Abortion Debate

Discussion for Christian perspectives on ethical issues such as abortion, euthanasia, sexuality, and so forth.
User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21099
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 195 times
Been liked: 1055 times

Re: Abortion Debate

#106

Post by RickD » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:08 am

PaulSacramento wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:05 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:11 pm
PaulSacramento wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:53 am
So if I understand you correctly; lying to evil men in order to save the lives of innocent people is wrong, but isn’t a sin because it’s justified; is that correct? How about if you tell the truth to the evil men resulting in the death of innocent people? Since this is a righteous act, is it considered a sin because it is unjustified? In other words, are there times when righteousness is sometimes a sin
You understood it wrong.
A SIN is always a SIN.
Lying is still a SIN even if it serves a greater good.

In real life we say "it depends" a lot because, as failed humans and a fallen world, we sometimes have to justify doing something that is objectively wrong ( taking a life) because we HAVE to for a greater good ( to save a life). That act, however, is still objectively wrong ( taking a life is wrong) BUT it can be justified.

Heck, the law sees this distinction.

Legal definition of justification: Justification is a reason for committing an act which otherwise would constitute an actionable wrong or tort. It is an ancient principle of the common law that a trespass may be justified in many cases.
Okay so per my scenario, the right thing to do would be to give the evil men the correct information, knowing it will lead to the death of innocents. This is the righteous and sinless thing to do; is this correct?
If lying to the evil men to save innocent lives is wrong and sinful, but justified, what good is calling it justified if you gonna burn in hell for it anyway?
Wow...so it seems that you truly either don't understand Christianity, at all, or you simply ignore all that has been discussed on this site since you have been here.
Paul,

Don't be so hard on Kenny. It's a lot easier to discredit a false version of Christianity than to discredit the real thing
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: Abortion Debate

#107

Post by Kenny » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:46 am

PaulSacramento wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:05 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:11 pm
PaulSacramento wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:53 am
So if I understand you correctly; lying to evil men in order to save the lives of innocent people is wrong, but isn’t a sin because it’s justified; is that correct? How about if you tell the truth to the evil men resulting in the death of innocent people? Since this is a righteous act, is it considered a sin because it is unjustified? In other words, are there times when righteousness is sometimes a sin
You understood it wrong.
A SIN is always a SIN.
Lying is still a SIN even if it serves a greater good.

In real life we say "it depends" a lot because, as failed humans and a fallen world, we sometimes have to justify doing something that is objectively wrong ( taking a life) because we HAVE to for a greater good ( to save a life). That act, however, is still objectively wrong ( taking a life is wrong) BUT it can be justified.

Heck, the law sees this distinction.

Legal definition of justification: Justification is a reason for committing an act which otherwise would constitute an actionable wrong or tort. It is an ancient principle of the common law that a trespass may be justified in many cases.
Okay so per my scenario, the right thing to do would be to give the evil men the correct information, knowing it will lead to the death of innocents. This is the righteous and sinless thing to do; is this correct?
If lying to the evil men to save innocent lives is wrong and sinful, but justified, what good is calling it justified if you gonna burn in hell for it anyway?
Wow...so it seems that you truly either don't understand Christianity, at all, or you simply ignore all that has been discussed on this site since you have been here.
Though you all read from the same book, you guys don't agree on many of the details concerning Christianity, so my questions is not an attempt to understand Christianity, they are an attempt to understand YOUR interpretation of Christianity. If my questions are off point, tell me where I've gone wrong.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9034
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 341 times

Re: Abortion Debate

#108

Post by PaulSacramento » Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:41 am

Where have you ever heard us say that being a sinner, which EVERYONE is, sends you to hell?

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: Abortion Debate

#109

Post by Kenny » Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:46 am

PaulSacramento wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:41 am
Where have you ever heard us say that being a sinner, which EVERYONE is, sends you to hell?
I don't recall anybody here ever saying that. Why do you ask?
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21099
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 195 times
Been liked: 1055 times

Re: Abortion Debate

#110

Post by RickD » Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:43 am

Kenny wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:46 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:41 am
Where have you ever heard us say that being a sinner, which EVERYONE is, sends you to hell?
I don't recall anybody here ever saying that. Why do you ask?
Kenny,

You wrote:
If lying to the evil men to save innocent lives is wrong and sinful, but justified, what good is calling it justified if you gonna burn in hell for it anyway?
Which suggests that people will burn in hell for lying.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: Abortion Debate

