A shame this got turned into an abortion thread, rather than the ideal society thread as it seems to have started out as (at least, the first two posts seem to imply that). I say a shame because there was a thread just like this a few weeks ago. Heck, it's still on the front page! It was last posted in on Thursday last. Thanks to J for even providing the links, which shows more effort than I would have put in.
Ah well, what are you going to do? Invent a time machine, go back, and change the past? Well... this IS the Chrono Compendium, so I guess that isn't too far-fetched.
Roads? Where we're going, we don't
need roads...
what if it were to be born into a world where he/she couldnt be acurately taken care of?
That's a really bad argument; essentially you are saying that it is better to have never lived than to have lived in poverty. And, furthermore, even if one were to suppose that such is a true statement, there is still the nasty subject of society deciding this for another person without their consent. If these are concepts that society should hold to be true, what should stop us from solving the homeless problem with chemicals?
like you shouldnt get an abortion every few weeks (haha like thatll ever happen)...
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513To be fair, that link doesn't contain the whole story, but rather the one that the individual in question wanted to put forward.
Since it was brought up, early gnostic sects of Christianity actually routinely employed both contraceptives and abortion practices. ... Course, supposedly they also ate semen, menstrual fluid, and aborted fetuses. The validity of this information is dubious, though it is accurate in that historical sources claimed this.
I wonder if there are other religious rationales that could support abortion rights.
I am reminded of the "debate" against the use of anesthetics during childbirth. Curiously, most of the objections to the use of ether came from medical doctors, not the clergy or lay-individuals. However, a few arguments were put forward very early (and very early addressed and subsequently dropped) that stated that labour pains were the result of humanity's fall, and so attempting to subvert them was like attempting to subvert God's will. These arguments were addressed by merely pointing out that, by that logic, any labour saving device was likewise attempting to subvert the will of God.
But I bring this up because one might be able to extrapolate a basic argument from it to use for the advocation or defense of abortion on religious grounds. One might object to abortion on the grounds that it violates a perceived divine order in the universe. However, one might in turn object to this objection on the grounds that imprisonment as punishment for a crime is in turn a violation of a perceived divine order. The OT generally states two kinds of punishment: death or fines. Forcibly restricting the freedoms of another individual, however, is not included.
It is a weak argument, admittedly, but that is because the religious arguments against abortion are likewise weak. Objections to abortion seldom rest entirely on religious grounds (though certainly the concept of ensoulment does come into play), but rather human nature itself. Human's have a basic instinct to protect our children, and we have an imagination. Put the two together and people can perceive a fetus as a child and thus have the desire to protect it. Often, arguments against abortion tend to be founded in a sense of wrongness that cannot be attributed to any logical argument. People feel that it is wrong, as they feel that ranch dressing on peanut butter chocolate chip pie is wrong, and they search for justification after the fact.
The concept of ensoulment does provide difficulties for the Christian pro-choicer, but given that few Christians are well versed on the concept of ensoulment, that can't be the cause of people's stance.
Biophilosophically speaking, the child is an extension of the mother's body whilst in the womb. If she is said to exercise control over her own body, then she must be able to exercise control over the fetus that is just as much a physical part of her as her right arm.
I am curious, if a woman wanted to cut off her right arm, provided that there was not a medical threat to her wellbeing emanating from the arm, would we allow her to do it or would she be directed to seek psychological help? Or let us extrapolate that further, suppose a woman wanted to reject a part of her body necessary for life (her heart, let's say): would society allow her to? This, of course, gets into the topic of euthanasia. As a society we hold that no one has complete control over their body, and thus it is now a question of where we draw the line of who much control a woman has. Not enough control to kill herself, and perhaps not enough control to maim herself, but enough control to eject what is essentially a parasite? A parasite that, though it inhabits her body, is not entirely hers (unless we have a case of virgin pregnancy, of course).
