As you have gotten older

[Lamb]

@ValleyGal If a mother were to say she was thinking of killing her 1 day old baby, would you say it's her choice to be able to do so? Maybe she can't afford that baby, and maybe her boyfriend will kill her for having it. All those same excuses you hear from women who don't want the inconvenience of a child. Would you allow it to happen because it's not your business?

 

[Josiah]

It is always the victim who suffers, and they have no choice in the matter. I'm sure anyone murdered at any age (fetus all the way to elderly) will say it wasn't okay. Murder is never okay.

@ValleyGal


I agree. Thus my disagreement that things are okay if they are legal but not to be tolerated if they are illegal. IMO, morality is not the same as legality. We should not be "liberal" and tolerant to what is wrong - even if it is technically legal.

Victimizing anyone is never okay. People still do it. We can't change them, even by forcing our views on them.

Of course, "forcing our views on others" is pretty much the definition of laws. If we shouldn't force morality on people then we shouldn't have laws.

I agree that simply enacting a law does not - in and of itself - change behavior. Witness how many drive over the speed limit (although perhaps not as much as would be the case if there were no speed limit). On the other hand, it DOES impact behavior (at least for the majority). Why don't I just run the stop sign? Well, I SHOULD stop because it's the safe thing to do (caring about others - and myself) but probably at least equal to that motivation is that, well, a cop could be lerking.... A lot of people wore masks during the COVID-19 thing whether they felt they helped or not (it was a government mandate).... a lot of people deal with all that security at the airport because that's the law. Laws do impact behavior - for most, anyway.

But I agree with you: Laws and morality are not the same thing. We should not wink at evil, wrong, immorality... even if such is technically legal; that aspect of liberalism is something I disagree with.

I see abortion as a harm reduction method - because she will choose an abortion whether it's legal and safe or not.

Respectfully, I don't agree that the ultimate form of child abuse is moral and should be "tolerated."

There's nothing "safe" about abortion - it nearly always kills. Nothing safe about killing. Just ask the innocent, helpless (now dead) baby.

Yes, SOME will have the abortion even if it's illegal - but that doesn't make it moral or right or something we should ignore. And the law WILL impact behavior for many (but not for all). Insisting we should tolerate rape because it likely will happen anyway doesn't make rape right or something we should "tolerate" and make legal. There will always be immorality... those who ignore laws and codes and moraliy. But I disgree with the liberal attitude that thus we should wink at that, tolerate that, allow that. We should work for justice, right, morality. To lessen victimization and harm.

I believe a fetus is a baby right from conception. There are those who don't. That is their choice to deny what my faith tells me is true. So yes, it is the standard "excuse" but not by all of us who are devoted to self-determination.

Killing someone seems to me like depriving them of self-determination....

I agree with you about working to lessen victimization and to promote morality. I'm simply therefore disagreeing with the idea that we should wink at it, tolerate it, permit it.

In fact, I am quite bemused by the idea that a fetus is a lump of cells if the fetus is unwanted, but a baby if it is wanted. A pregnant woman will always refer to the baby growing inside her when it is wanted. That same woman will refer to a fetus as a lump of cells that requires "surgery" if it is not wanted. In fact, I am quite bemused by the idea that a fetus is a lump of cells if the fetus is unwanted, but a baby if it is wanted. A pregnant woman will always refer to the baby growing inside her when it is wanted. That same woman will refer to a fetus as a lump of cells that requires "surgery" if it is not wanted.

I totally agree.....

Thus, I hold we should work to protect that child and not take the liberal view of standing by passively and allowing an innocent, helpless child being killed (deprived of self-determination to use your words). I think we should work to lessen victimization, injustice, wrong - not wink at it and say "Well, it will all happen anyway no matter what we think or say or do."

And I hold that while it is good and right for laws to support morality and defend victims, I also hold that simply changing the law will have limited effect. We need to change hearts and not just laws. Thus, on the abortion issue, the primary focus should be on supporting the sanctity of life and extending love to mothers and babies. But ALSO helpful is changing laws and public policy.


I suspect we don't disagree that much....


Blessings to you!


- Josiah


.

 

[ValleyGal]

would you say it's her choice to be able to do so?

"...be able to..." We have to balance the rights and responsibilities of the woman as well. Saying "be able to" is a matter of moral judgement, and no, I wish no one would choose this. But "be able to" also means being able to have the adult choice about her own body. And no one ever suggested that killing a baby is okay. It never is. Just like it is never okay to kill your neighbour. We should not "be able to" murder another person, but people do it anyway. There is a baby in a woman, she should "be able to" have the right to self-determination over her own body, and if she chooses to murder the baby in her body, she must account to God.

Killing someone seems to me like depriving them of self-determination....

Yes, whether an adult or a baby. And it is morally wrong, imo.

