown that male fertility does not only depend on the absolute number of viable, motile, morphologically normal sperm that can be inseminated in a female...

..Rather, a more important parameter appears to be
the functional competence of sperm cells>>

<<.Furthermore, in a series of ground-breaking articles Moore along with Matthew Schmidt demonstrate how dominant thinking about masculinity is revealed in sperm bank marketing. Sperm represents biological cells along with ”actual” men. Sperm is masculinised to such a degree that sperm donors are depicted as supermen in contrast to other men whose sperm quality isn’t as good.

Sperm with personality
Within this narrative of masculinity the microscopic sperm cell is not just a product used to create a child but rather a warrior, fighting his way forth to the egg cell.

This doesn’t just apply to commercials for sperm banks. In their analysis of Lennart Nilsson’s documentary The Miracle of Love, the Danish gender researchers Nina Lykke and Mette Bryld point out that the egg is described in more or less passive terms as waiting for the one and only.

In other words, it represents a heterosexual romantic notion of release when the ultimate (and weary) warrior comes first and gets the waiting egg-princess.

With slogans like ”Congratulations. It’s a Viking!” and “Do Vikings need sturdier cribs?”, accompanied by pictures of beautiful blond, blue-eyed babies, Scandinavian Cryobank plays on a particular notion of Scandinavians in an American context – the stereotype of the civilised, handsome and intelligent Nordic male and their children.

anyhow//this looks more interesting
http://www.biolreprod.org/content/19/2/396.full.pdf

but
there is big head sperm
[usually X]..slow moving..long living..[4/8 days]

and smaller faster sperm..[y]..
that live no more than3 days

a window..that increases..the sex selection..
if matched with bovum release timming..[linked to woman's temp]

Sorry, david f, but I have to disagree:

>A sperm is not a multicelled human, but it is as much a human as is a multicelled human.<

>However, a sperm is as much a human individual as I am. We are merely different forms of human beings as an acorn and a tree are different forms of oak.<

A human sperm is not a human being, because unless and until it unites with a human ovum it is totally incapable of becoming a 'human being'. At least it is that way at this point in human evolution.
(Given that sexual reproduction apparently only commenced some 600 million years ago - in some early plants - a 'reverse' evolution may be possible in 'humans' whereby reproduction may become possible by simple cell mitosis. But, I think it highly unlikely.)

A human sperm may be 'product' of a human being, but that is all. Similarly, a human ovum is not a human being, for, left to its own devices it is also incapable of becoming a human being.

Whereas an acorn may grow into an oak tree - because it has the necessary genetic complement - neither a sperm nor an ovum individually has the necessary complement to undergo such a 'transformation'.

When might a human foetus reasonably qualify to be considered a 'human being'? Well, when it is reasonably assessed as being capable of surviving outside of the womb. Until that time it may only be a 'potential' human being.

A miscarriage may be considered as a 'natural' form of 'abortion', with the human vessel rejecting the developing embryo or foetus for any one of a variety of reasons, but without any external purposeful intervention.

Where is God in all of this? Why, sitting on the sidelines, as usual. The Creator of the Universe would have far larger fish to fry than worrying about fickle, weak, and infinitely corruptible 'humans' - and is almost certain to have entirely given up on 'us' a long time ago (if indeed He/She ever gave us a second thought).

Dear Saltpetre,

I described the life cycle of human beings. As do all living things humans have a life cycle. Unless we go through all phases of that life cycle the continuum that is human life stops. Like plants that have diploid and haploid phases in their life cycle humans also have diploid and haploid phases. Both an acorn and an oak are diploid as are a fertilised egg and an adult human being. An acorn, an oak sperm, an oak egg and an oak tree are all phases of the oak life cycle. Each phase is as much an oak as another phase. Likewise with humans who have corresponding phases – A fertilised ovum, a sperm, an ovum, and an adult human. Implicitly Fester and you have limited your definition of a human to only the multicelled form past a particular stage. You have created a hierarchy with one human form of human as more human than another human form. I see them all as equally human as I have not created such a hierarchy.

I mentioned the plant life cycle as an analogy. The botanist does not see the haploid form of a plant as less a plant than the diploid form of a plant. Analogously I do not see the haploid form of a human as less human than the diploid form of a human.

