Beware the religious invasion of our polity (1 Viewer)

[Trippendicular]

Yes, in general, but not in specific circumstances, a significant percentage of the population may enjoy a better life, but at the expense of others

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Because, if the economy runs strong, in general, people's lives will be better.

Some people's lives. Living standards will increase but a disproportionate gap means greater inequality in the distribution of social power.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

true, thus why i do believe there should be stronger legislation forcing large businesses to do things like this, or for example... perhaps just "give back" to consumers.

Small businesses... i think could be hurt alot by this sort of legislation.

 

[Wesnat]

Generator says:

It's the right to choose/control their own bodies, not the right to terminate a life. As for the rights of the 'child'/what may become a child... What about the rights of the woman?


The debate regarding abortion issue ultimately depends on your opinion and values; if you think it's a life that's being terminated (which I do believe), then you'll be against it. But if you don't believe that it is 'life', then, obviously it's the other way around.

For people like me, sex is something important (for the religious, it's sacred), so it shouldn't be treated as an activity that you do when you simply 'like' someone. You do it when you're ready for the consequences. Sex can be a very rewarding thing: you get a good feeling obviously, and you might produce (sorry, can't think of a better word) a child. It can be a VERY bad thing that can ruin your life, IF and only IF you're not ready.

Most people have sex for the good feeling only, which is a pity. You eat to gain energy (just as you have sex to start a family), and the great taste of your food (ie. the pleasure of eating) is just a very good sensation that comes with it.

For the quote above, my view is this: the man and the woman have made a mistake. They create life without being prepared for it. The child in the woman's womb has not made a mistake. That's why they have no right to terminate this life. They are escaping their responsibilities at the expense of an innocent child's life. But seeing that Generator refers to the child as 'what may become a child', this confirms what I've said in the first paragraph. In the end, it depends on your view.

A very idealistic view, I know, in a world influenced by the sexual revolution of the 60s, and where a pregnant woman can so easily be 'ditched' by the man who is just as responsible in making her pregnant. If only people are more responsible, if only they think before they act... So, ultimately, I'll just follow what my values told me, and, if I ever made a mistake and made a woman pregnant without being prepared for it, I'll continue to support her, whatever it takes to preserve a life we had created. But I'll never want to become a politician who decides policies that affect the whole population on these things, since I'll be basing my decisions on my values, which don't match everyone's. You see my point?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

For people like me, sex is something important (for the religious, it's sacred), so it shouldn't be treated as an activity that you do when you simply 'like' someone. You do it when you're ready for the consequences. Sex can be a very rewarding thing: you get a good feeling obviously, and you might produce (sorry, can't think of a better word) a child. It can be a VERY bad thing that can ruin your life, IF and only IF you're not ready.

Most people have sex for the good feeling only, which is a pity.

A pity for you, you're missing out!

You eat to gain energy (just as you have sex to start a family), and the great taste of your food (ie. the pleasure of eating) is just a very good sensation that comes with it.

[...] the man and the woman have made a mistake. They create life without being prepared for it. The child in the woman's womb has not made a mistake. That's why they have no right to terminate this life.

Firstly, if you're going to bring a child into the world under terrible conditions, supremely reducing the quality of life for you, your partner and your child, one wonders whether it would be worth it -- ie. the greatest happiness for the greatest number would probably be to abort the childbirth.

Secondly, what constitutes life is obviously a difficult question, but where do you draw the line? The argument of potentiality has severe problems. Must we protect each individual sperm, that has the potential to be a child? If you say no, as most people do, it means you are saying there is some point where it becomes "a life." I suspect medical evidence is the best guide here as to whether the being can feel pain/pleasure and at what stage.

Additionally, I would recommend you watch the UK documentary, "My Fetus." You may have a change of heart. (Also, it shows an abortion procedure, which you will see is really no great affair).

 

[malkin86]

There's so much stuff that can go wrong with pregnancy anyway... I've heard that maybe 10% of pregancies don't come through with a liveborn baby.

 

[Wesnat]

A pity for you, you're missing out!

I'm missing out in the short term, but will be rewarded in the long term, in that I'll live a happier, more peaceful life.

