This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby Brian » 11 Feb 2009, 03:03

Just encountered this commentary from Charles Colson - former staffer for U.S. President Richard Nixon who did prison time for his role in the Watergate conspiracy and founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries. I think he is spot on target regarding postmodernism on the issue of abortion as exemplified by the current U.S. President Barack Obama:

Charles Colson Breakpoint Commentary - February 10, 2009: minor clarifications added with inserts in parentheses

[quote][The President and the Innocent


At the (US) National Prayer Breakfast last week, President Obama seemed to signal that he has seen the light and is abandoning his radically pro-abortion agenda.

At least, that’s the only reasonable conclusion one could make after hearing the President, who says he's a Christian, also say: “There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.”

So I could only surmise that the President now oncludes that “no God” would condone the 1.6 million abortions performed each year in America: 1.6 million innocent lives destroyed.

But I’ve checked the White House website, and it’s very clear that God’s disapproval hasn't changed the administration’s agenda one bit.

Here’s what the White House website says: “President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration.”

Well, in one way I’m glad I wasn't at the breakfast this year—I was speaking instead at Moody (Bible Institute)—because I’m not sure I would have been able to stay in my seat.

How can a President of the United States say that “there is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being,” when he himself favors a woman’s right to have an abortion under virtually every circumstance? How can he say that when, as an Illinois state senator, he voted against the Illinois Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected the lives of babies who survived late-term abortions? When he even had the audacity to describe the act as “One more burden on a woman . . . I can’t support.”

President Obama is a highly intelligent man with a huge job on his hands. I know what the White House is like, and I pray for him fervently every day. But how does such an intelligent man make a statement like this without understanding its implications for his own pro-abortion policies?

The only way to explain it is to understand the intellectual environment, called postmodernism, in which President Obama and his peers have been raised. Generations of Americans have now been taught that truth is subjective. You have your truth, I have mine. And, even worse, I can’t “inflict” my version of truth on you. The law of non-contradiction has been suspended.

So politicians can tell us over and over that they can’t allow their personal faith to affect their views on public policy. Or they can take two completely opposing positions at the same time: like believing that no God condones the taking of innocent life and at the same time, condoning—even promoting—the taking of an innocent life.

The problem isn’t simply President Obama and his views on life; the problem is a postmodern culture which believes that truth is merely a matter of opinion, and that therefore the sanctity of innocent human life is simply an expression of one viewpoint among many.

I have argued for the last 20 years that postmodernism would lead to the unraveling or our society. The fact that so few noticed the contradiction in what the President said and the policies he pursues tells me that we’re far along in the unraveling process.
/quote]
Could not have said it any better.
In Christ alone,
Brian

Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry. Mark Twain
Brian
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sep 1999
Location: Lancaster, PA USA

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby mitchellmckain » 11 Feb 2009, 05:12

oh boy! Here is the ultimate nightmare topic. I would recommend to John that he immediately forbid discussion on this topic because if he thinks the discussion of homosexuality was heated, he hasn't seen anything. This is a topic of all out warfare -- full of ideolgues who refuse any compromise whatsoever and people who are passionate about the different sides of this issue. Those who would force their ideology on everyone else about what they imagine should be considered to have the same rights as human beings whether it be trees, animals, zygotes or mountains, are what I can only describe as the modern day manifestation of fascism. People are free to live their own lives according to such personal moral commitments but forcing them on everyone else is not compatable with the ideals of a free society. Personally I am horrified by reduction of humanity to genetics, and I think it brings out the absolute worst interpretation of the Bible: that God is seeking the redemption of mankind through the ethnic cleansing of a demonic corruption of the human race. ...We must not let one group have the right to dictate who or what is human and what is not and thus who should live and who die, because the potential abuse of this is just too monsterous. Thus ideologues on who refuse to compromise on this issue must not be tolerated.
mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Jul 2007

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby john » 11 Feb 2009, 05:43

mitchellmckain wrote:oh boy! Here is the ultimate nightmare topic. I would recommend to John that he immediately forbid discussion on this topic because if he thinks the discussion of homosexuality was heated, he hasn't seen anything.