We define human differently. I am not going to agree with your definition, and I don’t think you will agree with mine. I define all stages of the human life cycle as equally human, and you don’t. However, we apparently agree on the mechanism of the life cycle although we label its components differently.

God or any other imaginary entity is no more relevant to the human life cycle than to the life cycle of any other organism.

Some theologians asked when human life begins. Human life does not begin except with the origin of the first humans. It is a continuum. Sperm, ovum, fertilised ovum, embryo, baby, child, adult are all phases of the continuum of humanity.

Hi David,

You would not swap a stand of oaks for a handfull of acorns, or a building for the plan of a building, so how do you see the two as being equal? Presumably you would not consider the destruction of an embryo equal to the killing of a person either.

The condition I would site for a person is consciousness, and to my knowledge that is not a property of single cells. Single cells can have the potential to divide and form people, but are not people.

Dear Fester,

I claim that a sperm is as human as a person. That is a very different thing from saying a sperm is equal to an adult human. I think we are going round and round.

You are the one setting up a hierarchy not me. I think it is unreasonable to claim that one part of the human life cycle is more human than another part of the human life cycle.

An acorn is not the same as an oak tree, but they are equally part of the life cycle of an oak. An ovum or sperm is not the same as a woman or a man, but they are equally part of the life cycle of a human.

Obviously the word, human, has more than one meaning. In describing the life cycle of a human I maintain that each life form is as human as another life form in the human life cycle. An individual in one part of the life cycle of an oak or human has a different form from an individual in another part of the life cycle of an oak or human.

Since you use the word, human, to mean something else than I mean by the way I am using the word we keep arguing. I will not respond to further posts on this subject.

Saltpetre, "When might a human foetus reasonably qualify to be considered a 'human being'? Well, when it is reasonably assessed as being capable of surviving outside of the womb. Until that time it may only be a 'potential' human being"

When it is necessary to rationalise and protect women who desire abortions that definition may be used. Although there is an Australian ethicist who argues for abortion right up to the moment of birth. Also, using Singer's spin (are philosophers just more skilled in crafting an argument?), the status of a human infant is no better than a dog. Singer would have us believe that it may be more morally reprehensible to extinguish the life of a dog that has been around long enough to appreciate the world than a human infant with the limited knowledge of (say) a month of life.

Ultimately all reach for the rhetoric that justifies their unique blend of morality and pragmatism. Morality exists on a continuum.

The law when it chooses reverts to the 'traditional' view of life that supporters of abortion usually revile but choose to also accept where 'women's rights' are concerned. Should anyone outside of the mother (a word used in this circumstance) accidentally or deliberately interfere with the foetus without the mother's consent that person could be found to have committed a crime for which there are serious penalties.

So the foetus is human and a child where the mother regards it so. But that choice and labelling of the foetus (and infant?) can swing back and forth. She can also choose to make the donor of the sperm responsible for the her choice in continuing with the pregnancy and the independent life created even if he was unwitting and unwilling. That IS enormous power on both counts.

to be continued..

continued..

It is done and dusted that legal abortion should be available.

Where the law has not caught up however, is to recognise the emancipation of women and their responsibility for their own decisions, freely taken.

That is also where the same feminist 'ethicists' who would allow abortion up to the moment of birth, and some might legalise infanticide for some time later on the same rhetoric (posing as logic), always do a back-flip to make the man accountable for life for the decisions they say he has no right to participate in or even comment upon, at all.

In fact in some situations a man can be held responsible for a life he didn't even have a part in creating, the sperm wasn't his anyway and the woman likely knew that and chose not to inform the luckless nominated 'father' of her sexual indiscretion at the time.

Equality requires individual responsibility and accountability for one's decisions too.

Dear david f,

I know you have said you will make no further comment on this difference of opinion, but I can only contend that your view is at best opinion, and very far from fact.

A slough of my skin may be a human 'product', and therefore 'human' in nature and origin, but there is no way it could be considered a 'human being' - and it is a diploid cell, and therefore far more closely related to a living human being than a haploid sperm or ovum, albeit that these latter may be 'alive' and viable, and therefore having capacity to participate in the formation of a living diploid human being.
'Potential' does not automatically equate to 'outcome', and millions and billions fall by the wayside without ever realizing such innate potential to form and constitute a 'life'.
Building blocks, yes; but 'life' (or 'being'), no.