While I am generally in favor of abortion as a right (and I try to use the word "right" very sparingly, as it is much abused in modern discourse), I do find the concept that a person has exclusive dominion over their own body to be a curious one. That which is merely within the body does not fall under such jurisdiction (such as in the case of drugs specifically ingested with the intent of later regurgitating), and likewise that which is supplied by and dependent on the host body isn't entirely free to the individual's decision (as there can be court orders forcing individuals to get treated for various medical problems). If we have control over our bodies, it is a very shaky control. Perhaps the abortion issue might thus be helped by establishing first a human's relationship to their body, and then extrapolating that concept uniformly across concepts?
Such an approach would be inherently biased, however. It assumes dualism where dualism may not (and probably doesn't) exist. But at the same time, I believe many modern individuals are dualists, and so addressing this philosophy might in turn help the abortion debate.
... also contradict many rules in their own books or whatever. like its not cool for you to get an abortion even if the child is highly deformed yet you can go out for shrimp cocktails (even though one of the passages in the bible says that thou shalt not eat shellfish)
Curses, if only Christians believed that something or someone had come along and replaced the old religious code with a new one. This would, of course, be transmitted to us via a testament, of sorts. A "New Testament," as it were.
<.<
>.>
To be fair, Christians are rather selective in what they choose to hold as still valid from the Old Testament. For example, murder is still bad, but I can wear a shirt that's 50% cotton and 50% polyester and not worry about sinning. Often, however, this is because of various classifications of the laws found in the OT. Certain laws were fundamental, others were circumstantial. Of course, even such classifications are artificial; they aren't found within the text itself. But this is also a religion based on the concept of a messiah, which isn't found explicitly in the OT either. We have a history of “interesting” interpretations.
...or its not cool to perform homosexual activities yet you can sell your daughter into slavery and take gods name in vain.
I'm just curious, what Christians are selling their daughters into slavery?
Imo... the whole political party thing is an entire scheme in which no matter which one is elected, the same things will be carried out, which the president is really a puppet of a group conspiracy in which controls the US by giving them the IDEA that they're free.
Would this group conspiracy be run by a select organization known as the Pentavirate, which meets tri-annually at a secret mansion in Colorado known as "The Meadows." And would this group be comprised of the five wealthiest people, including: The Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went tits-up?
Sounds reasonable, FaustWolf. However, embryology has shown that the fetus is not actually part of the mother's body. The fetus is a separate being, complete with its own circulatory system and a DNA sequence unique from the mother.
Yet at the same time, it is possible for my right hand to have a DNA sequence unique from my left hand. An individual can be their "own twin" as it were. It is called
Chimerism.
Now, may I be selfish for a moment and return to what appears to have been the original topic, an ideal society?
1. A small government would exist, but its primary purpose would be to manage the pooled resources of the community and direct it towards necessary large scale projects. Laws would be unnecessary as no one would behave in a manner un-conducive to the prosperity of the whole. Likewise taxes would not exist as individuals would willingly and happily provide to resources for the greater good.
2. A free and easily accessible educational system in which human development is emphasized. Math and science would have important places within the curriculum, but because they are fields of study worthwhile in themselves to be studied, not because they are perceived as keys to desirable jobs later in life. Thus, philosophy, english, history, and various forms of art (music, painting, sculpting, woodworking, etc) would be highly emphasized as well. Physical education would be largely unnecessary as individuals would be naturally introduced to a wide range of physical activities by their parents. Sports in general would be well honored, but not obsessed over. Teachers would get "paid" far more than athletes.
3. Everyone would engage in activities as best suits the society as a whole and their own personal interests. Undesirable activities which are necessary but which no one desires to perform would be handled by robots. If an individual desired to till land, then they would be well welcomed to do so, but if no one desired to, robots would fill in the activity.
4. Robot uprisings would not occur as at no point with the machines be given an intelligence sufficient enough to lead to sentience. A robot citizenry might be created, but these groups would be kept strictly separate.
5. And since it has been mentioned here, abortion would be a non-issue as there would be no need for it; no woman would ever become pregnant unless she so desired, there would never be medical complications, and the child would also be healthy and viable.
Of course, such a society totally can't exist, but no one ever said these had to be viable.
And now, for our robots in the audience, a binary solo!
01010100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101000 01110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100100 01100101 01100001 01100100
