The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Abortion is morally justifiable > Comments

Abortion is morally justifiable : Comments

By Peter Bowden, published 5/1/2021

There is no explicit statement about abortion in the Old Testament or the New Testament versions of the Bible .Then why do Catholics, and many Christian fundamentalists, oppose abortion?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Abortion can never be morally acceptable. There are occasions when abortion could be justified, but it has nothing to do with morals. And, why an elderly male such as Peter Bowden thinks he should be involving himself in the subject of abortion is a mystery. Leave such stuff to individuals and the law.

Why bring the Bible into it. Most people, abortionists or anti-abortionists or the totally disinterested don't care about the Bible these days. All most people have is a conscience and a sense of what's convenient and what isn't. You can now marry someone of the same sex so, jeez Louise, leave the Bible out of it. People have rejected Christianity. Do what you like and take the consequences. Stop yapping about it.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 5 January 2021 8:54:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes! and has been with us in every culture since the dawn of time! And achieved by a medley of herbal remedies, sub-lethal doses of this or that poison, or backyard butchery with a high death toll rate.

In truth, it boils down to all the above and unenforceable laws, or legitimate medical intervention in a clinically safe environment for the females of the species!

That some religions believe it is immoral!? Although not supported in any scripture? Is down to their brainwashed from birth belief systems. Which are more about thought and financial control than alleged morality? Go figure!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 5 January 2021 10:59:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When medicine advances to the point where elderly males can get pregnant, I will leave any decisions about terminating pregnancies to women, on the grounds that it is not within my moral (or legal) rights to dictate to women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Tuesday, 5 January 2021 11:12:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are occasions when abortion could be justified, but it has nothing to do with morals.
ttbn,
Well said ! What is not morally acceptable is when those privileged life-long on the Govt teats dependent mouth off about situations that could never even enter their dreams !
Ignorant through undeserved privilege policy makers have caused more suffering than any other members in our society !
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 5 January 2021 11:27:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn. It's called free will old-timer. Those that have chosen gender reassignment have used their God-given free will to achieve that outcome and personal happiness?

I believe, and it is medically possible to alter the sexual bias to reflect the sex they were born with. And with a lot less invasive surgery than that currently available along with the mental and physical risks that are inducibly involved!

Albeit, with my preferred method, the transition to normal sexual bias for your body type may need around twelve months of considerable confusion for a complete mental and physical adjustment And would need to be complemented with some in-depth counselling sessions with qualified professionals!

So instead of turning a boy into a girl and visa versa with massive intervention and hormone treatment that's life-long! I'd alter the sexual bias to represent the physical reality!

Completely medically doable with a very simple, eminently safe, one time only, day clinic procedure! Just not on the table in this, medically backward backwater society?

I mean, some will even claim and seriously believe that treatment for death sentence cancer with bismuth 213 is complementary or alternative medicine! And as treatable cancer is sent home to die in numbers greater than the annual road toll!

Big pharma and its medical devotees have a lot to answer for or even with blood on their hands?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 5 January 2021 11:31:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe. we can make you pregnant old fella. And ask you to go full term. Albeit the birth would only ever able to be caesarian. No, I don't want or require you to bend over just yet.

Donated eggs could be fertilized by you if your sperm is still viable, then the embryo implanted into a stomach cavity and attached to a viable blood supply. And all medically doable today! Sperm is removed with a hypodermic needle assisted with a local.

All completely fun free I assure you!

Just let us know when and where and I'll see who's available for the medical procedures.

Breastfeeding would require a surrogate or quite massive hormone treatment? That'd send your love life out the window! Leave the latter to you to arrange! After the caesarian, we could inset bowling up your annus sphincter. And you will have to bend over!

Then ask you to pass it without any pain relief, but maybe a little lube, so you could replicate as much as possible the joy and birthing experience of many mothers? You want?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 5 January 2021 11:59:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Alan,

And presumably voluntary ? So, reasonably well-planned ? The issue of choice would have already been decided ?

