A religious arguement in support of abortion

Once the embryo (fetus?) is implanted, the steady development of physical and neurological characteristics culminates in a clearly recognizable baby.

So at what point can we be sure the soul is instilled? We can't be sure, so the only proper course is to act as if it's when the child is set firmly on the road to development. That's at implantation in the uterus.

 

The definition of a soul is undefinable, in relation to the majority of life. In some beliefs, the soul does not require a physical presence, for example. In contrast, some believe their is no such thing as a "soul". No individual can prove the other wrong, in that sense.

As such, and from my own personal view-point, I consider the ability of the brain to feel pain from a central nervous system to be the deciding factor on whether or not abortions are acceptable.

I conclude this for many reasons, the deciding factor being the common knowledge among professionals that a large portion of human life ends before the presence of a central nervous system, through miscarriages, which are more often than not unknown to the host. After approximately 20 weeks (in humans) the central nervous system allows for the sensation of pain to be passed to the developing brain, and so that's where I personally draw the line on abortions.

 

The definition of a soul is undefinable,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you mean "soul" is undefinable.

 

To be chastised by an apparently Asian person about a potential error in my use of English grammar is interesting. It appears that you have the republican tendency to argue irrelevant points.

 

I'm a stickler for grammar. And, if you look at your first sentence, you will note it seems repetitive.
Neat catch on the "apparently Asian". I'm Scotch-Irish, my wife is formerly Korean. If you can tell me what "Mjuingong" means, I'd appreciate it.

Still firmly anti-abortion, I remain,
Respectfully yours,
Mjuingong

 

Why the @#$% are you asking me? It's your shit, Scotty. Do yourself a favor and don't be stupid...I don't react kindly to stupid.

 

Because you pretended to know what language it was. But you got caught. OOPS!!!!

 

I was expecting your pussy sooner or later. I did say "apparently Asian", meaning the name is apparently of Asian origin...something that hasn't been proven wrong, dick.

 

Just to be clear, here....the current argument between myself and MJuingong is about my use of "a" before "soul". An extremely minor disagreement, in and of itself, but with implications to your personal failings in grammar, as evident in numerous posts, as well as thread-titles themselves.

 

Gentlemen, ease up.

My last post was directed to the sentence in IQless1's post 21 :
_________________________________________________
The definition of a soul is undefinable,
____________________________________________________
This struck me as a bit awkwardly phrased. So, like the frustrated editor I am, I commented.

"Mjuingong" is Korean, probably Buddhist-related. My wife chose it, and I never did get a good idea as to its meaning. So, when IQless1 showed he had some knowledge of linguistic analysis, I hoped to exploit him.

 

Not sexually, I hope. It's not you, it's me. I'm just not that into you.

 

LOL!!
No, I meant that I was hoping you would know the meaning of the word. I've never been able to get a meaning, the wife's definition was far too vague.

I remember one time years ago I had a spirited exchange on a website (chat line actually). My opposite number pointed out that she at least knew what her "name" meant.

 

Unfortunately, I made a decision a long time ago to limit my foreign language skills to only a few words in a few dozen languages. I didn't foresee a specific need for more than that, so I focused my attention on other things. However, I do know a linguist. I don't know if he's still in the U.S. though. He was in Japan for a time, and Thailand as well. The next time he shows up, I'll ask.

One other thing: Have we had this conversation before? I have an ability to witness future events, even mundane things such as this, so I can't be certain if it's that, or if we have actually had this conversation before, possibly a couple of years ago.

 

Not unless on a different website. And, hint, it would be a fansite for a fantasy show.

 

Nah, it was/is here. I did some research and understand the term juingong is to be of "true self", something I understood long ago, in English. If I was Korean, I'd use that term here myself.

A link: Juingong

 

IQless1 , thank you. At least now I have some idea of my tag (I've bookmarked the dissertation).

I'm not sure I'd like to be thought of as saying I'm the center though. A bit overegotistical.

 

When you are "centered", you understand more about your true self.

People throughout the centuries have learned a great deal by searching for that center. In many practices, meditation allows for enlightenment. So, yes it's egotistical in some ways, but not necessarily in a bad way. It's "self-absorbed" to meditate, but it's done to become enlightened, to have knowledge that would otherwise be inaccessible.

What you do with that knowledge is more important, imo. If someone is truly egotistical, they tend to be very good at self-promotion and consequently become rich and powerful in society.

An excellent book/movie on the positive (and negative) benefits of egotism and the success it brings is called The Secret.

 

Murder is a legal term and I have not used it in this argument. Homicide is not a legal term and simply means the willful death of another human being. Homicide may be justified or unjustified. Homicides committed during the act of self defense are justified and not a crime. The same goes for capitol punishment and abortions. Our argument is whether abortion should be justified or unjustified homicide and by which means forms the justification.

In most incidences, for homicide to be justified, the individual being put to death has or is in the process of endangering an other's life. In this I have no problem with abortion, if it is also endangering an other's life. Your argument chooses a self described arbitrary line as the sole justification for homicide. Others who actually decide on homicide have more concrete justifications, like we can't afford a child, or we really want a son, and hide behind your arbitrary line. As you stated, the current line is based physiology and at what point does a human develop capacity for pain and memory. You also compared a humanoid at 20 weeks development with a comatose humanoid, giving the comatose a pass since at one time they were capable of having memories. My take is to allow a pass based on the realization that in less than 6 months, the developing humanoid will be capable of experiencing both pain and memory. If the comatose were so lucky.

In your conclusions, you question if a brainless embryo is precious or only in the eye of the beholder. You also mentioned potential. Every individual has their own perspective. To a schizophrenic single mom and wild ass boy friend, very little. But under that circumstance, in pre-Row vs Wade American, I was born and became a problem they had to deal with. At first I was adopted, but taken back and passed around like a hot potato. I grew up hearing arguments about abortion and all those unwanted kids and how abortion was a better answer. I often question whether I have the right to exist, and have developed my own unique perspective on the issue.

As to the religious grounds against abortion, that's why I created this thread, to challenge that. This argument should be in my other abortion thread, "A human secularist argument against abortion."

 

You were successful, from my point of view, though we're only looking from the Christian/Judaism perspective.

Many other religions/cultures are more brutal towards women, in general, and will often kill newborns if they are born female. The mothers themselves do that too, not just the husband or male relatives. The mother herself is in danger if all she produces are females.

In this sense, religions actively kill newborns. I know it's not the same as abortion, but it's very similar, in that sense.

Unfortunately, in today's societies, it's almost a good thing that these things, including War, diseases and disasters, happen. Our societies aren't mature enough to provide food for everyone that could possibly exist at this point in time, if abortions, murders, War and disasters didn't happen as they currently do. The Earth could support 1oo Billion people, if societies were mature enough to avoid greed and murder. They can't though, and the 7 Billion people that live today suffer more than they have to, due to that immaturity.

I don't know if humans will ever be mature enough to ignore greed completely, but I do know that humanity has a finite life. In some distant future, humanity will evolve into a new species, a more advanced form of life. My only long-term concern is that humanity lives long enough to become that new life. Billions have died to get to this point in time. Billions will die before humanity is mature enough to become that new form of life.

IMO ...lol

 

Yes, the focus on a Christian / American context. And contrary to popular beliefs, there are cultures more brutal than ours. I think there is an evolution in culture that leads to more compassionate societies. We are slowly making head-ways. One day we may achieve that 100 Billion mature population you had mentioned.