Firstly, if you're going to bring a child into the world under terrible conditions, supremely reducing the quality of life for you, your partner and your child, one wonders whether it would be worth it -- ie. the greatest happiness for the greatest number would probably be to abort the childbirth.

Which is why, don't have sex when you're not ready! :uhhuh: But I presume most people can't do that... I guess, if you really believe that it's life you're terminating, then you'll think twice about having sex. Plus, the greatest happiness for the greatest number is an economic argument, which I find uncomfortable if related to something as complex and as significant as 'life'.

Additionally, I would recommend you watch the UK documentary, "My Fetus." You may have a change of heart. (Also, it shows an abortion procedure, which you will see is really no great affair).

"No great affair" in relative terms, perhaps? I still believe that it's life, right? Besides, I lose trust in both sides of the argument, you know. Maybe your documentary shows how 'trivial' abortion is, but another documentary shows how 'savage' abortion is... I hate propagandas! Don't you?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I would ask you this question: given the situation where the only way to save the world's population would be to kill a single person, would you do it?

I'm missing out in the short term, but will be rewarded in the long term, in that I'll live a happier, more peaceful life.

How does not having sex make for a peaceful life? Unless by peaceful you mean "more uneventful." Btw, there has been more than one study showing there is a correlation between sex and happyness.

Plus, the greatest happiness for the greatest number is an economic argument, which I find uncomfortable if related to something as complex and as significant as 'life'.

Actually it is a moral argument. Albeit, it is a normative ethical one. Advanced by some of the modern era's most brilliant thinkers, too.

"No great affair" in relative terms, perhaps? I still believe that it's life, right? Besides, I lose trust in both sides of the argument, you know. Maybe your documentary shows how 'trivial' abortion is, but another documentary shows how 'savage' abortion is... I hate propagandas! Don't you?

Do not worry, it is not a biased documentary. It follows the events of someone actually in that position, and in her decision to have the abortion. I really do suggest watching it - it is a very rational picture of the situation.

 

[Wesnat]

MoonlightSonata, you think I won't have sex? Are you CRAZY? I'm saying that I won't have sex until I'm ready. That's why I'm missing out in the short-term! In the long-term, I'll have more rewarding relationship and happiness, because I'll have sex when the time is right! Not because I won't have sex forever!!!

Oh, and that moral argument, yes. I guess I can see where it's coming from. Sorry, I'm currently studying economics, so that argument, I was told, was made by an economist (forgot his name).

The thing is, I BELIEVE it's life we're terminating. That's like... dogma.... unchanged.... can't be changed, you know... Unless the woman was raped (causing her pregnancy), or her pregnancy can prove to be dangerous to her health. Otherwise, mostly it's just for convenience, and where's the responsibility in that?

Again, I only wish that both the woman AND THE MAN realise that they've made a mistake and will support each other. There are many other sources of help of course, it's not like they're alone...

Ultimately, the argument is a complex one. You can say to me several other reasons to sway my opinion, and I can do the same, but they will be all in vain, because we believe what we believe (to quote someone I forgot - I'm not good with names )

 

[MoonlightSonata]

MoonlightSonata, you think I won't have sex? Are you CRAZY? I'm saying that I won't have sex until I'm ready. That's why I'm missing out in the short-term! In the long-term, I'll have more rewarding relationship and happiness, because I'll have sex when the time is right! Not because I won't have sex forever!!!

What do you mean "when the time is right" ?

Oh, and that moral argument, yes. I guess I can see where it's coming from. Sorry, I'm currently studying economics, so that argument, I was told, was made by an economist (forgot his name).

John Stuart Mill, though he didn't 'invent it' so to speak, he built on Jeremy Bentham's ideas.

The thing is, I BELIEVE it's life we're terminating. That's like... dogma.... unchanged.... can't be changed, you know... Unless the woman was raped (causing her pregnancy), or her pregnancy can prove to be dangerous to her health. Otherwise, mostly it's just for convenience, and where's the responsibility in that?

Whether it's life or not, the argument does not have to hinge on that point. I see you didn't answer my question: if the only way you could save the entire world's population was to kill a single person, would you do it? The thing is, if you answer yes, which pretty much any sane person would, you must realise that killing is not an absolute wrong -- i.e. it is right to kill someone under certain circumstances. Thus, your argument, merely stating "it is life - hence you cannot take it" fails. You must argue that the circumstances do not warrant taking the life - which you say is "convenience" -- I say it is the act which brings about the greatest good for all involved.