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Tuesday, 5 January 2021 12:10:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe. Yes mate, nobody is forced to decide against their own free will here, except those absolutely controlled by fundamental fanatics. And sadly some of that is still in play here!

Incidentally, for the proposed ten pin bowling ball insertion. You would be placed in a ruby scrum machine, then a scrum of ruby playing doctors will form up behind and shove. It's called when the push comes to shove procedure? Enjoy.

I've heard the Russians can remove the tonsils of catatonic patients via that aperture, Using a very long colonoscopy tube about a mile long, equipped with scissors and tweezers. Invented they say by a Chinese physician called Long Tong. A garden hose is first inserted to flush the system? Ve hope du are tirsty? Da?

They call it the wang tang procedure, a name invented by Long Tong, after witnessing a donkey (wang tang) urinating? Apparently can also be used to clear clogged blocked sewers, clogged with tree roots and sanitary products? Multiple-use? How clever is that?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 5 January 2021 12:46:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The above two assertions - that it is the mother's choice, for she is the person most affected, and that the foetus has no expectations of life, not even a fully formed brain, are the major reasons why an abortion is morally justified, But there are other supporting arguments.
No the mother is not the most affected the most affected person is the victim the child sheltering in the mother's womb. Secondly this assertion totally ignores and fails to acknowledge the role and rights of the father No child exists in the womb without the contribution of male sperm The child is not the sole creation and possession of one gender. The foetus has no expectations of life and not a fully formed brain. People outside the womb can have no expectations of life and have damaged brains do we kill them? Why not? If you follow the flawed logic of this paper we should be killing people with no expectations and a damaged brain
Posted by Truth Seeker, Tuesday, 5 January 2021 2:37:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Human life begins at conception. Abortion is premeditated killing of human life.
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 5 January 2021 7:31:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let’s hear what some abortionists have to say about it.

Judith Arcana, British abortionist: “It is morally and ethically wrong to do abortions without acknowledging what it means to do them.. I performed abortions. I have had an abortion and I am in favour of women having abortions when we choose to do so.

But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means that there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening.”


Dr Bertram Wainer (late Victorian abortionist) “My whole professional training was to prolong life, to nurture and protect it. Abortion is clearly at odds with that ethos.”


William Harrison, abortionist: “No one, neither the patient receiving an abortion, nor the person doing the abortion, is ever, at any time, unaware that they are ending a life.”

Dr Curtis Boyd, abortionist: “Am I killing? Yes I am. I know that.”

Dr Robert Jones, abortionist, “One has to start with the attitude that you accept the criticism that abortion is murder . . . You’re extinguishing life and if you don’t face up to that you are not being honest with yourself.”

Dr Beverley McMillan, former abortionist: I wanted to be the world’s best abortionist, for the good of my patients. . .
Finally I realised that abortion is not good for women. The truth is that abortion stops the beating heart of a live, growing human being. . .
Nothing good can come from it. Only heartache and regret."
Posted by JP, Tuesday, 5 January 2021 8:46:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP,
All the references you brought forward are from privileged social & financial situations.
Would they have any idea what makes many women choose an abortion ?
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 5 January 2021 9:30:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Abortion is morally justifiable?

We all have our own values, morals, belief
systems. They are as different and varied
as is the human race.

I don't know anybody who's had an abortion.
Most of my friends wanted children as desperately
as I did. Some even resorted to IVF. I am in no
position to pass judgements on the personal decisions of
other people. I can only imagine that for most people
it would not be an easy decision to make, especially
in difficult circumstances such as rape, incest,
physical and mental disability, mother's life at risk,
and so on.

Personally, I'm not sure if I could do it - but can any one
of us really put our hands on our hearts and say with certainty
what we would do in extremely difficult circumstances?

I can't.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 6 January 2021 3:19:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seriously, Foxy? “I am in no position to pass judgements on the personal decisions of other people.”

What, are you unwilling to say that Hitler’s personal decisions were wrong?

