Re: Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life

[Summy]

Dheerja do you have any idea how remote the possiblity is that someone finds out they are 1-2 weeks pregnant? Even for a rape victim who will try, they usually wait until the missed menstrual cycle which could be approaching a month.

By that time, there is a heartbeat. A heart. Yeah, you may think the view that the woman's emotional, physical and psychological pain for 9 months isnt worth perserving a life, that could have been you, your sister, your mother, your father, a heartbeat that one day could be someone's brother, father, mother, that could become anything in the world... but in my opinion, the 9 months of pain the woman goes through can be subsided or at least control by mental health professionals, amongst other problems.

Just to let you know, your position can defintely give way to abortion on the basis of sex, on the basis of so many other characertistics. Hmm just to throw that out there, but lets say 100 years ago, pro choice was adopted the way so many people want it today... consistent with today's thought in south asia and its diaspora, who knows dheerja maybe you could/would have been an aborted baby.


In my opinion, the world should be more focused on dealing how to stop rape, how to deter it, how to deal with the victims rather than how to kill its consequences.

The pain of rape by the way still continously exists way past a baby that is aborted, and the abortion is actually the cause of lots of truama.
--------

Saleem, if you think the government can regualte intentions on abortion, your crazy. Lets say a woman becomes pregnant and wants to abort of the basis of finicial constraints or situation. What stops a woman who wants to abort on the basis of sex for using that as an argument or justification. Your idea that abortion will be regualted is absurd. You cant regulate intentions. You can regulate why people buy alcohol, or why they buy guns. Its a very weak argument.

Islam definition of a soul ends with its purpose of the body which is happiness of salvation. You guys dont believe in reincarnation and the transferring of the soul. And even so, the soul in Islam is supported only by a philosophic basis. The soul according to certain philsohpher in islam is inferred because of the body's ability to do something of free will. The soul in islam is significantly different from the every transferring, ever existing, non-bodily form of the soul and the equality of each soul that is seen in sikhi for example.

Probably why as a sikh dharma follower, we dont eat animals because they have a soul and it is no different that murder because of the equality between a human soul and an animal soul- they are all the same, and this isnt the cant be said in islam.

In islam the soul exists with the body. In dharma, the body is merely a protal for the soul.
--------------

Trama is not a good enough excuse for the murder of heartbeat. There are some people that cause other humans extreme amounts of emotional, physical trauma, but I wonder how many people would be for the passing of murder legislations on the basis of personal trauma.

Trauma is unforunate, truly unforunate, but there are ways to dealing with it other than murder

 

[Saleem]

Saleem, if you think the government can regualte intentions on abortion, your crazy. Lets say a woman becomes pregnant and wants to abort of the basis of finicial constraints or situation. What stops a woman who wants to abort on the basis of sex for using that as an argument or justification. Your idea that abortion will be regualted is absurd. You cant regulate intentions. You can regulate why people buy alcohol, or why they buy guns. Its a very weak argument.

Islam definition of a soul ends with its purpose of the body which is happiness of salvation. You guys dont believe in reincarnation and the transferring of the soul. And even so, the soul in Islam is supported only by a philosophic basis. The soul according to certain philsohpher in islam is inferred because of the body's ability to do something of free will. The soul in islam is significantly different from the every transferring, ever existing, non-bodily form of the soul and the equality of each soul that is seen in sikhi for example.

Probably why as a sikh dharma follower, we dont eat animals because they have a soul and it is no different that murder because of the equality between a human soul and an animal soul- they are all the same, and this isnt the cant be said in islam.

In islam the soul exists with the body. In dharma, the body is merely a protal for the soul.

Summy, certainly this thread is not a debate on the specifics of Islam, especially outside of abortion, but let me just stress the unimportance of the physical body and this physical world, and the utmost importance on the hereafter (and the soul's experience there). If you'd like, in time I can gather certain hadiths and Qur'anic passages which can explain it better than I.

 

[Chidiya]

Personally, I?m pro-life, no matter what the circumstances. Yes, even if it?s a rape victim. We are living in a world where there is something called the morning after pull. About 3 years ago I did a research paper on the pros and cons of abortion (at this time I was pro-choice) and it totally changed my stance on this issue. Every single person, YES A FETUS IS A LIVING PERSON, has the right to life and we are no ones to make that decision for them.

 

[kinnell]

We are living in a world where there is something called the morning after pill.

And if you believe life starts at conception, isn't the morning after pill just as worse as an abortion.

Shanjeet, I completely agree with you. It's all about perspective. And yes, it IS shady to abort something that COULD be life. But all the facts would need to make a 100% conscious decision. But until then, I agree that it is more ethical to avoid it. (If a complication arises where both the mother and fetus would die before birth unless the fetus was aborted, is the abortion not more ethical?)

As Saleem said, it does have the potential to be abused (aka the reset button), but it needs to be strictly controlled.