Again, I only wish that both the woman AND THE MAN realise that they've made a mistake and will support each other. There are many other sources of help of course, it's not like they're alone...

Firstly, I don't think you can say it is their mistake. Unless they are not using protection, how is it their fault? Sure enough there will be some who brought it on themselves. But sex is a part of life, some people are just unlucky. Secondly, even IF it is their mistake, the cost may be so severe to all concerned that it is best to have an abortion.

Ultimately, the argument is a complex one. You can say to me several other reasons to sway my opinion, and I can do the same, but they will be all in vain, because we believe what we believe (to quote someone I forgot - I'm not good with names )

I assume what you are saying is not "there is no correct answer", but rather "we cannot change each other's opinions about what the correct answer is". Let me say that I believe in reason, and people's reasoning can be shown to be wrong. Yes, morality is complex. But to resign one's self to a point of view and refuse to think that maybe people's views can change is quite a hopeless atititude towards the human faculties of reason. I would think that we can have meaningful debate about moral issues. I for one, am not of the opinion that everything I believe must be true. I simply think that, from all my reasoning and experiences, it seems like the most sensible position.

 

[Wesnat]

Moonlight, you think too hard, man. Chill out!

Why would you ask me "what do you mean when the time is right?" It's common sense that sex is a part of our lives, but it doesn't mean that we can do it anytime we want! Young people below 20 are not ready yet to have sex. They're still too naive. When am I ready? When are you ready? You must consider, contraception doesn't guarantee 'safe sex'. I'm ready when I have the money to raise a family, and when myself and the woman I love are ready mentally to raise a child. If young partners conceive a child when they're not ready yet, then it's a mistake!

My dad once saw an 18 year-old mother trying to keep her baby quiet by pushing the trolley the baby was sitting in forward and backward. That's proof that young people aren't ready to have sex, that can lead to a child being born. All these mothers and fathers regret their naivety. You saw an interview on Minister Abbott's former lover? She said, "we were young and foolish, then". They've made a mistake! It IS a mistake not to realise that sex should be done when the partners are ready.

Of course, you'd say, then it's best to abort the child, right? Well, I simply don't believe that. The child hasn't done anything wrong. Why was it conceived? The man and the woman who are his/her father and mother. In your example, to save the whole population by killing a single person, well that's justified. But see, this time, the whole population's lives are in danger. The parents of this child aren't endangering their lives.

Their quality of lives may decline, but, you know what, all actions must have a consequence. The parents shouldn't escape their responsibilities, especially if it involves terminating the child's life. Yes, it's a fact that people's lives are ruined because of a mistake - just think of the 9 Australians arrested in Bali for carrying drugs. I remember Warren Buffett saying "it takes 60 years to build up your reputation, and 60 seconds to destroy it". Unfortunate, but that's life (no pun intended)! I believe that people shouldn't terminate an innocent life because of a mistake they made.

If only young people realise that they're not ready to have sex yet, we won't have abortion. I've made it clear that I don't think of sex as an 'activity' you do when you 'like' someone. I think of it as something significant that I'll do when I'm ready.

 

[Sarah]

Just a few thoughts of mine

Moonlight, you think too hard, man. Chill out!

Why would you ask me "what do you mean when the time is right?" It's common sense that sex is a part of our lives, but it doesn't mean that we can do it anytime we want! Young people below 20 are not ready yet to have sex. They're still too naive.

A similar thing could be said about people over 20 who don't consider the consequences.

My dad once saw an 18 year-old mother trying to keep her baby quiet by shaking the trolley the baby was sitting in. That's proof that young people aren't ready to have sex, that can lead to a child being born. All these mothers and fathers regret their naivety. You saw an interview on Minister Abbott's former lover? She said, "we were young and foolish, then".

Ummm maybe the 18 yr old was babysitting??

Anyway, young people do have sex and for some this results in pregnancy. There's a need to review sex education and in schools and what's being taught at what age. Also there should be programs to assist young mothers in raising children. Whether this be parenting skills workshops or some initiative along similar grounds that will at least enhance young mothers awareness of the responsibilities associated with parenting.

If only young people realise this, we won't have abortion. I've made it clear that I don't think of sex as an 'activity' you do when you 'like' someone. I think of it as something significant that I'll do when I'm ready.

You'd need to look at the statistics for abortion and the composition of those statistics with regard to age to see how many teenage pregnancies are aborted.
Abbott's former girlfriend chose to give her son up for adoption. Now there's another option instead of abortion.

 

[Riewe]

Moonlight, that hypothetical question pretty much has no parallel in this case. How can you equate killing an innocent unborn child with that of killing one person to save the entire world, when abortion would not result in the saving of the world.

And i must say that it seems like sex is the norm, most of the time i go out, i hear everyone else saying 'that chick i had the other night was awesome, i hope someone like that is out here tonight' and other stuff along those lines. It seems that societys view on sex has changed dramatically in the last 50 years, to where its something you do when you feel like it. As Wesnat was saying, maybe if young people didn't have this view on sex, they wouldn't be engaging in this activity resulting in abortions

 

[Wesnat]

Just a few thoughts of mine



A similar thing could be said about people over 20 who don't consider the consequences.

Absolutely correct! But especially those under 20, who are even more naive than those over 20, right?

Ummm maybe the 18 yr old was babysitting??

This is a genuine question on my part (it's not rhetoric), but would a babysitter do some grocery shopping with another person's baby in a supermarket?

Anyway, young people do have sex and for some this results in pregnancy. There's a need to review sex education and in schools and what's being taught at what age. Also there should be programs to assist young mothers in raising children. Whether this be parenting skills workshops or some initiative along similar grounds that will at least enhance young mothers awareness of the responsibilities associated with parenting.

AMEN SISTER! (It's sister, right?)

You'd need to look at the statistics for abortion and the composition of those statistics with regard to age to see how many teenage pregnancies are aborted.
Abbott's former girlfriend chose to give her son up for adoption. Now there's another option instead of abortion.

Yeah, but I've read an article by a feminist that adoption results in a similar, if not even more severe mental trauma experienced in abortion on the female part, thus justifying abortion somehow... And besides, people don't need abortion or adoption if they realise that having sex has consequences. I keep on coming back to this point because it's the SOURCE of the problem.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Moonlight, you think too hard, man. Chill out!

Better than thinking too little

Why would you ask me "what do you mean when the time is right?" It's common sense that sex is a part of our lives, but it doesn't mean that we can do it anytime we want! Young people below 20 are not ready yet to have sex. They're still too naive. When am I ready? When are you ready? You must consider, contraception doesn't guarantee 'safe sex'. I'm ready when I have the money to raise a family, and when myself and the woman I love are ready mentally to raise a child. If young partners conceive a child when they're not ready yet, then it's a mistake!

Not if you abort, which is what we're talking about.

My dad once saw an 18 year-old mother trying to keep her baby quiet by pushing the trolley the baby was sitting in forward and backward. That's proof that young people aren't ready to have sex, that can lead to a child being born.

No, it's proof that that particulary young person was not ready for a child. It does not mean they should not engage in sex at all.

All these mothers and fathers regret their naivety. You saw an interview on Minister Abbott's former lover? She said, "we were young and foolish, then". They've made a mistake! It IS a mistake not to realise that sex should be done when the partners are ready.

No, their mistake was not using contraception! If you read up on it, you'll learn they practiced 'vatican roulette'

Of course, you'd say, then it's best to abort the child, right? Well, I simply don't believe that. The child hasn't done anything wrong. Why was it conceived? The man and the woman who are his/her father and mother. In your example, to save the whole population by killing a single person, well that's justified. But see, this time, the whole population's lives are in danger. The parents of this child aren't endangering their lives.

It doesn't matter, it is a thought experiment to show one thing: killing is not an absolute wrong, hence you need more of an argument than simply "it's alive."

Moonlight, that hypothetical question pretty much has no parallel in this case. How can you equate killing an innocent unborn child with that of killing one person to save the entire world, when abortion would not result in the saving of the world.

See above.

Their quality of lives may decline, but, you know what, all actions must have a consequence.