#111

Post by Kenny » Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:22 am

RickD wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:43 am
Kenny wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:46 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:41 am
Where have you ever heard us say that being a sinner, which EVERYONE is, sends you to hell?
I don't recall anybody here ever saying that. Why do you ask?
Kenny,

You wrote:
If lying to the evil men to save innocent lives is wrong and sinful, but justified, what good is calling it justified if you gonna burn in hell for it anyway?
Which suggests that people will burn in hell for lying.
The term "burn in Hell" is a figure of speech used jokingly when someone did something wrong. Haven't you ever heard someone say; "Daay-umm you really messed up bruh; you gonna burn in Hell for that one!" They aren't saying that is the one act that will keep you outta heaven, they're just saying in a joking way that you did something bad. I think (hope) the person I was discussing with understood the context of which I said it.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Abortion Debate

#112

Post by Nils » Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:47 am

RickD wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:29 pm
Nils wrote:
Thank you, Rick, for a clear answer. Just to be quite sure, I summarize: You think that it is objectively true that young fetuses have a right to live, but you haven't any argument to motivate your thought. That seems to be a view that is held by many “pro-lifers”.
What!?!?!
No, human life has inherent value. All human life.
I say that you say: “young fetuses have a right to live”. I think that’s the same as saying that they have inherent value. OK?
All humans have a right not to be murdered.
Now you start talking about “murdering”, why? The definition of murder is: “the unlawful premeditated killing”.
Especially innocent humans, like the unborn kind. To say that many pro-lifers have no argument as to why baby humans shouldn't be murdered, is just ignorant.
Please read what I write. I wrote that you think that the young fetus has a right to live and that you (and pro-lifers) don’t motivate that thought (and I’m not talking about “baby humans” and I’m not talking about “murder”)
Nils wrote:
My opinion is that the young fetus don’t have any right to live if the parents want to kill it. I don’t think that this is objectively true because I don’t think that there are any objective true moral statements. On the other hand I am quite sure that a prohibition of abortion of young fetuses will cause considerable suffering for many families and individuals. This view is held by most “pro- choicers”. I and those think that the only individuals that might suffer if a young fetus is killed is the parents but they have made a consent. The young fetus doesn’t feel anything.
The young fetus' right to life is less important than the parents' choice to kill another human for convenience. Got it.
“Convenience” is a euphemism for possibly spoiled lives.

You don't think there are any objective true moral statements? I think you're lying to yourself on that one. Take this statement: "It is wrong to rape and murder children." You don't think that's objectively true?
That’s a difficult and complex question that I prefer not to discuss now. Morality is apparently different in different cultures. Se for instance what is written in the old testament concerning killing children. I’m currently listening on a discussion between Dr Shermer and Dr. Nicholas A. Christakis about Chritakis’ new book. Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... Vgx7E16_qk . It is interesting, recommended. I may have to modify my opinion about objectivity a bit.
The prohibition of abortion of young fetuses will cause considerable suffering to many families and individuals? So again, whatever suffering that families and individuals would have, takes precedence OVER the life of another human being. That seems pretty damn messed up, if you ask me. Individuals and families are inconvenienced by the birth of a child, so let's just kill the baby. PROBLEM SOLVED!
Nils wrote:
Then, what would you say if you argued with those that are for abortion of young fetuses? Would you say?: I think that you should adopt my principle of the right to life. This principle doesn’t generate any good. No less suffering, no more happiness or well being. But still you should adopt my thinking even if you know that lot off suffering will be the result of prohibiting abortion. And note that if you don’t accept my argument I will work for a law so that if you act according to your conviction, you and those that help you, will be sentenced to prison.
And this sums it up perfectly. "A lot of suffering will be the result of prohibiting abortion."

To hell with the suffering and murder of the unborn, if the parents are inconvenienced by a baby, IT'S A CRISIS!!!!
There is no suffering of the “unborn”. I am talking about young fetuses that don’t feel pain.
There is no murdering. I am talking about lawful killing.

The discussion will be more productive if you discuss what I’m talking about, not other things.
Good grief! Your priorities are really screwed up.
You prioritize the right to live for the young fetus which is as most a protohuman. Without memory, consciousness, feelings or any cognitive abilities. I don’t see any reason why the world would be better in any sense if we give these fetuses an unconditional right to live.
You claim this principle without any further motivation, without motivating why I should give any weight to it comparing it to the well documented sufferings an abortion ban would cause. What on earth could I say to the woman I told about earlier that aborted a fetus that probably had Downs syndrome. Shall I say. “You acted wrongly when you choose to have a healthy instead of a sick baby”? What’s your suggestion?