I am glad that I was able to share MY opinion about the topic, but I do not feel the need to continue to defend it. I fully understand and completely respect your opinion and side, and I am happy that some of you do the same about mine.

 

[Hans]

I think an overwhelming problem when it comes to arguments about abortion is that of arrogance, pure and simple. It is extremely arrogant to say things like "life starts at conception" or "a fetus is alive," when there is absolutely no scientific consensus on when life actually begins. But it is also arrogant to make a broad claim that a man does not have the capability of understanding the complexities of a decision to abort a fetus (sorry, Dheerja, but it makes more sense after you clarified). Anyone who says things like this need to realize that these are opinions, and not cold, hard facts like many people pretend.

The facts are that it is not possible with the knowledge we have today to scientifically determine when life actually begins or when a fetus becomes biologically "human." In fact, this is one of those questions that science will probably never be able to answer definitively. Because of that, we have to rely on opinion and personal beliefs to legislate abortion, which is an extremely slippery slope.

To Summy and any others who propose similar pro-life arguments based on religion: It is your belief that abortion constitutes murder because a soul is granted at conception. If we are allowed to legislate based on your religious belief, then what is stopping someone from creating a law that outlaws premarital sex, adultery, homosexual activity? Those are just as much fundamental religious beliefs to many people as is the existence of a soul. Many Jews practice the Sabbath on a weekly basis, and they're not allowed to use any sort of modern technology on Saturdays. Should that become a law as well?

My point is that religious views should never be the basis of law, since they fundamentally come from something other than reason. They come from faith, which can't be proven, debated, or refuted. Even if the majority holds the same belief, it does not justify making a law out of it when that means stripping the rights of others. That's called the tyranny of the majority.

 

[sulmoney]

I think an overwhelming problem when it comes to arguments about abortion is that of arrogance, pure and simple. It is extremely arrogant to say things like "life starts at conception" or "a fetus is alive," when there is absolutely no scientific consensus on when life actually begins. But it is also arrogant to make a broad claim that a man does not have the capability of understanding the complexities of a decision to abort a fetus (sorry, Dheerja, but it makes more sense after you clarified). Anyone who says things like this need to realize that these are opinions, and not cold, hard facts like many people pretend.

The facts are that it is not possible with the knowledge we have today to scientifically determine when life actually begins or when a fetus becomes biologically "human." In fact, this is one of those questions that science will probably never be able to answer definitively. Because of that, we have to rely on opinion and personal beliefs to legislate abortion, which is an extremely slippery slope.

To Summy and any others who propose similar pro-life arguments based on religion: It is your belief that abortion constitutes murder because a soul is granted at conception. If we are allowed to legislate based on your religious belief, then what is stopping someone from creating a law that outlaws premarital sex, adultery, homosexual activity? Those are just as much fundamental religious beliefs to many people as is the existence of a soul. Many Jews practice the Sabbath on a weekly basis, and they're not allowed to use any sort of modern technology on Saturdays. Should that become a law as well?

My point is that religious views should never be the basis of law, since they fundamentally come from something other than reason. They come from faith, which can't be proven, debated, or refuted. Even if the majority holds the same belief, it does not justify making a law out of it when that means stripping the rights of others. That's called the tyranny of the majority.

my thoughts exactly, though wrapped in ivy league delivery

 

[Summy]

HANS, please, I advise you re-read the posts before you decide to reply, otherwise you would have answered all your questions.

First of all it is EXTREMELY arrogant to assume we are arrogrant because we need to base our opinions on science. Science can prove what ever they want, if you assume that we need scientific evidence to prove that life begins at conception, you, yourself are much more arrogrant than anything we said. Scientific evidence or the lack thereof is not a validation for anything in some peoples mind. IF you assume that people cannot gain and have a firm opinion because the lack of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, haha, please do get a little more developed.

The only reason religion was brought up was because Dheerja asked the question if religiously or culturally South Asian culture is inheritantly anti abortion. Where you came in with laws, and legislation and all that jazz is beyond me. Nobody talked about law and religion, we talked about the culture and religious aspect of abortion. The soul argument is the basis of whether morally it is acceptable which can extend to whether or not it should be accepted. Soceity can have concensual moral stance. The argument of 'well people have different opinions' and because you so arrogantly assume that scienctific support assumes concrete evidence which implies correctness, is simply not feisable. The is a battle for morality, which is much greater than scientific evidence or the need for. There is no direct scienfitic evidence for many things we see as morally wrong in society and therefore illegal. To begin to list them would grant me the largest post in BTF history.

Furthermore, if you think your living in a society that is religiously neutral as far as their laws are concerned, your mistaken. We live by christian theologican rule, our laws are as per the abrahmic law, so religious law is defintely enforced. I found it borderline halirious when you stated that "religious views should never be the basis of law". HA, wow, the fact of the matter, if you would like me to educate you I can, but from rurual abrahamic law to internationally, law is based in religion. The laws you abide by everydayn in the United States of America is religious law.

Sulmoney, since you enjoyed his post so much, I guess you are anti sharia law? You know the law practiced in every muslim religious state, like pakistan, iran, saudi etc.? Seems like your a supporter of the abolishment of religious law huh?

We live our everyday life by christan theology, how can anyone say that laws shouldnt be religiously based? Wow. IF so we need to re-write our law books almost completely.

 

[Kamran786]

Pro Choice.

 

[sulmoney]

Sulmoney, since you enjoyed his post so much, I guess you are anti sharia law? You know the law practiced in every muslim religious state, like pakistan, iran, saudi etc.? Seems like your a supporter of the abolishment of religious law huh?

to some extent, yes i am. sharia laws were developed in a different time, culture, setting than where we are living now. islamic knowledge and law had their golden age over a thousand years ago, but is now in a very dark age. the muslim world is very much behind the times right now, and unless they accept that and can adjust, they always will be. mind you, i am saying this as a muslim. moral law is better than religious law, in my opinion, regardless of the region and the population, and should be based on societal norms. what is kosher in one area, may not be halal in another (lame puns, deal with it ).

i have been educated with a very scientific background, having a major in biology, done some time in dental school, and now starting medical school. knowing what we know through science forces those of us who are spiritual or religious to acknowledge almost a dual explanation for everything. can we deny evolution? there is overwhelming scientific evidence for it. but as a muslim, i accept the islamic creationist view as well. does this make me a confused individual? maybe, but that is my own peace to make.

getting back to sharia law, it has been so twisted and worked for people's motivations and desires that people hold up their version of sharia law as justification for 9/11, which any level headed muslim will tell you goes against all islamic practices. but guess what? there are many many people that will tell you otherwise, and it is why al-qaeda is public enemy #1. the openness to interpretation that is built into islam is one of its greatest strengths and allows those who actually study to religion to make it work for them in today's society, but also one of its greatest weaknesses as it allows those who take it as dogma to live in a backwards world.

to get to the topic of abortion, what are my thoughts on it? i am pro-choice, but feel there must be valid reasons for the abortion, such as, the life of the mother is at risk by the prenancy, if the child will be born with any disadvantages that will not allow them to live a normal life, or if the child was conceived via rape. only one of these reasons is islamically allowed (the first), the rest are my own convictions. something that i do not tell people very often is that i have three cousins in pakistan who are developmentally challenged. seeing them firsthand and knowing the problems that they will face through their life, it is just very difficult to experience. am i saying i would like to see some of my cousins aborted? of course not, i love them just as much as any of my family members, but at the same time, i could see if during their gestation, my uncle/aunt decided to abort them. as for rape, islam says that though the act may have been horrible, a child born out of that act is one of innocence, and deserves a chance to live, and the state should provide services to help the rape victim/mother cope or deal. but let us be serious, how much does the government bend over backwards to help out rape victims and potentially resultant children? this is a human life that this individual is responsible for for 18 years legally. do you reasonably expect a 13 year old girl, heck a 30 year old woman even, to just be able to move on past a rape and potential pregnancy?

in the end though, i do believe it is the choice of the woman, and we all may be arguing it from our theological convictions, but it is not for us to say what another person should do, unless we are specifically put in that situation, and then we can decide what is the best or most appropriate course of action for ourselves. abortions, if done correctly, are relatively safe procedures, and is a valid option for some people in certain situations, and is something that we can not just dismiss, as they have been going on for nearly all of human time. sorry for the long post.

 

[Summy]

good to hear your stance sumoney. I think there are a lot of religions that consistent with science and I know sikhi is one of them. BEcause sikhi is focused more on a spirtuality, and contrary to other peoples thoughts is not a religion that says DO THIS, DO THAT, becuase this is right and this is not, its divulgence in science is limited but still existent. Many religions from south asia like buddhism for example are exactly like this. So, other than the implication that those who are religious have a dual view because science and religion are not compatable (which is a view that many christans, jews and muslims feel), I agree with a lot of what you said. Kinda sounds your more pro life is you feel that the must be a good cause for abortion, which a lot of pro life people feel.

Pro life's main crowd is against choice for the reason of abuse. Like is said, if we open up choice to a woman who may not want a baby for lets say finanical reasons, what stops an innocent baby from being aborted because it may be mix raced for example. Like I said, you cant regualte intent, ever. You can regulate who to sell alcohol, but you cant regulate why one buys alcohol. There is nothing stopping a person who can use the excuse of financial or other excuses for abortion for a completly different reason.

Laws are put into place to control human behaviour. Unforunately, when you talk about abortion, you are talking about two people (and even if you dont believe the beating heart, developing mind etc is a being, then you can at least say it is an entity). I understand that it is a person's own body, but you are also dealing with a creation that can be a separate entity.

I understand pro choice but it seems like none of them at least here acknowledge the grave danger assoicated with it.

 

[Hans]

Summy, let's begin with this right off the bat:

SUMMY, please, I advise you re-read the posts before you decide to reply, otherwise you would have answered all your questions.

See how I turned that around? Kind of like you did with...

First of all it is EXTREMELY arrogant to assume we are arrogrant because we need to base our opinions on science. Science can prove what ever they want, if you assume that we need scientific evidence to prove that life begins at conception, you, yourself are much more arrogrant than anything we said.

Ah, the old "I know you are, but what am I?" argument. Haven't heard that one in a while. But to respond to this point, you were actually one of the first to jump to scientific evidence when it seemed to back your arguments. You appealed to the existence of a heartbeat to try to prove that abortion is morally wrong.

Dheerja do you have any idea how remote the possiblity is that someone finds out they are 1-2 weeks pregnant? Even for a rape victim who will try, they usually wait until the missed menstrual cycle which could be approaching a month.

By that time, there is a heartbeat. A heart. Yeah, you may think the view that the woman's emotional, physical and psychological pain for 9 months isnt worth perserving a life, that could have been you, your sister, your mother, your father, a heartbeat that one day could be someone's brother, father, mother, that could become anything in the world...

So apparently science is irrelevant, unless it proves your point. But stepping back from that, you need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never said you needed scientific evidence to justify your opinion. In fact, I agreed with you. You don't need to use scientific evidence to back your opinion at all, but you DO need to realize that it is only an opinion, and not a truth.

Anyone who says things like this need to realize that these are opinions, and not cold, hard facts like many people pretend.

You also need to realize that the question, "When does an organism begin living?" is a scientific question. It is very different from the question, "When does a person gain a soul?" The latter is a question purely of opinion and faith, while the former is a question of fact, and one that most likely will never be answered definitively. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to debate whether or not the existence of life is a scientific question or not. It's like debating whether 2 + 2 = 4. The existence of life is a biological fact, which is science. The existence of souls is a theological belief, which is not science. So you can believe whatever you want about the moral legitimacy of abortion based on emotion, religious belief, or just a simple opinion, but that does not give you the right to force that stance on everyone when it encroaches on human rights or harms others because that stance is not grounded in objective facts or truths we can all understand.

I have a hard time following your second paragraph the way you've written it, so forgive me for not addressing each of your points specifically, but I think the gist of what you were trying to get across was, "We're not debating the legality of abortion, we're debating its morality." To that I have 2 things to say. 1) I assumed that a moral discussion about an issue that is still a hot topic of debate in American politics and legal theory (the country which most of us in this discussion live in), that it was relevant to bring in the issue's legality. 2) If you are pro-life, but do not think that there should be any law banning abortion, then I have no argument with you. You're perfectly within your rights to hold an opinion and to act in accordance with that opinion as long as others and myself are free to act as we please.

Your third paragraph was a waste of your efforts. You're right that if I believed that I lived "in a society that is religiously neutral as far as their laws are concerned," I would have been mistaken. Fortunately, I do not believe that, and never gave any indication that I did. I did say that law should not be based on religion. I did not say that it isn't. That of course is an opinion of mine, but it is an opinion that most protects the rights and freedoms of others, which is why I believe it is a good opinion. In the US, Native Americans are not allowed to smoke peyote, but Catholics can drink alcohol underage in their churches during communion. Muslims and Mormons are also not legally allowed to practice bigamy in our country. Don't even get me started on same-sex marriage. These are examples of Christian ideology in our law. I do not agree with these laws, and neither do many of the Native Americans, Mormons, Muslims, or homosexuals whose rights have been stripped away.

We live our everyday life by christan theology, how can anyone say that laws shouldnt be religiously based? Wow. IF so we need to re-write our law books almost completely.

Well, the founding fathers certainly believed that laws shouldn't be religiously based when they decided to separate church and state. Take it up with them. I agree, though, that they didn't do a perfect job of keeping religion out of law, and we've made numerous mistakes since then, so I think it's time to start re-writing.

Before you reply, please note that I have managed to go this entire post (which is incredibly long, so I'm sorry about that) without explicitly insulting your intelligence, questioning your "development," or calling you names. I'd appreciate it if you extended me the same courtesy.

 

[Sher Foundation]

I believe that a very important question we must ask ourselves is: Is morality and religion linked? Is religion necessary for morality or vice versa? Because I totally agree with summy that we live our everyday life by Christian theology. It is not as evident to a normal person and it is definitely not the entire structure of our government, but religious beliefs are like the root/base of our entire government or almost any other government for that matter. But that is another topic for another day.

I agree with everyone who believes in pro choice here but we have to agree that there always are exceptions. One thing I have learned from life thus far (and im hoping most of you have learned this as well) is that moderation is the answer to every difficult and controversial topic, and almost everything else in life as well. Where there is good, there is evil. Where carbs are bad for you if you overeat them, they are the main source of blood glucose which basically fuels the entire body, gives it energy to function, and is the only source of energy for important parts of the body like the brain. Where yelling at your sibling can teach them a thing or two about life?s lessons, yelling at them too much can cause a lot of problems as well. Same things goes for if you are too lenient with your siblings. Similarly, although pro choice is definitely the obvious (not so obvious for many) choice morally and religiously speaking, there are LOGICAL extremities that cannot be overlooked. If a 13 or 14 year old girl gets raped, there is a strong chance that her body cannot physically hold or give birth to this child. I?m just playing devils advocate here, but what would happen then? Im sure you guys can come up with a crazy solution to fix that without having to abort the ?child? but this is just the first example off the top of my head.
Someone stated earlier that trauma is not a good enough excuse for an abortion and that there are other ways to dealing with trauma other than an abortion. I only partially agree because there are different levels of trauma. The trauma of rape itself has ruined people?s almost ENTIRE lives even with medical and psychological help. I know because one of my mom?s friends went through this a long time ago and is now 65 and still not normal. Similarly, when you add the 9 months the poor female would have to go through, let alone being reminded every day of her life that she is about to give birth, or already has given birth to a child of a rapist whether she raises him/her or not?that trauma is not something a psychologist or any medicine can ALWAYS fix. Sometimes the only solution to fix such a state of mind would be to abort the child before it enters this world for the well being of the lady.

Similarly, I strongly oppose pro choice to an extent. Yes, we have more right than others over our body but we cannot forget where we came from ? who gave birth to us, our parents have a huge say in our decisions since we would not be here without them. Pro-choice basically should end when you chose to sleep with that man and were not careful. And in extreme cases as rape, depending on the severity of the entire situation, pro-choice is the right way to go.

Pavan

 

[Summy]

Hans, no disrespect, we are talking like human beings, dont worry...

Your exact quote was "It is extremely arrogant to say things like "life starts at conception" or "a fetus is alive," when there is absolutely no scientific consensus on when life actually begins.". I am sure without me divulging into that statement, you can see why it is highly problematic. You are arguing as if scientific consensus is needed to validate that life starts at conception. That is your personal opinion. That your own view that science is the end all, be all of this discussion. I am not one of these religious fanatics that doesnt believe in science or its worth, far from it, but you are claiming that nobody should be firm and stead fast in their position on the basis that science has proven anything... that's arrogant. For those who have moralistic objections to abortion, waiting for a scientific body of evidence to come out to prove that life does occur with conception isnt realistic. So, I hope you understand why your statement is arrogant. Even if Science did come to prove one way or another, I can assure you that people's heart's will still be very divided. It had nothing to do with "I know you are, but what am I". It was that you accused people of arrogance, when your statement was very close minded and arrogant in its own right.


Again, another objection I have with your stance is that you believe that my position revolves around the existence of a soul. I understand that your trying to play the in-between, lets not take a side role, which, if anyone knows me, I hate, but understand the totality of an argument. Your not willing to debate whether or not life is a scientific question? SEE, thats what I mean. Right there. People who grow up in the west (not assuming anything about you) can be very narrow in their understanding of certain topics. WHAT IS LIFE to you? For you, maybe someone who has been taught the periodic table from young grades it is the existence of a brain, a heart, organs. FOR OTHER PEOPLE, A VAST AMOUNT OF PEOPLE, LIFE EXISTS MUCH BEFORE ANY MATERIALISTIC DEVELOPMENTS... HOw is the existence of life a BIOLOGICAL FACT? Yeah, maybe in your mind. For you to sit there and pass judgment and say LIFE STARTS WITH X, Y, Z based in biology is extremely ignorant. Again, life to you is something totally different than life to other people. A gursikh would argue that life is something that is given to a human that has the chance to develope.... For example, as a sikh one may believe that the soul is forever transforming. Leaving different bodies for centuries until reaching mukti.... One life an animal, one life a human etc... If someone is granted a baby, for a sikh, before any sort of development in that baby, the mere act of granting the chance to live IS LIFE, IS EXISTENCE, IS BEING....

Do you understand? That is one example, scientifically, there are examples such as that. That there a fertilized cell is something that is living. So tell people your not willing to debate whether life is biological or not, because to you it is, not to other people. Thats what highly problematic about your stance. For you, yeah it may be faith, it may be opinion, but to other people it is as valid to them as science is to you. To other people, when written in text that the first phase of existence is PRE LIFE which starts in the womb, for them that is as much validation they need. To them thats 2 + 2=4.

----

If I understand you correctly, you are creating a dicotomy between faith and fact, which I will never agree with. Faith can be fact. Its a very undeveloped, very imperialistic, very basic stance to believe one or the other can be fact, fact itself is subjective. The atom was the smallest entity, that was a fact, until split. The world was flat- that was a fact, until proven otherwise. Its purely subjective, and your claiming some sort of greater importance for one side over another. When you say things like life is biological, and the existence of a soul is mere belief.... it is HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC. NOt because I believe in the soul, etc...That has nothing to do with it... Even if I was an athetist rocket scientist, and agreed with your points 100%, there is no way, as a person who understand the manipulation that has occured in education, and what has been fed to you as facts, to sit there and say, your beliefs have no scientific evidence and therefore is merely faith.

Thats where your problems lies. Because today we can live in an age of scienctific discovery. But only a couple hundred years ago, the message from god is as concrete as science today in your eyes. You need some balance in your opinion, in your understanding of other peoples views....


Personall hans, I believe in the existence of science and religion. Maybe to a christan they are contrasting, but no nessecarily to the rest of the world...
----


Hans, I would like your feedback, and again no disrespect intended, but please answer this question as well...

God is very subjective. What is god, does it exist, what form etc... For someone who said, you feel as if life is a biological fact, as it is 2+2=4, God does not exist. God has never lived, God has never come in biological form (depending on what religion you believe in)... Has God existed? Is God real?

Some of your opinions are very western ideologically based which leads me to problems understanding your comprehension of the totality of this problems.

 

[Saleem]

Summy just wanted to start by saying I am a religious person and do have religious views, but here I am especially playing devil's advocate as an athiest scientist (two independent descriptors, not hand in hand). So please do not be too offended

That there a fertilized cell is something that is living. So tell people your not willing to debate whether life is biological or not, because to you it is, not to other people. Thats what highly problematic about your stance. For you, yeah it may be faith, it may be opinion, but to other people it is as valid to them as science is to you.

A fertilized egg may be a living, organic cell, yes, but it is not protectable because it's a group of cells. It is smaller than the fungus, parasites, symbiotic bacteria, even things like ringworm which we kill daily. It is imperceptibly small. There is no reason to protect it just because it is a few cells lashed together. Even human cells of greater magnitude are cut off without concern. The only (pro-life) reason I can give any weight to is that it has the *potential* to be born as a human being. Also, fertilized eggs, for whatever reason, sometimes do not implant in the uterus, and exit and 'die'. Is this a death? No one ever knew this zygote was fertilized and 'alive', only God, if you believe in Him. What of this soul, since the 3-day old egg is given a soul at conception.

"For you, yeah it may be faith, it may be opinion, but to other people it is as valid to them as science is to you." This sentence holds no weight. From an atheist's point of view, it doesnt matter HOW MUCH you believe in the faith you believe. It still has no evidence, no scientific backing; by definition, it holds no LOGICAL REASON to believe it. It's therefore not as valid as science, even if you say it a lot, it's not true.

Faith can be fact. Its a very undeveloped, very imperialistic, very basic stance to believe one or the other can be fact, fact itself is subjective. The atom was the smallest entity, that was a fact, until split. The world was flat- that was a fact, until proven otherwise.

This is false. Faith cannot be fact. Fact is something that has verifiable observations to the extent that it is proven. All of the things you said, the theory of the atom, the theory of a flat earth, etc, are all just that-- theories. Theory is the word scientists use when they have plenty of evidence above a hypothesis. No amount of evidence can turn a Theory into a Fact. Fact is not subjective. Special Relativity, despite our overwhelming evidence over the past 50 years showing its truth, is still a Theory.

 

[Hans]

Summy, you are either not reading my posts carefully enough, or you are being intentionally stubborn in deciphering their meaning. If you think I'm playing an "in-between, lets not take a side role," you CLEARLY haven't been reading my posts carefully. I am very much pro-choice, and I made that very evident when I argued that people should not have the right to restrict others' rights based on their own religious or otherwise personal beliefs. I believe women (and men) should have the right to choose.

Also, let's get one thing straight: I am not stupid, and neither are many of the people you argue with most fervently. I say this because you seem to attack every problem by assuming that the other person is ignorant, and you believe that you are here to educate them. It's this condescending view that's led to your failure to actually educate or persuade anyone, even when your ideas may have been worthwhile. I think you'll find more success dealing with people if you trust in their intelligence and rationality rather than assuming their stupidity. Also this time, I'll try to do a better job of emphasizing the important parts.

I've said this twice now, but I'll say it again: It is arrogant to claim that you can have the definitive answer for when a fetus or zygote becomes a living, functioning human being. This is arrogant because it is not provable by any means. Faith is not a means by which you can prove anything. That is why it is called faith, because it is unprovable by its very nature and requires a leap of faith on the part of the believer. You can stil feel very strongly, firmly, or steadfastly one way or another about your opinion on the matter, and it might be compelling if you have good reasons to justify that opinion, but you cannot parade around this opinion as a truth.

In other words, if you label your unprovable opinions as facts or truths, you are both ignorant and arrogant. Since any ideas about when life begins or when a fetus becomes human is invariably an opinion (there is no way to prove it), it is arrogant to claim you have the right answer that everyone should abide by.

Even if Science did come to prove one way or another, I can assure you that people's heart's will still be very divided.

I agree, some people will still be very divided, but that is because it is inevitable that some people will choose ignorance over enlightenment. The fact that there are ignorant people who will still be divided is not a sound argument against the importance of science. People are still much more divided than they should be about many things that have been undeniably proven. Barack Obama is not a Muslim, and this has been proven through his words and his actions, but many Americans are still very divided about this. Those people who have rejected the truth are ignorant. That does not devalue the truth that Barack Obama is, in fact, not a Muslim.

If these opinions are at all provable, it must be through scientific means. Why? Because science is the only objective measure we have for such a thing. Religion is extremely subjective. Everyone has their own ideas and beliefs, and while one religion may say life begins at conception, another religion may say it begins at birth or even adulthood. Saleem took the words out of my mouth when he responded that faith cannot be fact (see my above underlined sentence that reiterates this). He's also dead on when he takes apart your analogy on the atom or the world being flat. Those ideas were never facts, since they were false. By definition, facts CANNOT be false and they cannot be disproven, that's why we call them facts.

I'm not going to address the questions you asked about God towards the end because they would require a much larger discussion that is beyond the scope of this topic. Also, I'm not willing to engage in a theological debate because, in my experience, those debates are impossible to settle. When we argue about ideas that are a matter of personal belief and faith, then we cannot prove our own claims or refute our opponents'. Everybody's ideas are personal and equally valid in that realm.

 

[Summy]

Saleem, I am glad you siad your playing devils advocate, because truth be told, I forget how BTF can lead to severe chest pains sometimes. Speaking as a law student, I am programmed to completely break down other people's arguments, and thats what I tend to do. Some people take it personally, others dont, its a matter of strong one's mind is for critiscism.

Saleem my response to your arguments are this. Firstly, I am far from a science student, I cant understand its practically in life (not saying there is none. I dont need to know what molecules my body is composed of, I could care less ha). But let me clarify what has a soul and what doesnt. A soul is not something that is automatically given to a cell that has a potential to life. An Atma is a forever consistent, never dieing entity that travels from body to body, from life to life. Meaning, entities that posses an atma are meant to have existence. Now, it is said like I explained before, that of the 16 parts of life, in sikhi and other dharmic religions, the atma is entered in the first part, the first sanskaar... The first sanskar is pre-birth, meaning once the feritilized egg, cell or whatever have you(i dont know about this science part I hope you get it) it is the one cell that will be given life. That one cell that will be given life, will consist of an atma. Those fetus that die naturally in the womb, or the cells that exist for a very small while, those dont consist of a soul, they were never meant to have an existence. Human intervention, meaning end the soul's chance to live, is similar to murder. Because the first sanskaar is equal to the last. The pre birth soul is equal to the 30 year old soul, if that makes sense. So those cells that are humanly produced, are not meant to be existent, they do not comprise of a soul, get it?

Let me just make one thing clear... reading so many responses of BTF makes me realize how at peace I am with my understanding of our society. In my opinion, from the first slave trade in the atlantic, we as miniorities, whose ancestories are inferior, are doomed and destined to have our culture, our thought, our identity abolished. One reason why I am so oppose to Bhangra is because something that is distinctly ours, has been mass produced and has lead to the pimping of our culture for entertainment purposes, something distinct to western civilizations. Now because we as inferiors have been conditioned for hundereds of years under imperialistic thinking, it may be hard for people to understand other POV's.

Science to many people has little to no validity, because science is forever evolving, forever changing, and similar to religion, science can never be fully proven. Im talking about scientific theory. Even Saleem said it to a certain extent that it is theory, so science in itself cannot be factual. I understand the dicotomy being created between theory and fact, well the purpose of our discussion of when life exists, that itself scientifically if proven the exact moment life exists, will also be a theory. Where you get the impression that science is factual is also faulty. Science is also subjective to a get extent. When you say to FAITH having no weight and when Hans says to me that its called FAITH for a reason, its much of what I talked about above. Lets stop using the language that our ancestors where insutled with, and how about we use punjabi, our maa boli ? Dharam. You say hands that "It is called faith because it is UNPROVALE by its VERY NATURE, and REQUIRES A LEAP OF FAITH ON THE PART OF THE BELIEVER"... First off, you sound like an atheist if I have every heard one. What does Dharam mean to you. Dharam is much more than religion in our maa boli. It is much more than faith. Much more than way of life, it is something that require NO leap of faith. Dharam's meaning is closer to reality, OUR reality, a distinct reality.... So get that straight please Hans, FAITH in your language and religion to you may require a leap of faith, but for those who have a religious connection, and for them they are as sure of their DHARAM as 2 + 2 = 4, your understanding that a leap of faith is merely your personal opinion.


You may feel like Hans my views on your are condescending, but thats your personal view. I repeatedly tell people who use that as a rebutle that it is not the case. Furthermore, this whole thing of me being condescending... sounds like a personal problem. I mean this is the most respectful way, I could honestly care less how you TAKE my opinion, it is your views ON my opinion that matter. If you see it as aspiring, I would not care, if you see it as condescending, an equal amount of not caring. It sounds like you taking something as offensive as a personal problem, so deal with it on your own.

Nobody ever said it is definitive that a zygote or fetus is a living functioning human being. Where you got that, again beyond me. I talked about morality of the situation, others talked about the morality of abortion, you were the first one to talk about the validity of calling something a human being. I based my responses before you, on the cultural and religious aspect of abortion, you want to use the validity of calling it a living thing as a way to say, both views are equal. THATS NOT THE ISSUE AT HAND. The issue is the morality of killing that entity, not whether it is living. PERSONALLY, I believe it is living, but I am not debating other who say it is not living. I am debating others who say it is morally acceptable for our society to abort.

TO YOU because theories based in the foundation of our western society emphasize the validity of science to prove something, doesnt mean that it is provable and religion is not. I cant even get into the argument of whether religion is provable or not because I would be regressing to conversations I am sure I had in grade 10. Its like my mind boggles, I am not sure how to even explain this to you without sounding a) extremist, and b) elitist. But long story short what your critieria of having something as fact, is not everyones criteria. Because Mr. Einstein told use that e = mc2 doesnt mean that everything must follow the same logic. To others, dharam is as factual as e = mc2. And if your gonna continue to argue that ITS NOT PROVABLE, PROVE IT, PROVE IT... Well your close mindedness is gonna lead me to a conversation that I dont want to get into.

Your absolutist thinking is what leads you to saying jems like:

"Because science is the only objective measure we have for such a thing."

Is anyone else yelling HERBET SPENCER CAME BACK FROM THE DEAD??!!! Ha. Yes Hans, maybe for you science is the only objective measure for such issues like you explain, maybe for you.

The more I re-read your post, the more I understand that for someone who said that asking the question when an organism starts living is a scientific question, if you will ever get my point. In YOUR head, maybe it is. But in other people who consist of extremely religious, to those who are moderately, it is NOT a question of science.

IN LITERALLY ONE PARAGRAPH before you wrote that you agree that science isnt need to back up one's view, then in the next sentence saying that whether an organism is living or not is a purely scientific question.


Realize that your abolustist thinking that science the basis of ALL thigns that are factual is highly problematic. I mean if people werent taught imperialistic notions, I would be able to give examples of pre-colonist India, african history and other examples but I am sure whether you admit it or not, you would believe they would have some form of barbaric nature to their thinking. But science is not the basis of fact, science is merely a variable in the equation to what one view's as factual, the other variable is religion amongst so many others.

 

[Hans]

Summy, you are incorrigible. I have already wasted too much time arguing with you, and I won't do it again here. It is true that you are far from a science student, as you admit, and based on your arguments you also appear to be far from a law student, English student, sociology student, or philosophy student.

It's discouraging, because clearly you have read some books in your lifetime (or at least you very much want others to think you have judging by your frequent referencing of philosophers and their works), but that knowledge has only made you more arrogant rather than more humble, as it would the wise man.

It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you, since you are so absorbed in your own ideas that you refuse to seriously consider those of others. Instead, you choose to simplify your opponents' arguments, conveniently ignore the parts you can't answer, and claim moral and ideological superiority by "seeing outside of western thinking" every time.

I knew that arguing with you was an exercise in futility because I've seen the results time and time again. For some reason, though, I still allowed you to drag me down to your level this time. So you know what? You won, I guess. Unfortunately for you, I think you might find that you won't do so well in the grand scheme of things. Good luck with that, *ahem*, "law degree."

 

[Hans]

Oh, and this is for you.

 

[Summy]

ill wait for your last messages to be deleted by the mods... Sounds like your last messages were a bunch of personal problems, please deal with those issues on your own time... Couldnt care less about your personal problems and opinions, if you need help dealing with your internal struggle, read some chicken soup books...

Back to abortion, I would like someone to answer their position on how abortion can be abused and how those who are pro-choice would be able to curtail those abuses. For the record, I am pro life meaning on the basis that the government is able to provide unwanted babies with a stable upbrining, a stable future, and the correction of today's current system. I am for abortion in rare cases such as child rape, even though I dont fully support it, but am willing to settle there. I am pro Roe v Wade but that deals with trimesters, a whole other issue.

Again, what if someone wants to abort for issues such as mixed race, or mixed religion etc... Would be people be okay with that?

 

[Harman]

my opinion on the subject is pro-choice

a womans body is her own domain.......she has the right to her own privacy........so if she wants to choose to abort or not the decision is hers and hers only.....