> I see them all as equally human as I have not created such a hierarchy.<

Neither you nor I have a say in the relevant 'hierarchy', for it has been determined by natural forces, by evolution (or possibly, for some, by 'design'), and 'it' is the reality, and not anything which others may seek to conclude, infer or confect.

Dear onthebeach,

You make a valid point, if I read you correctly - since woman alone has the right to determine whether to proceed with a pregnancy, it is 'logical' that she then take sole responsibility for the outcome, for the 'product'.
However, that is not the 'human' way - which from our tribal origins has been for 'community', fathers and potential fathers included, to participate in the upkeep and rearing of the clan's or tribe's children, and which has 'morphed' in our society into the welfare state.
Additionally, since woman has by far the greater burden in both incubating a child and, predominantly, in the rearing of the child, it is also logical that she have the greater say in whether to proceed with a pregnancy.
Further, it is a reasonable social objective that fathers take appropriate responsibility for their actions and for any progeny resulting therefrom. The idea that pregnancy is a woman's 'problem' and her 'fault' is archaic, and has no place in a progressive society.

So, one has to take responsibility, or 'keep it in your pants'. No 'free' rides.

As for the 'cheaters', I can only say 'buyer beware'. (And, fundamentally, what's good for the gander should also be good for the goose.)
'Liberation' has its rewards, but also its pitfalls and potential 'penalties' (if that is how one cares to consider the propagation of their 'genes').

Saltpetre, "You make a valid point, if I read you correctly - since woman alone has the right to determine whether to proceed with a pregnancy, it is 'logical' that she then take sole responsibility for the outcome, for the 'product'"

What I am suggesting is that both parties have a right to some say in what will be a life-changing event for both of them. That is to have a say in their own lives. If the woman wants to reserve all information and decision-making to herself and convert what many here refer to as a bunch of cells and over time convert them into a child then so be it, her choice.

By saying there is no free ride you are holding the man's wallet hostage. That is the goal, isn't it? Except it isn't about a ride. It is about deliberate, unilateral action by one of the parties to incubate, deliver and raise an infant to make a human. Feminists do contend that women are the people makers, right? Men's role is unnecessary except as a source of income.

No-one would seriously suggest that the man should have any control over whether the women wants to go ahead with the pregnancy. If you are to be 'progressive' as you put it, why shouldn't the man be able to opt out, full stop?

Dear Saltpetre,

I am posting again because you haven’t even read what I wrote or apparently didn’t understand it.

You wrote: “A slough of my skin may be a human 'product', and therefore 'human' in nature and origin, but there is no way it could be considered a 'human being' - and it is a diploid cell, and therefore far more closely related to a living human being than a haploid sperm or ovum,”

I had previously written: “One of the cells of my liver is part of me. However, a sperm is not only a human cell. It is an entire individual. It is an one celled individual and not part of a larger assemblage as a liver cell is.”

I specifically did not maintain that every cell is a human being.

Dear david f,

I did read what you posted, and did not misread or misunderstand, however, you appear not to understand my response.

> However, a sperm is not only a human cell. It is an entire individual.<

You have stated the above a number of times, and in respect of both a sperm and an ovum.
But, you fail to accept that a sperm (or an ovum) contains only half the mitochondria necessary to undergo cell division/replication and cell differentiation to form a living human being. Therefore it follows that neither a sperm or an ovum, individually, may be considered to be 'an entire individual' - as, individually, neither is capable of becoming 'an entire individual'.

If you have some information which demonstrates otherwise - and therefore contradicts accepted science - I wouldn't mind being pointed to an appropriate reference.

(Or, are you merely playing with words, and meaning only that a sperm, or an ovum, is an entire living individual 'cell', and nothing more? I could agree with that.)

Dear Saltpetre,

A sperm is a haploid individual. An individual does not have to be diploid in either plants or animals.

Fascinating discussion full of philosophical complexities...

As far as I can remember, rather than haploids or diploids, I am more concerned with my amyloids.

If an individual is characterised by a complete set of chromosomes, then isn't a somatic cell twice the individual of a gamete? In any event, aren't they then equivalent to the individual human who produced them?

It occurs to me that I could be accused of committing suicide millions of times...

Just as well we don't have to have a funeral each time one of these individuals dies.

Every sperm is sacred.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk