... on Abortion

video commented on:

TheAmazingAtheist : Stupid Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MFhlLHCWzk

continued from:

... on Christian Ethics
assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/07/on-christian-ethics-you-know-crusades.html

TDeMona

And that makes a difference how? Are you still afreid of the "pagan falsehoods"?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I certainly am.

Pagan falsehoods like allowing abortion and contraception. Pagan falsehoods like allowing mercy killing of innocent people. Pagan falsehoods like denying the One God in Three Persons and the Two natures of Christ, Son of the Father and Son of Mary.

You see how many mix certain amounts of Christian truth with falsehoods such as these, nowadays, don't you?

I am very much against that, and if I should catch myself on the verge of a heresy it makes me afraid like a snake.

TDeMona

Abortion, contraception? What the fuck have those to do with paganism? They are what we call social progress, you theocratic nitwit. Denying your stupid god on the other hand belongs to free will you christians seem to think is important or whatever the fuck.

No, I see your stupid, ass backwards beliefs doing all in their power to stop social progress, happiness and good will from this planet. You are the enemy of every good person, and I hope some part of you deep inside realizes that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Abortion and contraception and denying God are all possible uses of the free will. But not the ones its Creator prefers.

They are also regress to pre-Christian times of the Roman Empire.

They are also a recipe for slavery. Unlike the "rules for slavery" you find in the Bible.

It is your side which is an enemy to every human person, not just the good ones, but even bad ones like yourself.

TDeMona

How? Draw a line between abortion and slavery. Please, I am waiting.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

two lines:

1) an embryo or foetus cannot have deserved abortion, but a slave may be a convict (and one does not chose death as not-yet-born, but one can chose slavery to survive)

2) abortion is not survived (unless it does not succeed), but a slave may be freed (for good behaviour or because master is a Christian wanting to pay for his sins or ...)

Oh, you meant connexion, I thought you meant limit. Sorry.

as for line you call connexion it is this: a free mother does not choose abortion, any mother whose foetus is aborted either is openly being acted on as a slave more than slaves have been under Christian societies ever or acting herself as if she confessed herself to be a slave of certain circumstances, and problem is that she will often be treated in practise like that in the future as well if she does.

Another connecting line between abortion and contraception and slavery is this:

In a society where they are not available, a pregnant unwed mother can tell who made her pregnant "marry me" if he is not married or "pay allowance for your child" if he is.

In present Swedish and I suppose also Finnish society, a girl can be told "if you sleep with me, we use ..." and if she gets pregnant she can be told "abort". Pressure exists, even if not legal.

Worse than having to work 4 one, it is.

TDeMona

Yeah, that does indeed suck. But that is not something that can be made better with banning stuff (that only leads people to use black market back alley coat hangar abortions instead of the safe and good ones). Also, if abortion is much more mainstream and isn't looked up your nose by people like you, why would any pregnant woman who doesn't want to be pregnant force people to marry her sexual partner? And even if one did, isn't that the person who is the scum bag, not the procedure itself?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Black market back alley stuff?

That can be hunted down (one of the legitimate complaints about witches was they were providing abortificents as well as "love philtres").

Many did avoid black market stuff but their dauhghters are not avoiding official stuff.

The procedure favours scumbags.

A pregnant woman who can officially tell her ex: "be responsible, marry me for the child's sake" is not likely not to want to be pregnant.

TDeMona

Kinda like every bit of illegal alcohol was hunted down during the prohibition?

There is nothing wrong in abortion. It should always be the last option, but why ban something that

a) will help people

b) people will do no matter what and

c) we have no reason to ban in the first place?

Once again the witch thing is completely pointless. Just because Romans had shoes does not mean people using shoes now are pagans out to destroy Jebus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alcohol hurts only by abuse. That is why hunting it down won't help, usually, those supposed to do it know it is wrong.

Abortion is murder.

It is also a murder which in ancient Pagan times made the wife slave of her husband. He had right of life or death over his children.

Usually daughters other than the first were aborted if suspected as daughters or set out to die if born as daughters.

TDeMona

No, it isn't. Killing few cells is not a murder. Or then chemo therapy is murder. Eating salad is murder.

(continued)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chemo therapy is killing a few cells among many that constitute a human body to save the rest of them. Also their genome (if cancerous) is changed to non-human.

Eating salad is eating the cells of a plant, not of a human.

Abortion is killing the total body of a human person with its own genome

(continued)

TDeMona

Yes. And abortion is killing a slightly bigger cluster of cells among many that constitute a human body to save the rest of them.

And calad is just as much "alive" as human is.