“Good grief” you say. You seem to forget that my view or some similar view is a majority view in many countries and recently even in the catholic Ireland.

And finally, prioritizing a principle that has no value before human suffering, isn’t that “screwed up”? (And again, notice that I’m talking about embryos and young fetuses)
Nils

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8213
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 388 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Abortion Debate

#113

Post by Philip » Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:25 am

You don't think there are any objective true moral statements? I think you're lying to yourself on that one. Take this statement: "It is wrong to rape and murder children." You don't think that's objectively true?
Nils: Morality is apparently different in different cultures. Se for instance what is written in the old testament concerning killing children.
So, if country A has laws allowing the killing of old people due to senility - that's fine. But if country B has laws that consider that to be murder, it's wrong? So, morality / right and wrong is a matter of whatever government's laws? Wow!

Nils, what do yo mean in referencing the Old Testament?

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9034
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 341 times

Re: Abortion Debate

#114

Post by PaulSacramento » Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:21 am

Kenny wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:22 am
RickD wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:43 am
Kenny wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:46 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:41 am
Where have you ever heard us say that being a sinner, which EVERYONE is, sends you to hell?
I don't recall anybody here ever saying that. Why do you ask?
Kenny,

You wrote:
If lying to the evil men to save innocent lives is wrong and sinful, but justified, what good is calling it justified if you gonna burn in hell for it anyway?
Which suggests that people will burn in hell for lying.
The term "burn in Hell" is a figure of speech used jokingly when someone did something wrong. Haven't you ever heard someone say; "Daay-umm you really messed up bruh; you gonna burn in Hell for that one!" They aren't saying that is the one act that will keep you outta heaven, they're just saying in a joking way that you did something bad. I think (hope) the person I was discussing with understood the context of which I said it.
Right...

User avatar
Nessa
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3360
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:10 pm
Christian: Yes
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 557 times
Been liked: 304 times

Re: Abortion Debate

#115

Post by Nessa » Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:39 pm

These users liked this post by Nessa:
Kurieuo (Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:20 pm)

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9928
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 632 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: Abortion Debate

#116

Post by Kurieuo » Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:20 pm

Abby's helped many women get out of the abortion industry, who unknowingly entered into it thinking they were helping women who then realised how horrible it was.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9928
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 632 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: Abortion Debate

#117

Post by Kurieuo » Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:23 pm

Around 6 mins in, "pregnant persons". :lol:
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Abortion Debate

#118

Post by Nils » Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:12 pm

Philip wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:25 am
You don't think there are any objective true moral statements? I think you're lying to yourself on that one. Take this statement: "It is wrong to rape and murder children." You don't think that's objectively true?
Nils: Morality is apparently different in different cultures. Se for instance what is written in the old testament concerning killing children.
So, if country A has laws allowing the killing of old people due to senility - that's fine. But if country B has laws that consider that to be murder, it's wrong? So, morality / right and wrong is a matter of whatever government's laws? Wow!

Nils, what do yo mean in referencing the Old Testament?
Philip, this is an illustration of difficult it is to discuss relative morality and why I don’t want to discuss it now. I don’t have time to do it now but probably later.
Just to answer your questions:
I was saying that morality differs in different cultures, not that laws define morality.
I referenced to the Old Testament because there are clear differences in some moral issue between then and our western society.
But again, I don’t want to discuss that now because I don’t see how that might affect the abortion debate.
Nils

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9034
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 341 times

Re: Abortion Debate

#119

Post by PaulSacramento » Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:13 am

Laws don't define morals, Laws are based on morals ( morals come first then Laws, obviously).

Laws are how morals ( what is good and what is bad) are enforced and how society/groups can interact ( under what rules).

Morals are the subjective understand of the OBJECTIVE truth:

Objective Morals - There IS a Good and , by default, a Bad.
Subjective Morals - WHAT is Good and, be default, bad.

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Abortion Debate

#120

Post by Nils » Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:48 am

Nessa wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:39 pm
Nessa, when I look at this video I find no good arguments. She said that the young fetuses are innocent human beings. That is correct but why is it good to assign human rights to them, she didn’t say. She compared abortion with slavery and holocaust. Does she really think that the lives of adult black persons and Jews on one hand and protohumans without consciousness, feelings and memories on the other hand have the same value?

But most important, she didn’t answer my question. What is the reason for giving a young fetus the full right to live? The only reason I heard so far is: We should do that, period.
Nils

Post Reply