Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Retardobot]

Well, I already answered his question, the term 'shall not kill/murder' is the reason many Christians would be pro-life.

Which unfortunately comes back to original argument of 'at what stage is it a human, at what stage is it considered "murder"'

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Indeed.

[toofast]

read the bible translations on the only reference to abortion - http://bible.cc/exodus/21-22.htm

Its a shame there's not a black guys translation on that site. Definitely make the bible a bit more interesting.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

read the bible translations on the only reference to abortion - http://bible.cc/exodus/21-22.htm

Its a shame there's not a black guys translation on that site. Definitely make the bible a bit more interesting.

What about a lolcat translation?

If yooz fites and hurtz femail preggerz kittah, an da kittnz goez 4th, butt no harmz iz cawzed, den uuuuz muss pay monies dat judgez demanzz. Butt iff youz maik ouchy, you takes lief 4 lief, ai 4 ai, toof 4 toof, paw 4 paw scrach 4 scrach, biet 4 byte, tael 4 tale.

[oefox]

Women have been able to abort pregnancies since before the 'coming of christ' yet the bible makes no reference to that fact...

It's quite clear in the bible that a murderer should be in turn murdered; rather cynical for being pro life, yet the only reference to an abortion is quite vague as to the outcome but then i'm not surprised given all the contradictions in the bible, like and eye for an eye - unless it's slave in which case not all gods servants are treated the same (another exodus gem)

[Ngati_Grim]

Well, I already answered his question, the term 'shall not kill/murder' is the reason many Christians would be pro-life.

Well, we already know they pick and choose and manipulate for their own means....


[video]O9DHgnKeAxo[/video]

[video]L85MNzeAQn8[/video]

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Personally I think the abortion argument has nothing to do with religion.

[Dr Woomanchu]

Well, I already answered his question, the term 'shall not kill/murder' is the reason many Christians would be pro-life.

Which unfortunately comes back to original argument of 'at what stage is it a human, at what stage is it considered "murder"'

People just hate gray. As a society we can only take a rational approach. The question isn't primarily whether an individual considers it wrong. If abortion were legal, any woman has the personal right to think abortion is wrong and not use that option. The question is, at what point should a fetus be considered human on a line that stretches from the zygote, to the moment of birth.

I don't like our current law that a woman has to have a reason that doctors approve of to have an abortion. There should be a point at which a fetus has all the protections any person does, but before then it should be up to the conscience of the individual. However there will inevitably be a gray area, where actions that protect the health of the woman may endanger a fetus, and that area should probably fall under medical ethics.

I have no issue at all with first trimester abortions. I think we need to be cautious after that.

[toofast]

Well, I already answered his question, the term 'shall not kill/murder' is the reason many Christians would be pro-life.

Which unfortunately comes back to original argument of 'at what stage is it a human, at what stage is it considered "murder"'

People just hate gray. As a society we can only take a rational approach. The question isn't primarily whether an individual considers it wrong. If abortion were legal, any woman has the personal right to think abortion is wrong and not use that option. The question is, at what point should a fetus be considered human on a line that stretches from the zygote, to the moment of birth.

I don't like our current law that a woman has to have a reason that doctors approve of to have an abortion. There should be a point at which a fetus has all the protections any person does, but before then it should be up to the conscience of the individual. However there will inevitably be a gray area, where actions that protect the health of the woman may endanger a fetus, and that area should probably fall under medical ethics.

I have no issue at all with first trimester abortions. I think we need to be cautious after that.

At the same time, is there really the need to force a child on someone who doesn't want it. I do think it should be the womans decision (though having her reason it out with a doctor does seem smart, incase it is just a rash decision).

[oefox]

Personally I think the abortion argument has nothing to do with religion.

Well that would be the rational argument wouldn't it and was what I was getting at but then not everyone has the ability to think and act freely and blindly follow their religious leaders.

What I hate is people trying to force an invalid argument onto a vulnerable person when especially were the shoe on the other foot it'd most likely change their perspective.

I just always conjure up the cases of rape victims that end up pregnant and would like to hope that these fanatics had some empathy to feel what these victims go through and if not some sick twisted part of my mind would wish it upon them.

[krasher]

Personally I think the abortion argument has nothing to do with religion.

Well that would be the rational argument wouldn't it and was what I was getting at but then not everyone has the ability to think and act freely and blindly follow their religious leaders.

What I hate is people trying to force an invalid argument onto a vulnerable person when especially were the shoe on the other foot it'd most likely change their perspective.