No, it's not. To be a human person you must first be human. And a person. Neither of which aplies to a early stage fetus. (Continued)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The "cluster of cells" killed in an abortion may be smaller or bigger than those killed in a chemotherapy.

But they are not among the cells the constitute the mother's body, just inside them.

They are human, because they carry a human genome. They are a person, because they have a genome which is neither the father's nor the mother's but its own.

Usually abortions are not even performed to save the mother from dying, that is pretty rare.

TDeMona

(continued:) And once again, we don't live in the pagan times. We want to give the woman the right to choose for her body. Not her husband, not her father, certainly not you and also not fucking Thor. Or Zeus. Or what ever the fuck.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(continued:) What you say you want about a woman's rights is one thing, what happens is girls are forced to abort, just as among Pagans and women who chose abortion chose to be treated as slaves to the market.

TDeMona

(continued from above) WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? How do you know this? You are pulling it straight from your ass. What prove do you have for that? Who is forced to abort? Show evidense or shut the fuck up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not pulling it from my ass. There was a girl in Sweden, back in the early years of the first decade of the millennium who for five weeks insisted "no I will not abort" but who was deprived of sleep and social quiet by ex, by parents, by others until she gave in and aborted. They thought she was "too young" since she was thirteen. An age at which it is perfectly normal to be a mother.

There are other girls who give in more easily and it is less easy to prove pressure was used.

TDeMona

Well, good for her for giving up. She was too young. But even though I see your point about cohersion, I think that is not very common. And even if it is, don't you think that is something we should be against, not the procedure itself?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

By saying she is too you you are condoning slavery of the young.

No, thirteen is not to young to be a mother or a wife.

The canonic limits for marriage are 14:12. A young man who is fourteen is not *too young* to marry, a young lady who is twelve is not too young either.

But giving up and aborting one's child - that is agreeing to murder it - because one is told one is too young is a very abject slavery.

That is what I meant about abortion leading back to slavery.

gurnhawk

I love the abortion topic :D

Here's a little "uncommon sense" for some people to hopefully at least understand before they "react". People die. Babies die. Oh what a tragedy if a girl falls pregnant and gets an abortion. Human beings are "Sentient" life forms that are so perfect that we haven't killed or will continue to kill again and again - is what you think if an abortion is bad. If you think its that bad then you must be a vegetarian, monk/priest that believes people should not mate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Man is made in the image of God, but is engendered and born (if born) with original sin.

"Tragedies" or accidents do happen. Sometimes called "act of God" in insurance policies. Now, God is master over life and death. If He wills someone to just happen to die, it's His right, since He gave life in the first place.

Not so for parents, who only second to God give life to their children.

People who are married should mate and make children. And not abort them.

People who are not married should not mate or make children, but if they do they should not abort them.

Getting married belatedly is quite preferrable to abortion. Raising a child as a lone mother is also preferrable to abortion.

People who stop pregnant girls from marrying "because they are too young" (at 13, please!) or who endorse or pressure to abortion are the problem here.

Not sex. Not accidental death.

gurnhawk

Moving on from fighting the procedure itself, i live in Australia and the legal age for sex is 16, the legal age of "adulthood" is 18. If a 13 yr old is pregnant its up to the parents of the girl whether or not to support her. If they choose to support her then that's on them. If they can't support her or choose not to then that's too bad. FOR FUCK SAKE SHE IS 13!

would you let a 13yr old go through with child birth?

You sir, are a joke Hans-Georg Lundahl who knows nothing of birth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If a 13 yr old is pregnant its up to the parents of the girl whether or not to support her."

Sounds like laws - or better put recent legislations - have been set up for parents to put pressure on pregnant 13 year olds to abort.

"FOR FUCK SAKE SHE IS 13!"

Yes, and Canonic age is 12 - for marriage.

"would you let a 13yr old go through with child birth?"

Yes, of course.

I would also hope whoever made her pregnant started supporting her and their child. I e for better legislation than yours.

TDeMona

OK, so you are a pedophile as well. Well, have fun with that.

Canonic? What the fuck does that mean? No, I'm sorry, the proper question would be, why the fuck should that matter?

For the second time, it's not murder. I hope I don't need to tell this to you again.

And do you really think that it's very common to have an abortion because other people persuade you to it? Also, don't you think it's that, telling others what they should do, we should be fighting against, not the procedure itself?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The rest has been answered.

I am not a pedophile, I am not languishing for girls below the canonic age.

And why it matters is that you seem to think the canonic age is 18 or at least 15 or something.

Oh, I do think it is more common for a teen age mother, not totally depraved by modernity yet, to prefer giving birth and to be persuaded by others not to, than to spontaneously opt for the worst. For murder.

TDeMona

No, I happen to have the crazy delusion that the body of a person belongs to herself. Ofcourse the parents have a lot to say to that before certain age, because we just can't take care of ourselves from day 1. Now how big that power over the child is is of course debatable and I think there are areas of fine tuning. However, that has nothing to do with abortion precisely, so it is completely meaningless to discuss here.

Have fun with your beliefs. Just don't push them to others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I happen to have the crazy delusion that the body of a person belongs to herself."

Including the body of the foetus?

"Of course the parents have a lot to say to that before certain age, because we just can't take care of ourselves from day 1"

Including killing?

"Now how big that power over the child is is of course debatable and I think there are areas of fine tuning."

Forcing a mother to abort or to remain unmarried "because too young" is not a reasonable part of fine tuning.

TDeMona

Yes, the foetus that is not a person belongs to the unhappy person it happens to pe stuck to, just like a cancer would be, or just like your butthair belongs to you. Simple.

We just went over that once. So read the messages again if you are stuck.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are totally out of tune with genetic facts as you claim that falsely enough. Sure go back and read older messages, I already answered.

To readers coming new here, this message below it has "in response to TDeMona", click it, then appears her message "in response to Hans-Georg Lundahl" and you click that and so on.

Or search assortedretorts ...on Abortion on google.

TDeMona

So have I. And it is you who continuously pull crap right out of your ass [censoring a blasphemy]

And thanks for the manual on how to use YouTube comments. I'm sure all the newbies pray thanks for you before going to bed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, it is I ...

Well, you will agree that a newborn child has half its chromosomes from its dad and half from its mum.

If you try to tell me it had all its mums and none of its dad's chromosomes one day earlier, but that suddenly changed when it was born, it is not I who pull things out of my arsehole, no.

Btw, your photo in that small format made you look like a girl. I just saw one video of yours and discovered you were not. If you want to change the photo ... go ahead.

TDeMona

And the chromosomes are relevant how?

And oh wow, what a brilliant insult. Your photo makes you look like a light blue snot silhuette. So what? You think I care weather or not you perceive me as a man or a woman? You can call me a carrot if it makes you think it helps your pathetic arguments. If you want to change your brain... go ahead.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Chromosomes are relevant because it is the unique set of chromosomes inherited from father and mother.

They each have their unique set and supposing they have no identical chromosomes inherited from common ancestor the possibilities to recombine their chromosomes are about one million. Absolutely not exhausted in the few children they do at best get.

Now, the foetus not yet born has the same chromosomes as the future child or man or woman. Not as its mother.

Christian Ramirez

So by your logic... Killing sperm (because it has DNA and has a chance of developing into a human) is a morally wrong? Do you have any idea of how many sperm cells don't make it to become people. By your logic, anyone who has a child is committing abortion genocide.

A sperm has no sentiment and individual feeling. A fetus, though in possession of a brain (after week 4, small and hardly a brain) does not have sufficient input organs to self operate. A computer with no input has no output.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Spermatozoa contain half a human genome. Ovula contain half a human genome.

Half a genome only = no human person.

As to human feelings of foetus, we do not know whether it feels or not. It has a soul and an eternal destiny to make, the soul is not a computer, thought and feeling are not computer output. Brain is an instrument for it, not that of which it is a byproduct.

Grineolck

You can't demonstrate that souls exist. Your argument is invalid.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You think (I presume, I know I do), and dead matter or for that matter biological functionings do not think.

Therefore there is a soul.

Grineolck

Your argument is flawed because you don't know any neuroscience to make claims about thinking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your argument is flawed because you think that correct thought about thinking is determined by neuroscience, i e you think thought is a byprodoct of neurological process.

I do not agree.

You have not demonstrated that neuroscience proves me wrong.

It is possible the neuroscientists claim me wrong, that is another matter.

Grineolck

You're not qualified to debate neuroscience or "thinking" in general. Modern science has shown that we are our brains. It has shown that no immaterial (which is an incoherent concept by itself) or supernatural (which is even more insane an idea) soul is required to explain our thinking or consciousness.

I have demonstrated that you're not qualified to debate science. Science is peer-reviewed. You are not even close to being the peer to scientists. Bye.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think and have therefore introspective experience of what thinking is. That qualifies me to discuss it.

"Modern science has shown that we are our brains."

Apart from the fact that it is contrary to the truth, how do you propose it could show such a thing?

By enumerating our faculties and showing which ones are impaired by which brain damages?

Shows a causal relation, but does not prove identity.

Christian Ramirez (like Grineolck to "Therefore there is a soul")

"Dead" matter can think. Dead matter makes up living organisms. The most advanced example we have of this is the brain. We also have less advanced things such as computers and robots that can create vocal pasterns from hearing others speak and simulate simple emotions. In the animal kingdom, there is also a direct correlation between brain sises/complexity and output (including thought, emotion).

Besides, there is no medical/scientific proof of a soul. However, this does not matter for this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dead matter does not think.

Living organisms are not dead matter. They are not even made up from only dead matter, but from some kind of soul as well.

A creature with only a plant soul or animal soul cannot think either.

Computers cannot think. Their simulation of patterns of thought is comparable to an abacus' simulation of matematical thought: beads do not think, strings do not think and frame does not think. Mathematician handling abacus does think.

Christian Ramirez
to my:
"Spermatozoa contain half a human genome," before discussion of souls.(1/3)

1) We can not base opinion on the possible destiny of an individual entity. I do agree with your point on "half human genome", however...

Hypothetically if there exists 3 eggs (a,b,c) and 3 sperm, (1,2,3) would you care about combo a2's death if a1 makes it? How about a3 or b1? a3 could have had a great life and you would never know. Therefore judging something by its possibility to become a human is useless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As long as there is only half a genome, there is no human individual.

As long as there is no human individual, there is no murder in the strict sense of the word (though certain contraeptive activities are not far from abortion i e murder as far as intention goes).

Christian Ramirez (still 1/3)

You clearly did not understand the previous statement. a1, a2, a3, b1, ect. are all combinations of a female "egg" and a male sperm.They are humans by your definition because they contain both male and female genes. The full genome is there. a is half "a" genome. "1" is half a genome. I made this clear.

Why care more about human a1 than a2, a3, or a123 (triplets) for that mater? I've never seen anyone grieving over not getting twins because they were possible. Judging by possibility is useless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You did not understand my answer.

If there should be three ovulations at the same time, and if three sperms should hit all three eggs, clearly all three combinations already made are human beings and should be cared for.

Not so with only theoretic possible future combinations not yet combined by the fertilisation of an egg.

NO woman can possibly bear all the one million possible combinations of her and her husband's chromosomes, each usually can bear those already made.

Providence, which 1s.

Christian Ramirez

Fair enough... But even after a set match (a1) is made, you still have a 1 in 5 ( or 4) chance of getting a miscarriage within the 1st 12 weeks. Between these weeks, natural abortion happens all the time. natural genocide (by your definition) still occurs. Judging something by possibility (or future outcome) is still useless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

There is a difference between accidental drowning and drowning someone else deliberately. Only the second of them is murder, and probably murderers who do that tell themselves "well, what the heck, people drown anyway!"

Similarily, of the 20-25% spontaneous abortion, no ill will of man can be accused, unless it is the disobedience of Adam.

Like accidental drowning, it is not a sin but the punishment for sin in mankind.

Not so provoked abortion or provoked drowning.

And you have still not grasped that I was NOT judging the humanity of foeti or embrya by possible or probable future outcome.

It is not in the future when the foetus will cease to be such and become a newborn that it will have only then a (usually unique and always new) combination of chromosomes from dad and ma.

It is from the conception.

Christian Ramirez

Fine again... But, why (to put it bluntly) care about something that the body cant even care for 20 - 25% of the time. The body doesn't even consider it a priority at this stage. I would rather someone kill it while it's senseless and intellect-less, before any experience than have some ungrateful douche-bag throw it in a garbage can somewhere or have both a mother and the baby die because of a medical accident. There are some situations where not even adoption can help.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

There are some modern situations which are built on to the abortion friendly mentality of today.

Sure the body considers it a priority - except those 20-25% of the time. And in those cases 25% of them are tetraploid, that is killed by the mother's immunity system because not recognised as a foetus of same kind as the mother. Triploidy of chromosome 1 and 3 will each also cause an immunity reaction that ends pregnancy.

Some cases it is also stress.

Where abortion's done, the body does care.

Christian Ramirez (2/3)

2) There is no scientific proof of a "soul" or "eternal life". Those things are pure conjuring of human imagination. (I do not want to debate religion right now) Through medical science ("brain scans") we know that the brain produces thought and feeling and the brain is a computer. (a very complicated, ever-changing and awesome computer) Visual, audio, ect. input goes to the brain, it performs calculations, and outputs action signals. We can read these signals. They do not pas through the soul.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The signals in the brain are tools for the soul. The soul reads them as images, whereas from outside we read them as electric signals.

They are not the soul.

They are not its thoughts, just imagery accompanying them.

Christian Ramirez

Again, get me scientific proof of your claims and I will consider this point.