You say that : “We all have our own values, morals, belief systems. They are as different and varied
as is the human race”.

Maybe we do, but that surely does not mean that everyone’s values and morals are equally valid. I am sure you would not stand aside and let your friend be raped just because you wanted to respect the rapist’s morals! (And if you did stand aside you wouldn’t have any friends for long.)

To say that all morality is relative to the individual, as you seem to infer, is to end up in a mad world.

When it comes to abortion we need to discern just what is being done. If the evidence indicates that abortion is the deliberate killing of a fellow human being – and abortionists themselves are willing to say that it is – we need to ask ourselves why it is legitimate to e able to kill these human beings when normally we always say it is wrong to kill the innocent.

To just say that everyone can decide for themselves is incredibly inconsistent and is another step into a morally mad world.
Posted by JP, Wednesday, 6 January 2021 5:02:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JP,

Well, I certainly did not express myself well here.

I was talking about abortion.

I shall now go and sit in the naughty corner Sir.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 6 January 2021 6:17:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My sincere apologies Foxy if I came across too strongly with my response.

I realise of course that you were talking specifically about abortion but if it is acceptable to indulge in moral relativism with abortion, why is it not acceptable to do so with any or all other moral issues? It needs to be explained why abortion should be a special category.

It seems to me that the sort of fuzzy moral thinking you seemed to express is all too common in our society and that is leading us into very problematic areas.
Posted by JP, Wednesday, 6 January 2021 7:28:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JP,

Few issues in recent years have divided people as has the morality
of abortion. At the root of the controversy is a basic value of
judgement about the human status of the fetus. If the fetus 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.

But the status of the fetus fetus is inherently ambiguous.
It is neither self-evidently a human being nor self-evidently
just tissue(for if these matters were self-evident
there would be little disagreement about abortion).
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 January 2021 9:10:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

Dear JP,

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 accidentally miscarries, the fetus is not given
a funeral, but is simply disposed of like any other
tissue.

On the other hand, the fetus is not like any other tissue
such as discarded nail or hair clippings. The fetus is
potentially a human being one that might become alive
and unique as you or I. These 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. But here too there
are ambiguities. 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
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?

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

Not surprisingly, opinion polls show public confusion on the
issue of abortion. Hence my earlier post to simply decide
not to make any judgements.

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.

Also abortion rates must be seen in the context of
social changes in our premarital, marital, and family life
particularly the climate of sexual permissiveness and the
sense of individualism that leads people to make decision
primarily in terms of their personal desires rather than of
traditional norms.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 January 2021 9:49:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy - It is interesting that many people who want to allow for abortions to be done choose to use the word “fetus” to describe the entity carried by the pregnant woman. But as the Oxford dictionary defines the word, “fetus (human) - an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception” http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fetus , it is just a Latin word to describe a young fellow human being.

You suggest that the fetus may not really be human because it is generally not viable. In response, firstly, viability has nothing to do with establishing what the intrinsic nature of a being is.

Secondly, if the fetus is left alone in its natural environment in the womb it is normally perfectly viable. Of course, if you take them from that environment they will be “unviable” and die – but that is equally true of you and me. If we are dropped into the ocean without a boat, we will quickly drown, but that doesn’t mean we are “unviable” in our normal environment.

You talk about a “potential body and life” – of course there is an actual body there! And of course they are actually alive – dead things don’t grow, change and mature as does the baby in the womb.

Yes there is disagreement about the moral status of the child in the womb but that fact does not mean that we can then adopt a position of anything goes. Some people have argued that dark-skinned people or Jews are sub-human but just because these people’s humanity was disputed doesn’t mean they could be abandoned to be killed.

No, those who believe that abortion should be allowed have the responsibility to establish that we are indisputably not killing fellow human beings. Just like the hunter can’t get away with saying that he “thought” that the other hunt he shot was a deer, he must be certain of what he is about to shoot before pulling the trigger.

Normal prudence demands that the entity in the womb be given the same regard.
Posted by JP, Thursday, 7 January 2021 11:32:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy & JP,

Does it help to differentiate between a foetus and an embryo ? Almost by definition, an embryo is not a viable human being, i.e. up to around the twelfth week of a pregnancy, but a foetus older than that may be, and more viable the longer the pregnancy has continued.

My very faulty understanding is that, until about the middle of the second trimester a foetus is not currently viable, according to medical limitations.

So this would give a woman around nineteen or twenty weeks to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy, while the foetus (as it would be by then) is still not viable.

Could that be a starting point for discussion ?

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Thursday, 7 January 2021 11:59:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe – I have to assume that you didn’t see my latest post at 11.32am before you posted your last one, because I have already addressed most of what you raise.

A couple of points though – officially a human embryo refers to the first 8 weeks of life and fetus is the term used from there to birth. Unborn baby or child are just as valid terms to use as fetus.

Indeed the Queensland Criminal Code uses the word “child” to refer to the entity carried by a pregnant woman.

Section 313 Killing unborn child
(2) Any person who unlawfully assaults a female pregnant with a
child and destroys the life of, or does grievous bodily harm to,
or transmits a serious disease to, the child before its birth,
commits a crime.
Maximum penalty—imprisonment for life.

Please note that the penalty for killing the child in the womb without the mother’s permission is up to life in prison – the same penalty for killing a born human being. But if the mother asks for that same child to be killed right up until birth - then that is perfectly okay and no penalties apply.

Talk about double standards.

Please see my previous post where I address the issue of viability.
Posted by JP, Thursday, 7 January 2021 2:01:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JP and Joe,

When we take up an issue that is at the centre of
a public debate we tend to frame it as a matter
of individual ethics. For example - is it morally
permissable to offer money for sex, eat meat, have
an abortion? The questions often fail to focus on the
issues and can derail productive public debate.

Emotions run high. The problem is that questions like
these tend to over simplify the issues, Abortion is a
term for a number of difference medical procedures appropriate
for different stages of pregnancy, each with significantly
different health risks.

Having said that - I personally would never support an
abortion in the later stages of someone's pregnancy. And
an abortion is not something that I could ever imagine doing.
But that's just me. I can see though that fewer issues in
recent years have so divided people as has the morality
of abortion. Unless perhaps euthanasia. But that's a
different issue.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 7 January 2021 3:36:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy you say: "an abortion is not something that I could ever imagine doing.But that's just me".

How is that any better than someone who says: "Owning slaves is not something that I could ever imagine doing. But that's just me."?
Posted by JP, Thursday, 7 January 2021 7:46:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JP,

«How is that any better than someone who says: "Owning slaves is not something that I could ever imagine doing. But that's just me."?»

Both positions are good and proper.

You may want to free slaves (so would I if I could), but please make sure that your motive is to help these slaves, to reduce their suffering, rather than to condemn or "teach" the slave-owner.

Foxy is simply acknowledging that God granted us free choice.

Foxy also provided the example of eating meat:
According to my religious faith, eating meat is a bad thing, a sin which harms the animal and produces ill effects on the eater. Nevertheless, it is none of my business to instruct you to stop this bad habit as I respect your choice in this matter.