As it is with other topics, heated debate is nothing new here and is not against any rules of conduct. What is forbidden is disrespect of others and a lack of good will. I will not be locking this thread, but please understand that I will absolutely not be tolerating a breach in proper conduct (rules that everybody agreed to prior to registering, I might add).

Those who do not believe they can share their opinions and discuss the topic without resorting to disrespect, name calling, and other forms of abusive behavior are encouraged not to participate. You have been warned. There are plenty of other places that do not enforce such standards of behavior, so if you feel "restrained" here, go elsewhere. If the discussion gets out of hand, I will lock the thread after dealing with those responsible. Do not test me on this.
john (aka DrZeus)
Chief Wardrobian
User avatar
john
Chief Wardrobian
 
Posts: 6462
Joined: Jul 1996
Location: near seattle

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby AllanS » 11 Feb 2009, 06:07

mitchellmckain wrote:This is a topic of all out warfare -- full of ideolgues who refuse any compromise whatsoever and people who are passionate about the different sides of this issue. Those who would force their ideology on everyone else


I agree about forced ideologies. It's the same with those tedious ideologues who insist that blacks are fully human, that women are as smart as men, and that Jews aren't plotting to control the world. I get so tired of simplistic moralizers. We need to respect, tolerate, celebrate and affirm all opinions on such matters. Indeed, we should use tax dollars to fund grass-roots organizations that hold diverse views (such as the Klan and the BNP).

Let's call it our right to choose.
“And turn their grief into song?" he replied. "That would be a gracious act and a good beginning."

Quid and Harmony: a fund-raising project for the Fistula Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. www.smithysbook.com
User avatar
AllanS
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Hobart Tasmania

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby mitchellmckain » 11 Feb 2009, 06:50

john wrote:
mitchellmckain wrote:oh boy! Here is the ultimate nightmare topic. I would recommend to John that he immediately forbid discussion on this topic because if he thinks the discussion of homosexuality was heated, he hasn't seen anything.


As it is with other topics, heated debate is nothing new here and is not against any rules of conduct. What is forbidden is disrespect of others and a lack of good will. I will not be locking this thread, but please understand that I will absolutely not be tolerating a breach in proper conduct (rules that everybody agreed to prior to registering, I might add).

Those who do not believe they can share their opinions and discuss the topic without resorting to disrespect, name calling, and other forms of abusive behavior are encouraged not to participate. You have been warned. There are plenty of other places that do not enforce such standards of behavior, so if you feel "restrained" here, go elsewhere. If the discussion gets out of hand, I will lock the thread after dealing with those responsible. Do not test me on this.


Ok, I warned you. But you are in deep water here. How can you avoid just deciding who gets to call whom names? It is the habit of the pro-lifers of calling people on the pro-choice side baby-killers, the pro-choice have every right to right to retaliate by calling the pro-lifers rapists. This kind of equivocation has already begun. Pro-choice has already been equated to anti-Christian, taking innocent life, KKK and BNP. Of course you can just decide right now that you agree with this and that you don't really want any discussion with pro-choice supporters, and I can just say good bye once and for all.
mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Jul 2007

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby mitchellmckain » 11 Feb 2009, 06:59

AllanS wrote:
mitchellmckain wrote:This is a topic of all out warfare -- full of ideolgues who refuse any compromise whatsoever and people who are passionate about the different sides of this issue. Those who would force their ideology on everyone else


I agree about forced ideologies. It's the same with those tedious ideologues who insist that blacks are fully human, that women are as smart as men, and that Jews aren't plotting to control the world. I get so tired of simplistic moralizers. We need to respect, tolerate, celebrate and affirm all opinions on such matters. Indeed, we should use tax dollars to fund grass-roots organizations that hold diverse views (such as the Klan and the BNP).

Let's call it our right to choose.