I just always conjure up the cases of rape victims that end up pregnant and would like to hope that these fanatics had some empathy to feel what these victims go through and if not some sick twisted part of my mind would wish it upon them.

You think being a rape victim is bad (it probably is too), try being a helpless little person inside your mother being pulled to death or whatever they do. Just a flipside for balance.

Personally, I don't know where human life starts. I think the problem is the grey shades. People - Christian, religious or whatever, all tend towards black/white thinking/splitting. It boring old human development theory - thanks Piaget. Grey shades are difficult. What if we were just told to 'drive safely' and be 'ethical'. instead of having laws. Perhaps it's a good idea..?!

Finding the balance in between black and white...keep searching I say.

[Blob_ZPS]

I don't see the problem imo, The foetus (I think that's what they call 'em), wouldn't miss anything because they would not of experienced anything.

The problem is deciding when the foetus becomes conscious.

[Dr Woomanchu]

Arguably a new born baby is not "conscious". IMO the cutoff is when the fetus would be able to develop normally into a functional human if delivered right then.

[liquidpain]

the best pokemon episode ever
[video]PyclBRebNW8[/video]

[BerG]

The cutoff should be 5 years old.

This gives you a chance to decide if you like the baby or not.

[Virus.]

Well all the fetus at the start of conception is nothing but a few cells, the same as a plant. What makes you all so upset to kill it all the same when the same bundle of cells has developed nerves?

At the same time, do you like the thought of you being killed before you were even born? Even if you were only a few cells at the time?

This isn't my opinion, I'm just making you think philosophically.

[Kayne]

At the same time, do you like the thought of you being killed before you were even born? Even if you were only a few cells at the time?

What does it matter, We're Lucky that we were the sperm cell to make it through, The other million just died (needlessly?).

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

The problem is, there's never going to be a point in time when a human just 'switches on', it's gradual process. And think that's just something people have to accept.

Abortion is a necessity, the worse case is without it some people trying to self-terminate a pregnancy themselves, which is very dangerous.
But given that, it shouldn't be an easy way out.

At the same time, do you like the thought of you being killed before you were even born? Even if you were only a few cells at the time?

What does it matter, We're Lucky that we were the sperm cell to make it through, The other million just died (needlessly?).

But we were never a sperm cell, we're a combination of a sperm and egg, once they come together, the genetic blueprint of a human being is created.

And I think there's a big difference between someone dieing due to a natural process of nature, as opposed to dieing due a conscious decision by another human being.

[Dr Woomanchu]

The problem is, there's never going to be a point in time when a human just 'switches on', it's gradual process. And think that's just something people have to accept.

Which is why I am in favour of a gray area. Up to a certain point the decision is up to the woman involved and it's no-one elses business, but beyond that it should be a medical ethics issue, with clear guidelines for the doctors as to what reasons are acceptable for later term abortions.

[BerG]

At the same time, do you like the thought of you being killed before you were even born? Even if you were only a few cells at the time?

If I was going to be born into a world where my parents don't want me (or have ditched me altogether), to live a life of poverty and despair, then hell yes. Put me out of my misery before I can feel it rather than making me do it myself at 10 years old.

[dirtyape]

In a multi-verse, the arguments against abortion lose value as instances of parallel realities would exist in which both the abortion occurred and also where it did not occur. Likewise, there would be instances where each sperm successfully fertilised the ovum. The likelihood of your consciousness observing a particular sperms success would be based upon the sperms suitability to the task according to natural selection.

[Blob_ZPS]

In a multi-verse, the arguments against abortion lose value as instances of parallel realities would exist in which both the abortion occurred and also where it did not occur. Likewise, there would be instances where each sperm successfully fertilised the ovum. The likelihood of your consciousness observing a particular sperms success would be based upon the sperms suitability to the task according to natural selection.

Lol, multiverse theory is basically religion, its not science.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

In a multi-verse, the arguments against abortion lose value as instances of parallel realities would exist in which both the abortion occurred and also where it did not occur. Likewise, there would be instances where each sperm successfully fertilised the ovum. The likelihood of your consciousness observing a particular sperms success would be based upon the sperms suitability to the task according to natural selection.

Lol, multiverse theory is basically religion, its not science.

He never said it was science, stop being such a know it all.

[Blob_ZPS]

I never said he said it was science.
Stop being such a know it all

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

I never said he said it was science.
Stop being such a know it all

I never said you never said he never said it was science.

Stop discontinuing being all knowing of it