Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

An open area for free-thinkers and believers to slug it out.

Re: Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

Unread postby UnwantedSunbeam » Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:00 pm

Come on Azmo, you know the part in the bible where god forbids this; thou shall not buy or wear trojans or durex. (True story)
One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know", Alice answered. "Then", said the cat, "It doesn't matter.”
User avatar
UnwantedSunbeam
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:31 pm
Reputation point: 1287

Re: Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

Unread postby UnwantedSunbeam » Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:04 pm

Thou shall not spill any seed, ever. Even subconsciously in a wet dream. Also lets abolish the period, that destruction of an egg every thirty days has to go.

Points for the effort of posting by gezenema, but sadly lacking I am afraid.
One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know", Alice answered. "Then", said the cat, "It doesn't matter.”
User avatar
UnwantedSunbeam
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:31 pm
Reputation point: 1287

Re: abortion

Unread postby Azmodan Kijur » Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:41 pm

gezenema wrote:What does the bible say about abortions? How is it not abortion to use birth control? Like if you're stopping the baby from developing when they're eggs and sperm, then isn't that abortion. Like what makes a difference if it's 10 months growing of sperm and eggs vs right when the sperm and egg smoosh?


As Unwanted indicated, the general interpretation by "biblical scholars" is that the passage that supposedly restricts (or has been construed to restrict) masturbation applies to any of the compounds produced by males and females for sex. Sperm and egg are both restricted from being spilled. A little leap here and that implies that one may not spill them in any form that they come in (pun right there), including a fertilized egg state that is the combination of sperm and egg. One can also draw a line to the "Thou shalt not kill" portion of the Commandments, which of course requires you to construe a fertilized egg as a full human no matter what stage it is at.

Comedy factor for much of that is that our bodies commit our own forms of "abortion" all the time. Nothing for a woman when gestating an egg to do so by the hundreds. Most die in the process. Ones that descend had a high chance of being killed or flushed by the woman's body. Even fertilized eggs have a decent chance of being flushed - natures natural abortion. Don't see us cursing nature out or condemning it (well, we sort of do, but we don't call it a SIN). For males, the numbers are in the millions for these abortions. Millions of sperm are produced with only a portion surviving to become sperm that can swim or impregnate. Whether you masturbate or not, you body will expel large portions of them from time to time just because. Catholics call it "nocturnal emissions" - I call it creaming your sheets. Better to jerk it out than let it spray everywhere.

To answer the rest, you are completely correct. There is no real difference in those states - they are all "abortions". They just boil down to a matter of perspective. What are we aborting? Is a sperm a person? An egg? Is a fertilized egg a person? Is it a person outside the body? Is it a person when it is gestating? At what stage of the gestation can it be a person. All terribly important questions in such a topic.
Azmodan Kijur
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:29 pm
Reputation point: 2055

Re: Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:10 pm

I figured the spilling of the seed sin was rooted when Christians were being hunted down by the Romans and forced to burrow in places like the Catacombs, so reproduction was of the most urgent concern. They probably didn't have anatomy textbooks, so they probably didn't want to take the chance of wasting any good sperm that could be used to make more Christians. If this is the case, it's pretty archaic and ad hoc for a very dire situation and is likely irrelevant to modern Christianity.

As for the question "what makes a human?" I don't see why it's so hard to figure. What makes a tree? What makes a fish? Is an unfertilized pinecone a tree? Is a fertilized pinecone a tree? Is a fish that grows its fish scale or whatever a fish? Is a sapling a tree? Is it a tree when it sprouts its first leaf? When constitutes a leaf? And we can go on getting more and more esoteric and continue down this irreducible trail of silly questions and further obfuscate the main point. A tree becomes a tree when it has all the genetic material required to independently pursue its own survival and reproduction. Same goes with a fish. It requires a sperm and an egg in order to have the chromosomes required to do so. The embryo of a fish is still a fish. It's just in the embryonic stage of being a fish. Same goes with a human embryo. A human embryo is a human, same with a human infant, same with an 80 year old human. We don't become more human as we grow and age. We go through different stages of being human. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, it becomes life because it actively pursues materials in order to grow and eventually reproduce for itself. A sperm does not and cannot do this and nor can an ovum. They require each other for fertilization so that the creation of life can be complete.

And no, a woman's body naturally flushing out a fertilized egg or having a miscarriage (assuming she was doing her best to maintain optimal health for both her and the child) is not considered sin and wouldn't be considered immoral the same way a hurricane doesn't murder people. Sin or evil or immorality or whatever requires conscious intent.
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

Unread postby Azmodan Kijur » Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:13 pm

Well said. They are more concerned for the life of the fetus before it is born. After the child is birthed, it can quite literally go fuck itself. Doesn't matter if it is abused, poverty stricken, violently sick, AIDS infested, possessing a genetic disorder, or anything of the sort. Quality of life means nothing to these people - it's the sheer quantity. All life is sacred until it is born and then it can die for all they care. Moral hypocrites.
Azmodan Kijur
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:29 pm
Reputation point: 2055

Re: Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

Unread postby UnwantedSunbeam » Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:50 pm

I was recently reading some books, one of them dealt with arranged marriages in countries like Afghanistan. It raised a good thought for me; most western women are disgusted at the idea of arranged marriage. Most for the reason that it is not the womans choice.

So to follow that up, I asked a few the obvious question. How come when a woman wants the choice to rid herself of a pregnancy, that choice should be taken away from her? So far the best two replies are "Just, because...." and "THAT is NOT them same thing".

Interestingly I was taken to understand the idea of arrange marriages better from the book, the reason they are seen as advantageous is usually the arrangers know each other. Also they are aware of the others family linage. So the decision is based on making the strongest off spring. Survival > Love, depends on your point of view I guess.
One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know", Alice answered. "Then", said the cat, "It doesn't matter.”
User avatar
UnwantedSunbeam
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:31 pm
Reputation point: 1287

Re: Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

Unread postby Azmodan Kijur » Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:56 pm

It is a very interesting question. Why is a woman "allowed" to make a decision regarding whom they love or want to be with, but are somehow not "allowed" to make the decision as to whether or not to have children or a particular child? The answer to that (for the "pro-life" crowd) seems to be that in one case, it is her life that she is making a decision regarding and in the other, it is the life of another human being that she is affecting. That reasoning would even be sound if not for the fact that the life component of the child is dependent on the use of the woman's body. Pro-life individuals put little worth to the role of the mother in these cases except as an incubator for a subsequent human life.

Basically, their argument (held in this light) is that the woman, once pregnant, is beholden to the growth in her stomach whether she agrees with it being there or not. To them, she must bring it to term - there is no choice on her part. The problem here is that they are affording an, as yet, undeveloped proto-human more rights and freedoms than the one that is supposed to bring it to term. Their argument has been to nitpick when one can consider it "alive". That is incorrect - the question is when we can consider it a viable human life, not merely alive. To stroke the absurd, a group of cells on my finger that peel off are alive and by peeling it, I've doomed them to death. Are I not an evil abortionist at that point. Again, we get cries of this being a different case and (to be fair) it is absurd by design. But the point should not be lost - are a collection of cells in the woman's uterus alive? Yes. Are they human? No. They are not human until they have all human aspects. Even then, we as a species do not generally see much damage in killing fully formed humans. We kill each other by the thousands each day - don't see them out protesting that, now do we?

The reason for that is simple. They are not concerned about life - they care nothing for that. It's about control. Controlling women in a general sense, but also controlling their bodies and what they can do with them. By that I mean sex. Controlling sexual activity is a prime component of this line of thought. Control sex and you control people. They want women submissive, to be beholden to sex, to be beholden to the church for their joys in life. Yes, even the women that protest abortions. They are just brainwashed into believing that they are there to save lives, poor defenseless lives. As opposed to what they are really doing which is enforcing control. This is clearly seen in via the lack of concern they have for the children once born, as I stated before. Oh, some of them mumble things about adoption and the like, but this is meant half-assed and we all know it. "Just put them up for adoption .....er.....someone will take it or something." Not concerned once they are out, just while they are inside. Don't care for the circumstances or the quality, just the control over people.
Azmodan Kijur
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:29 pm
Reputation point: 2055

Previous

Return to Rational Thought vs Irrational Beliefs



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
[Valid Atom 1.0]