However, why does the presence of a soul matter for the abortion debate's sake? I wouldn't care about anyone any less or more if they had a brain or a soul. Even if the signals from the brain are tools for the soul, either way there must be a brain present for input and output.

I assume you are religious? Religion has so far not contributed to science.(it has to other things) Do not expect me to take it seriously.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (part i/ii)

Do you consider astrology science?

St Augustine rid astronomical inquiry of the astrological superstition for centuries over astronomers who were also Christians.

Do you consider the workings of nature as bound by fixed laws essential to science?

Christianity contributed vastly to such an understanding of nature. Author of Theogony or Red Indian Shamanists are not what scientists are made of - nor are matter ignoring and nature ignoring Platonists. Aristotle gets some pre-Xtian creds though.

Christian Ramirez

True, that there were and are many Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, ect. scientists who have contributed to science. I acknowledge this already. I Don't have anything against them either. ...

However, (I should have been more clear) the Bible scriptures have not contributed at all to science and even contradict it in some areas. I can not take any unproven or untested hypothesis or idea into consideration in a serious argument..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) St Augustine who contributed to ridding science of astrology did so because of the Biblical story of Jacob and Esau - same hour born and thus same horoscope. But different fates and characters.

2) We can have a branch off discussion on where Bible contradicts "science" if you like.

3) As already said, soul is not an unproven concept nor a mere hypothesis.

Materialistic explanations of thought merely break down, logically. Even without the Bible to start with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (part ii/ii)

A computer has no soul.

A man has.

Do not tell me you care as little for a man as for a computer.

Thought can presumably exist in other states than input and output.

Either way the essential potential for it - a rational soul - deserves respect with the body it is the form of.

Christian Ramirez

Will you persist to try to convince me of an unproven concept derived from an unproven book? Sorry, but I do and will never take the Bible (or other scripture) seriously.

And, no. The reason I care for someone/thing is that they have (or are meant to have) a brain as complicated as a human's. I care about a computer less than a cat. I care about a cat less than a human.

And again, why talk about a soul? I would care for you the same If I know you had a soul or a brain. It makes no difference.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A soul is not an unproven concept, it is not exclusively known from the Bible (confer Plato and Aristotle proving it) and the Bible is neither one book (it is 73) nor unproven.

Now, whether we think because we have a soul or because we have a brain and nothing else makes a difference of 12 weeks.

continued on:

... on Soul
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/08/on-soul.html

Christian Ramirez (3/3)

3) We can know when the fetus starts to feel. Through medical science, we can tell what organs form in what order at what rate at what time. Our knowledge of the organs can tell us when the fetus starts to feel. If you want to save a human save it when it's a human. For example, the brain develops at the age of 5 weeks (not 4) and at week 6 neural tubes form. Week 12, we consider it a fetus.

After week 12 (approximately) , a fetus can see and hear. After week 12, I no longer support abortion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Do you support murdering people in coma?

They cannot, as we can know, hear or see either.

Christian Ramirez

People in coma have conserved emotions and experiences. They may still wake up with their conserved personality. Also, people in coma (mostly) have people in life caring and grieving for them.

A pre-fetus has no previous experiences. According to science, it does not feel until 12 weeks. (this is going to sound harsh) They probably have no-one grieving for them if they're getting aborted, and if they do, that person probably can't sustain them..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And barring the eventuality of abortion, the people existing as embryo or foetus will certainly wake up from non-thinking state.

Your point about grieving and sustaining could be used for murdering people in coma too.

Christian Ramirez (following up on his answer on coma)

Besides, if someone's getting aborted:

a) The mother couldn't support them. (would have starved)

b) They were a girl in Asia. (no-one loves them)

c) They were an accident (no-one loves them or/and can't be supported)

d) They are illegal (will be killed)

e) Could kill the mother. (2 dead rather than 1)

f) Were the product of rape. (will have a horrible future)

g) unwanted (no-one loves them)

In some occasions and locations, adoption is not an option. I wish it was but it's not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"We can not base opinion on the possible destiny of an individual entity."

Takes care of a, b directly.

We cannot base an opinion someone should be killed on his possible future.

As to c, f: "accidents" mean prevalence of contraceptive and therefore abortive mentality in which getting pregnant after towsing is failure rather than success. As to f, especially, but also c, one should not have death penalty due to one's origin (unless God Himself metes it out, rather than sinful men).

d - making children illegal and killing them after birth is as much murder as abortion is

e - two accidental deaths are not worse than one which is a murder

g - in a pregnancy a mother is rarely if ever in a state of not wanting the child, naturally.

Either pressure would be involved, or a mentality already destroyed by abortion friendly surroundings, by a sick society.

Did I miss one? (I divided the list on two answers)