So... again, I have used abortion only to illustrate my reasoning for what others view as my "liberal" thinking and my conservative values as I apply them to myself. This whole thread again has been hijacked to become a debate on abortion, and that was not my intent as is clear from the post I made - this was an illustration only, because it is a very clear one. This is why people - including everyone here - considers me liberal, even though the older I get, the more conservative I become in my own values, behaviour, style, politics, etc. I have said my peace on abortion in more than one discussion. Consider the matter from here forward to ONLY be used as a matter of demonstration, IF I ever bring it up again.

Back to the thread topic.

 

[Messy]

"...be able to..." We have to balance the rights and responsibilities of the woman as well. Saying "be able to" is a matter of moral judgement, and no, I wish no one would choose this. But "be able to" also means being able to have the adult choice about her own body. And no one ever suggested that killing a baby is okay. It never is. Just like it is never okay to kill your neighbour. We should not "be able to" murder another person, but people do it anyway. There is a baby in a woman, she should "be able to" have the right to self-determination over her own body, and if she chooses to murder the baby in her body, she must account to God.

Yes, whether an adult or a baby. And it is morally wrong, imo.

So... again, I have used abortion only to illustrate my reasoning for what others view as my "liberal" thinking and my conservative values as I apply them to myself. This whole thread again has been hijacked to become a debate on abortion, and that was not my intent as is clear from the post I made - this was an illustration only, because it is a very clear one. This is why people - including everyone here - considers me liberal, even though the older I get, the more conservative I become in my own values, behaviour, style, politics, etc. I have said my peace on abortion in more than one discussion. Consider the matter from here forward to ONLY be used as a matter of demonstration, IF I ever bring it up again.

Back to the thread topic.

I am against it, but it's no use to vote. The christian party is tiny. They do it anyway here. And euthanasia. I think that's worse. At least those babies always go to heaven.

 

[Albion]

"...be able to..." We have to balance the rights and responsibilities of the woman as well. Saying "be able to" is a matter of moral judgement, and no, I wish no one would choose this. But "be able to" also means being able to have the adult choice about her own body.

Wait a minute. No one is arguing that she shouldn't have the right, for example, to have her ovaries removed or in some other way alter her own body. This is about abortions! It is SOMEONE ELSE's body that is under discussion, and no, nobody has the right to murder another person simply because that other person is inconvenient. Not if the other person is an annoying neighbor, an unreasonable employer, or the unborn child.

And no one ever suggested that killing a baby is okay. It never is.

That's exactly what was suggested.

There is a baby in a woman, she should "be able to" have the right to self-determination over her own body, and if she chooses to murder the baby in her body, she must account to God.

Well, this is just a terrible choice of "example" for what it was that you wanted to explain.

 

[Messy]

Wait a minute. No one is arguing that she shouldn't have the right, for example, to have her ovaries removed or in some other way alter her own body. This is about abortions! It is SOMEONE ELSE's body that is under discussion, and no, nobody has the right to murder another person simply because that other person is inconvenient. Not if the other person is an annoying neighbor, an unreasonable employer, or the unborn child.


That's exactly what was suggested.


Well, this is just a terrible choice of "example" for what it was that you wanted to explain.

It is different. If the mother otherwise dies or the kid will be very sick they allow it, also in States where it's forbidden, I think?

Do they also throw em in prison for it? Cause it doesn't get treated like murder. For instance in Germany it is only okay until so many months and my niece went from Germany to Holland to get a late term abortion, but if they would really see it as murder, they'd say: hey you killed your kid in another country. Go 10 years to jail. But they don't.

 

[Josiah]

There is a baby in a woman, she should "be able to" have the right to self-determination over her own body

Why ONLY the mother and not the baby? Why does one life get self-determination (even to murder another) and the other no such self-determination?

and if she chooses to murder the baby in her body, she must account to God.

Why just this? Why not the rapist? Or the one who assassinates the US president? Why the one who kills you?

Respectfully, I'm at a loss to understand why ONE person is exempt from morality but not another?

This whole thread again has been hijacked to become a debate on abortion, and that was not my intent as is clear from the post I made - this was an illustration only, because it is a very clear one. This is why people - including everyone here - considers me liberal, even though the older I get, the more conservative I become in my own values, behaviour, style, politics, etc. I have said my peace on abortion in more than one discussion. Consider the matter from here forward to ONLY be used as a matter of demonstration, IF I ever bring it up again.

Back to the thread topic.

I think you picked a great example.

And IMO it is very unclear why you think SOMETIMES it's good to "wink" at evil and immorality and injustice... "wink" at depriving others of self-determination and yet SOMETIMES it's wrong and horrible. I suspect you think it's wrong to murder the mother - that shouldn't be permitted or tolerated or "winked" at.... but killing a child should be? Both are the same act... both are depriving self-determination (which seems to be your concern). I'm just not following you....



.

 

[tango]

"...be able to..." We have to balance the rights and responsibilities of the woman as well. Saying "be able to" is a matter of moral judgement, and no, I wish no one would choose this. But "be able to" also means being able to have the adult choice about her own body. And no one ever suggested that killing a baby is okay. It never is. Just like it is never okay to kill your neighbour. We should not "be able to" murder another person, but people do it anyway. There is a baby in a woman, she should "be able to" have the right to self-determination over her own body, and if she chooses to murder the baby in her body, she must account to God.