Of course, our actions produce consequences, some of which can be quite unpleasant, but God allowed us this choice nevertheless: why He did so may well be a mystery to us, but would you consider yourself wiser than God in this matter?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 7 January 2021 11:09:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I have always been an advocate of a woman's rights to choose what happens to her body given the often severe consequences for a single woman. However, I believe that it is the least bad decision and would struggle to claim that it is morally justifiable.
Posted by shadowminister, Friday, 8 January 2021 4:21:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu you make logical points and we share a love of God's greatest gift free will. The trouble is the act of killing a child in the womb is in a unique category because there are 3 people and God in this situation The biological mother the biological father and the babe in the womb and the Creator of all things. We have societal laws that protect the innocent and vulnerable from being killed hurt or maimed by others We even extend those rights and protections to other species via animal protection laws Yet throughout the world there has been the strange and cruel stripping away of those rights from the smallest and most vulnerable members of our species. By giving women the freedom to abort a baby you have robbed another person of their right to live.That person has committed no crime and yet their life is given no protection whatsoever.God does not intervene to stop abortion but we as a society can protect that babe in the womb Society has instead abandoned babe and mother and said Go ahead Do it We will not punish anyone who helps you kill your child There is neither love nor compassion in such a society The mother is encouraged to go against the deep and ingrained impulse of her own biological nature which is to nurture and protect the biological father is denied any rights in regard to the child and people make money out of the killing of the child There has even been the new low of some abortionist trading in harvesting the babies organs for transplant use. I think Foxy is a caring and thoughtful person who is trying to be fair and compassionate to women and that is good However society is not. Real compassion would be to say we as a society will care for all women expecting a baby regardless of how the babe was conceived.
Posted by Truth Seeker, Friday, 8 January 2021 9:41:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Truth Seeker,

The theological matters touched on by the subject of abortion are pretty complex and would require deep deliberation, but as I now live in a Christian country and am aware of the sensitivity of Christians around this topic, I so far tried to avoid it, for anyone who believes that one gets only one shot at life must come to certain conclusions about life's value.

I will therefore limit my response to just one point that you raised: Rights.

Since you mentioned "rights and protections" in one breath, I must clarify that I consider these two to be completely separate and here only address "rights", not "protections".

"Rights" are not God-given, but are completely man-made secular creations. A man of faith should have nothing to do with them because we are assured that God will give each of us exactly what we deserve, no more and no less, and that no human effort can change that either way.

Undoubtedly, one must obey their divine calling.
But we perform our calling for the single purpose of purifying our minds, not in order to achieve particular results in the world.

How can we tell the difference?

A servant of God will only think humbly: "I have done my duty".

Suppose one becomes aware that they have a duty to save a baby or a slave and proceed to perform their duty in the service of God, then neither will they be elated if they succeed, nor will they become angry should they fail - that's the test!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 8 January 2021 11:11:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu – I believe that God gave humans free will but I do not believe that means that all choices we make are therefore equally valid and must be respected. If someone comes across a situation where a person is being raped I believe we must not respect the rapist’s “choice” but must intervene to help the victim. This is not to make me wiser than God but to obey God’s command to love my neighbour.

Similarly, if one recognises the child in the womb as one’s neighbour then it is right and necessary to advocate on their behalf if they are at risk of being killed by abortion
Posted by JP, Friday, 8 January 2021 12:55:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
we are assured that God will give each of us exactly what we deserve, no more and no less
I am in total agreement and respect your thoughtful response However re rights and protection being separate I am not so sure For me a child has a right to expect protection They are vulnerable and unable to protect themselves initially. We are all alive and posting here because our right as a child allowed to come into existence was not robbed from us . Thank you for your courteous and considered reflection on the issue I will be making no further comments on this thread as I have to be careful of fatigue levels. My best wishes to all those who have commented on this thread
Posted by Truth Seeker, Friday, 8 January 2021 1:10:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JP,

If you feel the calling of God to prevent a rape or to advocate to preserve a baby's life, then of course so you must.

Yet Foxy did not receive that calling - not everyone does.

How can you tell whether you act purely in the service of God?
By using the above test: if you are content just with the fact that you tried your best to help and do God's work, then you are indeed acting in the service of God.

But if you feel elated when your task succeeds or angry when it fails, then some selfish motive has crept into your actions.

Suppose for example (and I am not hinting in any way this to be in your case), you are motivated by wishing to be seen as a hero in the eyes of society - then that being the case, you were not indeed motivated by love of your neighbour, even if the whole world believes that you are.

Or if you end up being angry at the rapist or the abortionist, then where is your love for them? Are they not also your neighbours?