Every society must force certain ideals on its citizens. It is a choice we make about what kind of society we want to live in. The theocracies in the middle east force their religious and personal moral comitments on everyone and perhaps there are people in the west who want to live in a theocracy if THEIR religion is the basis for it. In free society we force the principles of religious liberty and tolerance on everyone. In a society commited to the respect of religious, cultural and philosophical diversity we make compromises so that this diversity can live together. Thus in a free society we cannot permit people to force their personal moral fantasies on everyone else in violation of religious liberty and tolerance.
mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Jul 2007

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby AllanS » 11 Feb 2009, 07:01

mitchellmckain wrote:Pro-choice has already been equated to anti-Christian, taking innocent life, KKK and BNP.


The answer to many questions that vexed past generations can only be Yes or No.

Are blacks fully human? Yes.

Should women have equal political and economic rights to men? Yes.

Are Jews plotting to rule the world? No.

It's no different in our own time.

Are unborn humans human? Yes.
“And turn their grief into song?" he replied. "That would be a gracious act and a good beginning."

Quid and Harmony: a fund-raising project for the Fistula Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. www.smithysbook.com
User avatar
AllanS
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Hobart Tasmania

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby AllanS » 11 Feb 2009, 07:12

mitchellmckain wrote:we cannot permit people to force their personal moral fantasies on everyone else in violation of religious liberty and tolerance.


Personal moral fantasies like those held by Dr King?

And you expect governments to enforce this tolerant view on everybody? You simply cannot tolerate intolerance?

Surely you see the irony and the contradiction.

If the alternative is theocracy, so be it. Just make sure you pick the right religion.
“And turn their grief into song?" he replied. "That would be a gracious act and a good beginning."

Quid and Harmony: a fund-raising project for the Fistula Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. www.smithysbook.com
User avatar
AllanS
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Hobart Tasmania

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby mitchellmckain » 11 Feb 2009, 07:21

AllanS wrote:Are unborn humans human? Yes.


Yes they are but the question is when. If humanity is defined by human DNA alone then not only are zygotes human but so are tumors. I stand UTTERLY opposed to this reduction of our humanity to human DNA. It is the human mind that makes us human not genetics. Brain activity is detected intermittently in the 20th week and is sustained by the 22nd week and so at that time I will cerainly call them unborn humans.

Now I happen to think that late term abortions should indeed be prohibited. I would in fact support federal standard prohibiting abortions after the first trimester. But that is where my tolerance of the pro-lifer ends abruptly. I will indulge their personal moral fantasies and in regard for the sanctity of human life compromise so far but no farther. I will certainly not grant them to play big brother government to decide who has been raped and who is just a slut, or to write off the deaths of our daughters in back alley abortions because while zygotes deserve to live, "immoral" women do not.

AllanS wrote:And you expect governments to enforce this tolerant view on everybody? You simply cannot tolerate intolerance?

Surely you see the irony and the contradiction.

No contradiction whatsoever. EVERY ideal is naturally and logically limited by its opposite. This is a nonsense argument typical of fascism that tolerance is not possible and therefore there is no point in tolerating any opposing point of view. It is the first step towards the ideology of a fascist state that says that either you agree with us or you are an enemy of the state that must be disposed of.
mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Jul 2007

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby AllanS » 11 Feb 2009, 08:27

mitchellmckain wrote:
Yes they are but the question is when. If humanity is defined by human DNA alone then not only are zygotes human but so are tumors. I stand UTTERLY opposed to this reduction of our humanity to human DNA.


Humans are long 4 dimensional creatures, rather like caterpillars. (Is a coffin in fact a cocoon?). I am an unbroken continuum stretching from conception to death. The same cannot be said of a tumor.

It is the human mind that makes us human not genetics.


"You knitted me together in my mother's womb." The only mind that makes me human is God's mind.

Now I happen to think that late term abortions should indeed be prohibited. I would in fact support federal standard prohibiting abortions after the first trimester.


Alas, that would be forcing your views on others.

Ironically, the abortionist never stops to think that he might be forcing his views on the unborn!
“And turn their grief into song?" he replied. "That would be a gracious act and a good beginning."