Not if you preven that consequence from occuring, no.

The parents shouldn't escape their responsibilities, especially if it involves terminating the child's life.

Why not? Again, if you make an 'ought' claim you have to back it up with some reason. They may have technically caused it, but if they were responsible with conctraception, I don't see why they should be forced to bring to light a situation that is terrible for all parties concerned. Indeed, under dire circumstances, they may in fact have a responsibility to abort.

Yes, it's a fact that people's lives are ruined because of a mistake - just think of the 9 Australians arrested in Bali for carrying drugs. I remember Warren Buffett saying "it takes 60 years to build up your reputation, and 60 seconds to destroy it". Unfortunate, but that's life (no pun intended)! I believe that people shouldn't terminate an innocent life because of a mistake they made.

Again, you equate having sex with contraception to making a mistake. You're saying a small risk, essential to most people's lives at various points, should be completely avoided. I should never get into the shower either, because I might slip and fall.

But even so, with regard to 'whether it is a life or not', you must make a distinction at some point as to what is life and what is not, you haven't really dealt with that yet. Are you going to protect every single sperm too? If not, why not?

If only young people realise that they're not ready to have sex yet, we won't have abortion. I've made it clear that I don't think of sex as an 'activity' you do when you 'like' someone. I think of it as something significant that I'll do when I'm ready.

Why can't it be such an activity? It can be an expression of love. Even so, physical intimacy of the sort is one of the most closest connections we can share with another human being. I for one am not going to deny myself this bond because of a small risk which, although one would hope it did not come to it, could be fixed by abortion.

 

[sugared plum]

Wesnat: My dad once saw an 18 year-old mother trying to keep her baby quiet by pushing the trolley the baby was sitting in forward and backward. That's proof that young people aren't ready to have ... a child

other problem raised by this argument is assumption that some people (based on age, and could easily extend to class, sexuality, disability, income, religion, intelligence) are more capable of looking after children, and this can extend to being entitled to have/care for children or not.

which obviously is extremely problematic,

 

[Sarah]

Absolutely correct! But especially those under 20, who are even more naive than those over 20, right?

You're right there however it's also dependent on their stage of moral development (i know this isn't about morality but there are theories in developmental psychology which seek to provide explanations on the stages individuals pass through in develop a sense of what's right and wrong. PM if you want to discuss this more).

This is a genuine question on my part (it's not rhetoric), but would a babysitter do some grocery shopping with another person's baby in a supermarket?

Yeh they would if they were a nanny.... (really i'm serious)

AMEN SISTER! (It's sister, right?)

Lol, yep it's sister!

Yeah, but I've read an article by a feminist that adoption results in a similar, if not even more severe mental trauma experienced in abortion on the female part, thus justifying abortion somehow... And besides, people don't need abortion or adoption if they realise that having sex has consequences. I keep on coming back to this point because it's the SOURCE of the problem.

In previous posts on the topic of abortion you've mentioned that

The thing is, I BELIEVE it's life we're terminating. That's like... dogma.... unchanged.... can't be changed, you know... Unless the woman was raped (causing her pregnancy), or her pregnancy can prove to be dangerous to her health. Otherwise, mostly it's just for convenience, and where's the responsibility in that?

But if you consider that young people may not be ready for sex and are unready for children, then where's the responsibility to the child that's involved?

Hmm...this is an interesting discussion thread

 

[Generator]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15084767^28737,00.html

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Next Sunday on Compass on the ABC they are showing a special on Family First (Sunday 1 May -- 10.10pm) which I think will be quite interesting:

The 2004 election saw religion and politics clash in Australia like never before, and riding the crest of the values wave was the evangelical Christian group Family First. This one-hour special goes behind the scenes 3 months before the election charting the rise of an unknown political party to its place in the senate.

Even more interesting is what is scheduled for the week after!

Kevin Rudd: The God Factor
Sunday 8 May -- 10.25pm

Since Labor’s defeat in the last Federal Election they’ve been doing a fair bit of soul searching. Kevin Rudd, the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs thinks a lot of it has to do with the God Factor. He’s leading the charge for his Party to re-claim God for their constituency, but he risks his own career and losing the secular vote for his party.

!

 

[Generator]

Church expands horizons.