In my view, it is better to not serve at all than to attempt to serve God without humility. It is not the external effect which God seeks when instructing you to act (had God wanted, then He could prevent the rape or murder Himself without your help). Rather, your instructions are God's graceful gift to you, in order that your obedient act(s) can purify your own mind and heart. Different people, at different times, receive different gifts and only God knows what gift one need most at each moment.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 8 January 2021 6:02:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Truth Seeker,

I understand how the concept of rights is so entrenched in Western society, that even religious people fail to recognise its secular origins.

You claim: «We are all alive and posting here because our right as a child allowed to come into existence was not robbed from us», but I claim instead that we are all alive and posting due to God's grace alone. Should God wanted otherwise, then no amount of societal protection could bring us here.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 8 January 2021 6:02:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with you It is God who authors all life but the act of abortion ends the life God's breath allowed
Posted by Truth Seeker, Friday, 8 January 2021 7:15:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was impressed that Foxy was able to see both sides of the argument here (though I haven't read the whole thread yet). Kudos.

Myself I can see good arguments on "both/ all" sides of this issue- there are perhaps more than two sides here- that doesn't mean I support them both equally- my views are complex on this issue- I'm not sure that this uncertainty means that it should necessarily be left to the individual either- fascinating subject. We should talk about this subject more.

I'm concerned with the author bringing the bible into it and his motivation
Posted by Canem Malum, Saturday, 9 January 2021 10:37:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu – you seem to want it both ways. You say, “God granted us free choice”, but also, “we are all alive and posting due to God's grace alone. Should God wanted otherwise, then no amount of societal protection could bring us here”.

So which is it – do human beings have genuine free will or does God actually control all that happens?
Posted by JP, Saturday, 9 January 2021 10:57:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article- he seems to play both sides of the political divide in a way apparently consistent with University Business School Indoctrination- also he invokes Peter Singer- to me a very contraversal figure in many cases- not sure about this case.
Posted by Canem Malum, Saturday, 9 January 2021 11:40:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My limited knowledge of human biology suggests that every human ovum and every sperm is a living thing. Who knows, maybe it's ordained that way by god.

So no sperm and no ovum should ever go to 'waste': all ova should be fertilised, and not menstruated away. Every sperm should be utilised to fertilise ova, otherwise we may be killing some of god's creations, even if there are billions of them.

And certainly, on these grounds, there should never be contraception.

Is this were some of the logic displayed on this thread would end up ?

I hasten to add, in order to clear up misinterpretations, that I don't think any of this is valid, that in fact it borders on the idiotic. But it's a logical conclusion from one perspective.

Women should have control over what happens to their bodies; contraception should always be legal; abortion should be legal up to the point where a foetus/fetus is viable, i.e. when another human being becomes involved.

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Saturday, 9 January 2021 11:59:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suspect that one could use some of the arguments in the article to argue against alimony and child support- which of course wouldn't be accepted because the whole debate is about "feminist power". Perhaps the concept of females having power in it's approapriate context is valid in a sense. The test of a concept seems to be how well it holds up against other seemingly opposing principles. Obviously there are a few stakeholders involved in the decision to terminate a foetus- including the family the child the wider community, institutions, ideology, religion, ethics and truth and meaning itself.

In a supporting family or extended family the woman isn't the only one burdened with an "unwanted child". Of course given that she is the one carrying it has certain realities.

If the women goes against community expectations- she might similarly be unable to expect support from that same community- given she has rejected the community.

Different communities will perhaps have different equally valid ways of dealing with these issues- "cultural relativism"- disagreements between philosophy's perhaps indicate less about truth than about the nature of reality- which is a type of truth ;)

Reciprocity seems to be a fundamental principle of community
Posted by Canem Malum, Saturday, 9 January 2021 12:30:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Truth Seeker,

«I agree with you It is God who authors all life but the act of abortion ends the life God's breath allowed»

The act of abortion ends a session of the biological aspect of life.

Still a sin more often than not, but for those who believe that there is no life beyond the physical/biological and nothing remains and continues past biological death, this must be looked upon even more gravely.