By the same argument I should "be able to" have the right to self-determination and kill my next door neighbor because they really annoy me. If I choose to kill them I must answer to God.

Shouldn't the law of the land have something to say about it?


I think the trouble with abortion specifically is, as you mentioned in a previous post, the fetus is either a useless clump of cells or a living baby depending on what the mother feels at any given moment. I've referred to Schrodinger's Fetus in other threads, something that exists in two states until such time as the mother makes a decision which one applies.

The idea that people will do something, generically speaking, whether it's legal or not isn't a reason to not have laws. People will rape and murder others, people will torture others, people will steal from others and so on. It's absurd to say that people will do it anyway so we shouldn't bother with laws against them, even if the only thing the law enables is to effect a punishment after the fact. It makes more sense to figure whether breaking a law creates an identifiable victim or a significant likelihood of creating a victim. So, for example, murder and rape create a clearly identifiable victim and are illegal. Drinking a beer doesn't create a victim and so is legal. Driving when drunk might not immediately create an identifiable victim but does substantially increase the chance of creating one, and so is illegal. Shooting my rifle across the road into my neighbor's house might not hurt anyone, especially if he isn't home, but creates a serious risk of harming someone driving past or anyone who does happen to be in the house, and so that's illegal too.

 

[Albion]

It is different. If the mother otherwise dies or the kid will be very sick they allow it, also in States where it's forbidden, I think?

Do they also throw em in prison for it? Cause it doesn't get treated like murder. For instance in Germany it is only okay until so many months and my niece went from Germany to Holland to get a late term abortion, but if they would really see it as murder, they'd say: hey you killed your kid in another country. Go 10 years to jail. But they don't.

The laws vary, that's true, and that's an indication of not much more than how politically strong or weak the pro-abortion forces happen to be. You made this same point yourself.

But in this discussion here, the issue was reduced simply to whether or not the woman should have the right to kill the child merely because she wanted to do so. No extra circumstances were involved.

"Self-determination" was the issue/justification that was presented to the forum, and so that was what governed the replies.

 

[Messy]

The laws vary, that's true, and that's an indication of not much more than how politically strong or weak the pro-abortion forces happen to be. You made this same point yourself.

But in this discussion here, the issue was reduced simply to whether or not the woman should have the right to kill the child merely because she wanted to do so. No extra circumstances were involved.

"Self-determination" was the issue/justification that was presented to the forum, and so that was what governed the replies.

Yes but still it's weird that being bombarded with it for ages I got so used to it and don't even really see it as a crime anymore. You're right, but I got so used to it. First time I heard they wanted to put someone in jail for it, I was like: what??? Oh yes of course. Normally it's some church leader saying: aww poor thing. God forgives you and your kid is in heaven.

 

[Lees]

As you have gotten older have you become more liberal or more conservative, and in what ways?

I remain conservative, in every way. Will not budge in any way concerning my convictions.

But as I get older, I have a more sence of empathy for those I am against. Doesn't mean I am willing to change my position. I won't. It just means I have more empathy for them.

It means, in the past, I now regret some things I have said to others, especially the brethern. Words are powerful. The old adage, 'sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me', is a lie. They do hurt...and can even kill.

But, I am a son of God. A brother of Jesus Christ. I speak reverently. (Heb. 2:11) And any attack or attempt to misuse what He has said and stands for, hits me like it would if it were against my physical family on this earth. And I then respond accordingly.

In other words, men in war, as they get older, regret much of what they did in war. But they cannot change it. and don't want to change it. They just feel the worse for it.

So we Christians have families we love. And those against us have families they love. But they still remain families of enemies against us.

Lees

 

[Albion]

Yes but still it's weird that being bombarded with it for ages I got so used to it and don't even really see it as a crime anymore. You're right, but I got so used to it.

That's unfortunate, but I guess that is how human nature works. One thing about abortions, however, is that it's done out of the sight of bystanders, unlike speeding, boozing, panhandling, shoplifting, and a lot of other practices that are offensive to many people AND witnessed by them.

First time I heard they wanted to put someone in jail for it, I was like: what??? Oh yes of course. Normally it's some church leader saying: aww poor thing. God forgives you and your kid is in heaven.

 

[tango]

That's unfortunate, but I guess that is how human nature works. One thing about abortions, however, is that it's done out of the sight of bystanders, unlike speeding, boozing, panhandling, shoplifting, and a lot of other practices that are offensive to many people AND witnessed by them.

Are you seriously listing speeding and boozing as if they were morally comparable to abortion?

 

[Stravinsk]

Are you seriously listing speeding and boozing as if they were morally comparable to abortion?

What do you expect. The guy thinks Cannabis is the Devil's lettuce.

 

[Albion]

Are you seriously listing speeding and boozing as if they were morally comparable to abortion?

No.