Quid and Harmony: a fund-raising project for the Fistula Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. www.smithysbook.com
User avatar
AllanS
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Hobart Tasmania

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby mitchellmckain » 11 Feb 2009, 10:55

AllanS wrote:
mitchellmckain wrote:Yes they are but the question is when. If humanity is defined by human DNA alone then not only are zygotes human but so are tumors. I stand UTTERLY opposed to this reduction of our humanity to human DNA.

Humans are long 4 dimensional creatures, rather like caterpillars. (Is a coffin in fact a cocoon?). I am an unbroken continuum stretching from conception to death. The same cannot be said of a tumor.

Tumors don't have a beginning? Tumors never die? Show me even one such tumor. You cannot because a tumor is no less 4 dimensional than anything else in the physical universe.


AllanS wrote:
It is the human mind that makes us human not genetics.


"You knitted me together in my mother's womb." The only mind that makes me human is God's mind.

Yes our humanity is an inheritance of mind from God. What our humanity is NOT is this DNA which is an inheritance from animals. In our DNA and our biology all the animals of the planet are our bretheren, and it is only in having a mind, if we actually choose to use and develop it, that we can find a relationship with the divine, including a compassion and responsibility for these bretheren we share this planet with.


AllanS wrote:
Now I happen to think that late term abortions should indeed be prohibited. I would in fact support federal standard prohibiting abortions after the first trimester.


Alas, that would be forcing your views on others.

It is part of the nature of living in community that we dont all get our own way all the time. I suppose we can live in a dictorship where one person gets his way all the time or in a theocracy where one religious gets its own way all the time. If that is what you like, there are countries like that you can move to. But in a free country and a democracy we all give way to one another by making compromises, as long as we can keep the fascists from destroying the liberties that others have died to create, just because they think that their moral fantasies are more important. But those who are commited to the ideas of religious liberty and democracy will embrace compromise where none of the extremists will be happy.


AllanS wrote:Ironically, the abortionist never stops to think that he might be forcing his views on the unborn!

The pro-life extremists who refuse to compromise simply don't care if they force their views on others because thier ideology provides them with a crutch of self-righteousness that they cannot part with. Many don't even understand why a woman should have any choice in regards to her own body. Perhaps the inability to understand this is why there are so many rapists. But others understand the importance of choice. And they look upon this group of people who have no problem sending soldiers to other countries to kill people for selfish US interests, and protect the gun industry so that people can kill as many people as they want at any time, while they slaughter innocent animals as they choose, and thus they realize that all their talk of right to life is completely meaningless. Thus the truth is revealed quite clearly. They don't believe in any right to life any more than they believe that women should have any choice. All they really believe in is their right to dictate what is right and moral to other people - and perhaps the reason why that is so important to them is because it prevents anyone from questioning whether what they are doing is right or moral.
mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Jul 2007

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby john » 11 Feb 2009, 13:56

mitchellmckain wrote:Ok, I warned you. But you are in deep water here.


Ha! Don't put this on me, Mitchell. You are responsible for your own actions. Everybody has a choice in what discussions they engage on, and in how they behave during that engagement. Our rules of conduct state that the Administrator and Moderators are the sole arbitrators of what does and what does not violate community standards. You've not experienced the history here to understand that I actually allow quite a bit of dissension -- but I will draw the line where I feel members are being targeted by abuse or where there is a level of heat and bickering that is simply uncalled for here. Like it or not, lines that are crossed have consequences.

So, I'm not the one who needs to be warned here. If you (or anybody else) don't feel that you can discuss this without resorting to abusive behavior, then make the choice not to. If you (or anybody else) feel that you're unable to participate in anything here and keep to our standards of behavior, then by all means, please do "say goodbye once and for all".
john (aka DrZeus)
Chief Wardrobian
User avatar
john
Chief Wardrobian
 
Posts: 6462
Joined: Jul 1996
Location: near seattle

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby teomiriam » 11 Feb 2009, 17:07

mitchellmckain wrote:
The pro-life extremists who refuse to compromise simply don't care if they force their views on others because thier ideology provides them with a crutch of self-righteousness that they cannot part with. Many don't even understand why a woman should have any choice in regards to her own body. Perhaps the inability to understand this is why there are so many rapists. But others understand the importance of choice.

I am pro-life and also a woman, and I cannot agree with you on this point. Choice is indeed important and a God-given right, but I believe as human beings we don't belong to our parents and a mother does not own the life of her unborn child, it belongs to God and so the choice is not hers to make. And if you talk about choices and rights, what about the child's right to live? Nobody asks an unborn child if he wants to be born or not, he has just as much right to live as his mother does.

A woman has the right to choose to protect herself if she doesn't want to have children. There are of course the terribly sad cases of pregnancies resulted from rape and abuse, and then of course the woman has no blame, but neither has the child. I can't imagine how horrible it might be to have been raped and get pregnant, but again the child is not to blame! If God didn't deny its right to live, who are you to do otherwise? If a woman doesn't want to raise a child abortion is not the only option, one can give it away for adoption and give the child the chance for a normal life. I personally know a case of a girl who was raped at 14 and she was helped by a woman in our church to raise the baby, who is now a beautiful and smart seven-year old girl. I can't imagine how much God loves her and how happy He is she is alive. What the world needs is not free abortion clinics or whatever, but more help and support for pregnant women in trouble and more education on birth control means.
"Getting rid of dragons is not at all my line, but I'll do my best to think about it"" Bilbo Baggins
User avatar
teomiriam
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Freiburg, Germany

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby Bluegoat » 11 Feb 2009, 17:27

Hmm, at the risk of getting into something messy..

It seems to me that part of the problem in all public regulation is finding the line between individual liberties and soical norms, or values. In some things it is pretty easy, in others, even when the facts are agreed upon, values and interpretations vary widely. In other cases, people can't even agree on the facts.

I'd be interested to know, Mitch, how you think we should decide what is fascism, and what is a place where we have to accept compromise? How do we begin to tell the difference?

Abortion is particularly sticky because depending upon which facts you accept as true or most likely, the consequences are quite different, and serious. But I am not sure that this is primarily the result of postmodernism, as the article suggests. There is a kind of postmodern attitude that suggests that ideas or principles are totally internal things, and that our ideas do not have to translate to our actions. It is the same attitude that says that religion is private, so we must never never show it in public life, but extended to all of our personal convictions/beliefs/understndings.

But abortion seems to me to be more complicated than this, it is not just a matter of saying that our beliefs or conclusions about abortion are "private" ideas. I think that we (as a population) are not even sure of the facts of our beginnings, much less how to interpret them. Our population is really quite divided on these questions, which makes it very difficult to even begin to talk about how to legislate about them. I am in Canada, though, so Roe vs. Wade is not perhaps so much influencing my thought.

As far as what people actually think about abortion, I'd say there are roughly three approaches.

One says all potential human life is sacred, so no abortion. Even a zygote is potential human life, even if it is not a "person" with a soul. Typically this view also doesn't allow most forms of birth control, which is perfectly logical.

The second says that it is the soul that is sacred, and makes us a person, so no abortion of anyone who has a soul. When the soul is there then becomes the issue. People tend to take one of two approaches to this problem; they try to pinpoint when the fetus has a soul (rather difficult) or they say it is impossible to know, so we must assume that it is there from the beginning.

The third says that all of this is irrelevant, the mother's rights are what counts, even if there is a person with a soul involved.

All of this is further complicated by the fact that there can be many sticky situations, such as when there are medical problems or rape. What can we possibly impose on a pregnant woman who needs chemotherapy, right now?

I think these difficulties are why some people feel that it is best to let each person navigate the issues, more that a feeling that each person's ideas are equally "right." Certainly, I haven't seen much useful public discourse on the issue.
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby mitchellmckain » 11 Feb 2009, 19:06

Bluegoat thank you for your comments,

Bluegoat wrote:I'd be interested to know, Mitch, how you think we should decide what is fascism, and what is a place where we have to accept compromise? How do we begin to tell the difference?

I think it is a matter of seeing the pattern leading up to world war 2. We had this idea of an extreme left being represented by comunism and this idea of extreme right that was supposedly opposed to communism that became fascism. And yet Hitler and Stalin signed a non-agression pact to start world war 2. This made it clear that these had more in common that they had differences. It proved that real spectrum and what really should be paid attention to is in regards to religious liberty and a tolerance for diversity. So when I see the same pattern arising now in modern rhetoric, with the new agressive atheist blaming all the evils of the world on religion, I see it as representing the "new communists" and when I see this new group of agressive conservative who think their "righteous" cause (whether it is a right to bear arms or a right to stop abortion) is more important that religious liberty and tolerance, I see them as representing the "new fascists".

We must not believe their lies and deceptions that here is the battle of armageddon between the forces of good and the forces of evil for the truth is that these are really two parts of the same army of darkness that would destroy mankind, by tearing down the rights and liberties of the individual that were fought so hard for in the past.


Bluegoat wrote:Abortion is particularly sticky because depending upon which facts you accept as true or most likely, the consequences are quite different, and serious. But I am not sure that this is primarily the result of postmodernism, as the article suggests. There is a kind of postmodern attitude that suggests that ideas or principles are totally internal things, and that our ideas do not have to translate to our actions. It is the same attitude that says that religion is private, so we must never never show it in public life, but extended to all of our personal convictions/beliefs/understndings.

No it has nothing to do with post-modernism. The ideals of religious libery and tolerance go back a couple of centuries. What is really sticky about abortion is that it is about human life and the devastating cost of forcing people to fit into your own ideals like forcing round pegs into your neat little square holes. But no matter how many people use their imagination to say there is human life where there is none like the animal rights activists who blow up buildings to protect all that innocent life that is being destroyed, on the other side is real people who are going to start dying if the self-righteousness fanatics get the boost to their ego-prop that they want so much.


Bluegoat wrote:As far as what people actually think about abortion, I'd say there are roughly three approaches.

I think your "three approaches" are completely bogus. There are only those who stand up for the rights of real people and there are those who want to trample all over real people justifying themself with a manifactured righteousness that they are defending the rights of imaginary people.

Potential human life is not nothing. It is worthy of respect. In actuality a zygote has nothing more human about it than any other one celled organism. In actuality a zygote is nothing compared to a rabbit in regards to its sensitivity and interaction with the world. But the potentiality of the zygote is NOT something that is of no account. There SHOULD be laws restricting what can be done and what cannot be done to them. BUT nevertheless it is ONLY potentiality and not actuality. A potential human is NOT an actual human.

You can imagine or believe that anything has a soul. Some people think that an old building has a soul (or that other non-living things have souls). There are religions in the world that sees not only spirits and souls but gods in things like forests, mountains and rivers. I personally do believe that all living things have a spirit but I do not credit this as a device to make them more that what they are. The spirit of a zygote does not make it more than a zygote any more than the spirit of the dog makes it more than a dog. And I do not accept the static god-bestowed view of souls, but believe that the spirits of living things grow with them and with every choice that they make. Whether the zygote has a spirit, is not the question for me in my consideration of this issue because every human cell as a living organism in its own right also has the same sort of spirit. The question is when does its spirit become independent and separate from the spirit of the mother and when does this spirit become the spirit of a human being.


Bluegoat wrote:All of this is further complicated by the fact that there can be many sticky situations, such as when there are medical problems or rape. What can we possibly impose on a pregnant woman who needs chemotherapy, right now?

Yes indeed and this is exactly what is wrong with an ideological and legalistic approach to this question. Such complexities means that those who make the decisions MUST be those who are actually involved and everybody else should keep their noses to themselves.
Last edited by mitchellmckain on 11 Feb 2009, 20:53, edited 1 time in total.
mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Jul 2007

Next

Return to Religion, Science, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 1 guest

cron