---

Dear JP,

«So which is it – do human beings have genuine free will or does God actually control all that happens?»

If I am to answer your question pedantically, strictly following your very choice of words rather than the spirit of your question, then I must respond that human beings, being just a biological machine, have no will at all.

However, we undeniably experience free will.
Like happiness, sadness, joy, anger, boredom, dreams, etc., free will is a genuine MENTAL EXPERIENCE.

In other words, free will is neither false, nor the absolute truth: it is a true experience.
And like all mental experiences, free will is also God's gift.

While our mind and the feelings and experiences therein influence our body, only God actually controls all that happens.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 9 January 2021 11:46:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu – hmmm. Your reply seems to be the double-talk of a Calvinist.

If, as you say, “God actually controls all that happens” then, if the words we use make any sense, any “experience” we have of free will is only an illusion.

Just like when the magician creates the illusion of cutting the woman in half, but does not actually do so, then the illusion of free will is not free will at all – it is just a trick.

If free will is to be a meaningful concept then it must mean that human beings can actually act according to their own will, i.e. act against God’s will and/or the physical laws of the universe, at least at times. If you don’t believe that is possible then you should not say that people have free will. To do so is to be misleading.

If you haven’t read it previously you may like to read my OLO article on free will and determinism:
https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17152
Posted by JP, Sunday, 10 January 2021 10:05:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting answer JP. Kudos.
Posted by Canem Malum, Sunday, 10 January 2021 11:46:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JP,

I have read and commented on your article from 2015 and while I still generally agree with my comment there, I have studied more since then, nearly 6 years ago.

Illusion - this is the term used in Buddhism, so if also Calvinists consider experience as an illusion then I have learnt something new today.

But Hindu philosophy differs from Buddhism on this point and to explain this I need to introduce a new term: "Mithya".

In Western thought, every statement can only be either true or false, but Hinduism recognises a third case in between, Mythia, which I could best translate as "relative truth". Mythia is very different from "illusion" since the latter is obviously false: you see a mirage in the desert but there's no water there; the woman seems cut in half by the magician but that is not actually so.

So here are some classical examples of Mythia:

1. Seeing a clay-pot, you say "here is a pot": this is relatively true but it is not the absolute truth.
Sooner or later, the pot will break, but clay will remain and then it could even be reshaped into a clay-plate or a clay-doll. Thus "this is a pot" is relatively true, relative to utility and time, but the deeper underlying truth of it is, clay!
(in modern times, of course, we can further break the clay into silicon, aluminum, magnesium, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., even further into protons, neutrons and electrons, then "clay" would be the relative-truth/Mithya, and the subatomic particles the deeper underlying truth)

2. A golden necklace is only relatively a necklace, what it more truly is, is gold: it can be melted into a golden-ring, a gold-pendant, a golden-calf... "Necklace" is Mythia and gold is its truer nature.

3. A wave in the ocean is not an illusion, it has a definite shape and force, it can cause damage or can be fun surfing, but the deeper truth of it is WATER. The form of a wave can only last that long, but water was there before and will remain after.

[continued...]
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 10 January 2021 2:18:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[...continued]

Similarly, our free will in particular and our mental experiences in general, are not illusions, they are not fake, they are not lies, they are not tricks - but neither are they the final absolute truth.

On a relative level, our free choice gives us certain control over our bodies and through them over our environment. On that level also, our choices produce results: choosing well in obedience to God brings favourable results and ill-choosing against God brings painful results, that pain feeling most real.

All this is not false, but nor the absolute truth - it is Mithya.

The only absolute truth, underlying all our experiences, all our actions and all the results of those actions, is God. At the ultimate, there is nothing but God, there can be nothing else, there can be no will but His. Only God can be called 'True', everlasting, uncreated, the Ultimate Reality.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 10 January 2021 2:18:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu - if it is true as you say that "there is nothing but God, there can be nothing else, there can be no will but His", then all talk about anything else is just a waste of time.

If there is no will but God's, then even my disagreement with you must be God's will.

