Printable View
I can only assume that someone asked you to remove the picture Geordie Mod.
This can mean only one of three things.
Either it is considered a fake, people don't want to face the truth or you don't think that the people here are mature enough to cope with the ramifications of the picture.
The first option is the only acceptable reason for deleting it.
It was basically someone holding a Barbie doll, with just the feet showing.....Its the symbology that was disturbing, not the graphic nature.
As i said, I would appreciate no pictures on such an emotive topic.
Either For or Against.
I can only see something of that sort escalating the heated feelings...and then i'd have to close the topic.
Im sure you all understand.
I will keep this very short because its OT. But apply the same logic to pictures of the US POW's that caused so much controversy and you have something of a contradiction here.Quote:
Originally posted by Jpaul
people don't want to face the truth
Thank you to those who made this thread an honest exchange of views. It has been a pleasure seeing people post in a genuine way.
Thank you to those who accepted that other people were entitled to hold an opinion different to their own.
I have truly felt that being part of this thread has enhanced my experience. I wish you all well and take my leave, before it becomes a negative thing.
With no apology to anyone else - a special thanks to Faceman, for helping me to have a genuine emotional response to an internet discussion.
No, the picture was real, not a barbie doll at all. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes+3 July 2003 - 23:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 3 July 2003 - 23:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@4 July 2003 - 00:41
It was basically someone holding a Barbie doll, with just the feet showing.....Its the symbology that was disturbing, not the graphic nature.
As i said, I would appreciate no pictures on such an emotive topic.
Either For or Against.
I can only see something of that sort escalating the heated feelings...and then i'd have to close the topic.
Im sure you all understand.
And that makes it LESS emotive?
Please guys......just no pics.
Questions for Christains:
1. "Thou shalt not kill" would indicate that abortion is a sin, punishable by death. So, if a women undergoes an abortion, then asks for forgiveness, is she not forgiven? So she sins, then is forgiven, no harm, no foul.
2. Does the "conceptus" go to eternal damnation because he has inherited Adams' "original sin"? Even if we must be physically "born" into this sin, what about all those youngersters who die before accepting Jesus as their Lord and savior. All going to Hell forever?
At anyrate, if you claim that birth is necessary to inherit the original sin, then the "soul" of the aborted fetus returns to the waiting line. No harm, no foul.
If not, it goes to Hell.
Now, if I were to shrug the literal limitations of Chrsitianity and view God merely as a loving and forgiving entity (after all, if he is cruel and unforgiving- who cares about him, anyway), I would make the assumption that the sin would fall on the woman and the conceptus would be "forgiven". Again, no harm, no foul.
As someone who holds no such comfort in a loving God, I agree with JPaul, abortion is unforgiveable. There is no God to grant forgiveness and no second chance for that random conceptus. Harmful and foul.
How badly have I f*cked things up?
To argue that abortion is "wrong" based on a number of cells is incorrect. We "grant" life to the fetus when we see something recognizably human. Toes, finger, tallywacker, etc.. We are placing our "humanity" on a glorified assembly of cells. Even after birth, the child is really just a fetus "playing outdoors". Instead of the placenta, it uses the breast for nurishment. The newborn acts from the brainstem on reflexes, and is nearly deaf and blind (his mind has yet to learn how to "use" the data these receptor organs are sending).
So at what point does the infant become alive? When he understands the concept of "cogito ergo sum", he has a sense of self identity and this occurs long after birth.
An enity should be considered "living" as long it is able to survive within the mother, without intentional, adverse intervention. Nature aborts most conceptions spontaneously(75%), it takes a real go getter to survive gestation.
its to bad that we still haven't figured out the mystery of self/soulQuote:
Originally posted by hobbes@3 July 2003 - 18:04
To argue that abortion is "wrong" based on a number of cells is incorrect. We "grant" live to the fetus when we see something recognizably human. Toes, finger, tallywacker, etc.. We are placing our "humanity" on a glorified assembly of cells. Even after birth, the child is really just a fetus "playing outdoors". Instead of the placenta, it uses the breast for nurishment. The newborn acts from the brainstem on reflexes, and is nearly deaf and blind (his mind has yet to learn how to "use" the data these receptor organs are sending).
So at what point does the infant become alive? When he understands the concept of "cogito ergo sum", he has a sense of self identity and this occurs long after birth.
An enity should be considered "living" as long it is able to survive within the mother, without intentional, adverse intervention. Nature aborts most conceptions spontaneously(75%), it takes a real go getter to survive gestation.
its more the idea that the baby will have a soul rather than 'when'
people think its sick yes to kill a baby with fingers but no feeling, but its not any different than the fetus with two stubs..
its imagery.
im not quite sure what i'm still trying to say.. but i'm working on it.
We all know the outlawing of abortion would lead to women dumping babies and backstreet abortions.
So until someone can provide an alternative and realistic way to deal with the issue of unwanted pregnancies, the practical consequences of making anti-abortion ethics a reality would be disastrous.
This is the thing with ethics, its easy to be philosophical but the bottom line is that there is a practical problem to be dealt with and we need a practical solution.
I think the status quo strikes the best balance possible.
Ethics are a luxury to be sure. I rented a 4 bedroom apartment in Columbia, MO with 2 friends, the 4th room already ocupied by a black man from Guinea Bissau (one of the 10th poorest countries in the world, located on the west coast of Africa). He was sponsored by his government to study Entymology in hopes he could assist in improving agriculture.
Somehow the topic of abortion arose, he stated that he had caused 10 women to request abortions. These were offered free by his government. When I asked him how he felt about this he replied, "You gotta get the shit out of there".
His government felt it better to abort, than support, for it had no money, no food and no jobs to offer. Religion in the country listed as 5% Christian.
However, religion and ethics are not synonymous. Religion defines strict rules of conduct, without room for arbitration. Since Christianity is still the dominate form of religion in the US, politicians are careful not to lose their support, especially when they espouse these beliefs themselves, and our national policies reflect this.
After all, life is evanescent, eternity is eternal.