The Holocaust must have been God's will, as must be all murders, rapes, and acts of torture.

If that is what you really believe about God then we clearly believe in very different Gods.
Posted by JP, Sunday, 10 January 2021 10:00:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To: Peter Bowden

Peter
You are on the wrong track. If you believe, as Christians do, that life begins at conception then there is no moral justification whatsoever for abortion.
Greg at FamilyVoice Australia
Posted by Apologist Greg, Monday, 11 January 2021 6:17:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting how the noisiest promoters against abortion are found in the Republican Party thanks to Jerry Falwell snr. and his creation the Moral Majority, although Falwell was not pro-life before..... it has became a defining GOP issue and central policy, since.

The isse of abortion was highlighted and promoted by libertarians to form a coalition of Catholic and/or Evangelical Christians to vote for the GOP (vs. garnering only a potential vote of <5% themselves), then allowing libertarian bills to pass, and to control the SCOTUS with Christian 'conservatives' plus related media agitprop.

Not wanting to sound trite or glib, but one is bemused by protections (demanded) for the unborn but the same are then expected to sink or swim in a socio Darwinist swamp after birth?
Posted by Andras Smith, Tuesday, 12 January 2021 3:18:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JP,

Since there can only be one God, it is not possible for us to worship two different ones. All we could possibly differ on, is what we believe ABOUT God.

My strong faith is that God is not limited, by anyone or by anything. The worship of any limited being is called idolatry.

The wise and the saints indeed state that any talk, indeed even any thought, that is not about God, is a waste of time.
But alas, until we are able to follow their advice all the time, which we work towards, and think about God alone, so long as we fall short and still think about personal consequences: pain and pleasure, cold and heat, fame or disgrace, gain or loss, etc., to that extent we must consider our subjectively-free personal will seriously in the sense that our choices bring about consequences that make us happy or unhappy respectively. Once we grow to be focused on God alone, our personal will no longer matters.

Attempting to compare God's will with our limited, slow and frail thought processes that constitute our will, free or otherwise, is ridiculous.
God's will is not anything that we can fathom, compute or judge: attempts to do so are repudiated both in Hindu scriptures and in the book of Job, chapters 38-41. All we can say about it is retrospectively: whatever already happened could not have been but God's will.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 12 January 2021 12:46:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu – we seem to be going around in circles somewhat but I’ll make one more comment.

I agree that there is only one God – false “gods” are no gods at all.

You say, “whatever already happened could not have been but God's will”, so you therefore must believe that the Holocaust and all murders and rapes that have been committed are what God willed.

God is usually understood to be perfectly good and loving. If the Holocaust, murder and rape are willed/wanted/caused by God then apparently the Holocaust, murder and rape are examples of God’s perfect goodness and love.

To say this is to turn upside down and effectively destroy all ethical understanding. God must be evil as well as good – this is a non-sensical statement.

No, I believe that God voluntarily limited his sovereignty so as to enable human beings to have meaningful free will and thus be able to freely love their creator. Humans have abused that freedom however and have brought suffering into this world as a consequence.

God does not will the Holocaust, murder and rape. He hates those things and wants to work with us through Jesus to stop such things.
Posted by JP, Wednesday, 13 January 2021 9:30:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JP,

There is no contradiction between what we say - we just speak of different layers of reality: relative truth and absolute truth.

Experiences within the relative truth which we often call "nature", including human nature, are as you describe. Within nature, the experience of human life includes both free will and human-inflicted suffering that happens when humans break their ethics.

The absolute truth, however, is God. Nature (in general and human nature in particular) is an expression of God that can only exist within God. God cannot be part of nature, His own creation.

So getting back to my previous example, suppose there is a clay pot full of water, then when asked "what holds this water?" an argument erupts: one saying "the pot", the other saying "clay". How silly to argue about this - both are true!

Similarly, the will of man is also part of the will of God: both are true, it is not an either-or situation.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 13 January 2021 3:07:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy