Silly, if they actually tried to establish when the fetus is actually human, then they would be trying to make sense, and God's knows we can't allow that to happen.

Indeed A book written by Pedophiles and Murderers states that their imaginary superhero says that killing the unborn is wrong and should only be done Well after they are born because they are a burden to society.

Makes perfect sense.

But you forgot about the fact that these pedophiles and murderers worship a zombie jew, and believe that canalizing him will lead to eternal life for the bastards....

Kind of like Deadpool but with a superiority complex.

...and Deadpool DOESN'T have a superiority complex?

hmmm welllll, but he does Have leagon of followers, he's come back from the dead, been to hell and back, many people want him dead and command an army of sad losers (/b/)

Dead pool never said that "HE IS THE SON OF GOD" I mean how much stones do you need to say something like that.

Dunno.. but on second thought, DeadPool doesn;t have a complex, he IS superior. i mean.. he freekin' Ha-DUUU-ken-punched Wolverine once, no? (Or was it Wolvie's Girlfriend?)

lol!

The book also never actually says that killing the unborn is wrong.

nope but they keep the innocence of a child lasts until they are four and killing innocence is wrong. <.< or something like that.

Interesting point, but would most Christians really believe it? depends on the person really, but prolly not IMO

Christians don't even know what they believe :P

No, that's atheists.
X3

Technically, that would be agnostics.

Nope! Atheists know what they believe. And, since you seemed to be unaware, it's that they believe that there is no god. Atheist, the opposite of a theist, a theist being a person who believes in a supernatural skybeing who is generally omnipotent and omniscient, but still allows vast chunks of his (or her!) creations not to believe in them, and thus suffer in torment for all eternity upon their demise. Or at the very least, a finite amount of time in a hell, should you be more inclined towards the Eastern religions. BUT THEY LOVE YOU.

Theists argue all the time about what they believe, Atheists generally all agree about one thing.

that's a pretty limited view of what God or the Creator is to many, many people.

That's what it seems to come down to. A parental figure or friend (at best) who loves their creation and has rules for them set out to follow through a holy textbook or set of legends, but cannot be physically proven to exist. It's a matter of faith that the being (often a human-like caretaker, save for in cases of sects such as deism, where the belief is that the god set up the universe and then took a hike and thus is not present to meddle in the lives of his/her/its creations) exists and is watching over their dominion, Earth, the universe, what have you. In many cases, the less rational the belief, the more widely praised the participant among their flock.

So, an invisible all-knowing caretaker, a friend, a parental figure, a magical punisher of the wicked, and someone to call upon when things go poorly, someone to have the same preferences are the indoctrinated. These are the things that generally people of faith believe in. After that, vary the details a bit and make sure no one actually believes the same thing twice, it's a matter of preference. Ask people in the same sect/denomination, and they'll all give a bit of variation to what they think god is about.

Hm, perhaps that did need expanding.


But the tl:dr version is... people have lots of fears and insecurities, needs that aren't being met, etc. So they fill in the blank with whatever helps them cope.

In a matter of semantics, that's agnostics.

Athiests, of course, pray to Atheos....

*FACEPALM*

Well, I'm a Christian, and I know what I believe. But I'm not here to preach.
This is interesting. No one really does mention this pineal gland, and it should be discussed in a debate. Although, I think that, even though it gives a time frame for when humans become humans, because of the fact that it stems from mystical/spiritual beliefs, many people may argue against it for being spiritual...even though it has scientific statistics that go along with it. It's a mess.

Personally, I don't like abortion at all, but I won't hate someone or think less of them if they have one. They have their reasons, and that's their business.

One thing to note. Examination of the pineal gland and the hallucinogen it creates have been tied to all known "spiritual" experiences. These can now be induced through drugs :P

I thought that was the parietal lobes. Which are, granted, much bigger, but their connection makes sense.

Actually, that's only certain kinds of experiences. The temporal lobes are associated with feelings of divinity and creating mythology.

So, are you saying that spiritual experiences are simply hallucinations caused by the pineal gland, and that there is nothing else beyond that hallucination?

I don't mean to sound confrontational, just in case that's how that question comes off. It's just the best way that I could type it. I really don't mean to be confrontational.

That's how it seems, but there's a lot more to it. One thing we can say for certain is that there are physical properties to these phenomena. I won't go into detail, but I encourage you to look into the subject. It's far more complex than simply hallucinations.

Hmmm...interesting. Now, I won't change my mind about my faith, and I hope that you are not encouraging that people lose their faith because it may be physical and not spiritual, but I have to say that I love that you pick such engaging journal topics. I love debates, and your topics usually fit that bill. They are deep, and thorough topics, and a nice departure from the petty conversations I have with some of my friends.

I always encourage people to drop their faith and instead pursue knowing and understanding what they believe. You shouldn't need faith to be able to hold on to your beliefs.

Point well taken. I was thinking more faith after understanding, rather than having a blind faith. I should have specified. Sorry. I forget stuff like that, and that's why I'm not so good at debates.

Yeah, Ive been looking into this thing recently. My Anthropology teacher told us about a Shaman he met with somewhere in South America with some colleges/friends. He told the Shaman he had always dreamed of flying like a bird, and the Shaman mixed him up something for him and the rest of the group. He said nothing happened for awhile, but in the middle of talking with his friends at a table he had the sudden sensation of lifting up very rapidly, and the next thing he knew he was flying in the sky in the body of a bird. He could feel the wind and everything.

The very interesting part is he later asked an expert on avians how a bird controls its flight and the way the expert told him how the tailfeathers are used an such are exactly how he remembers doing it. He also says he flew over a fire truck on this one road, and when they drove by the road after leaving the Shaman there was a building that caught fire and was just put out.

The story got me very interested in this kind of subject, so thanks for posting a journal with more info on it =]

Very very few of them, you're right.

In my mind, a life is a life as soon as there's ANY level of neural activity in the fetus. Damned if I know when that is though.

It's quite a bit into the pregnancy.

Very interesting, actually.

AND it makes sense, too!

=O.O=

wow...........

I support abortion for the following reasons-

1: Quieter restaurants and movie theaters
2: Discarded human larvae may be ground up for dog food
3: Ehhh, why not?



When an issue like this pops up, I like to put out the most evil opinion in the room. So then everyone'll have something to agree on. Which is that I'm a total bastard. ;)

I think my evil reason is worse than yours

When I saw your journal Title I thought you might have come to a thought that untill a baby is born it is more or less a parasite. The following description is full of twisted words, child birth is amazing, and I'm really really tired and my mind leans towards the weird when I'm Tired. I love Babies, Etc. etc. and I don't really mean this:

A fetus lives in its mother's belly and feeds off the nutrients that the mother ingests. It doesn't give anything back to the mother aside from waste products, morning sickness and the occasional cracked rib. More or less the definition of a parasite.

Once again, I don't mean any of this, I'm just pointing out similarities. Babies are wonderful, don't hate me

Correction: Babies are wonderful with a splash of Worcestershire sauce and a side of scalloped potatoes.

Worcestershire sauce? EWWWWWW!

Don't you know that Worcestershire sauce makes ZOMBIES!?

Do you want ZOMBIE babies!

Silly! If you eat them quickly enough, they can't turn into zombies! Sure, you might get a foot or a ribcage wiggling around on your plate...

(Wow, I actually disgusted myself a little bit with that one!)

If you're not gonna have the balls to say it like you mean it, why say it?

Because it was an errant thought I came up with that I immediately said to myself "I'm a terrible person to think of something like that"

Call me an idealist but I'm a pretty big believer in "you made your bed and now you have to lie in it" as soon as you do the deed you should be ready for the consequences. I don't fully accept the whole "if its under this many days old its not a person yet"

Just as a side note I really wish people would quit bashing on Christianity so much...

What about rape babies?

alot of people bring that up. Situations such as rape, or where the parents are incapable of taking care of the baby (too young or what not). I would believe the mother should be able to decide to keep the child or put it up for adoption but I don't feel that a baby should be punished for something it had nothing to do with. Please note I said I 'feel' there are strong points on both sides of the argument and I don't have the skills to type out a huge witty argument for things so all I can do is say my opinion and why.

But the mother would not be at fault in the circumstance of rape, and forcing her to continue through with a birthing process she may not want would also be punishing the innocent.

You should be careful when describing an abortion as a punishment to the baby. There are fates much worse than death and forcing a new life to endure them for your own sake is pretty immoral. Birth defects and developmental disorders can be torture and forcing someone to live like that just isn't fair to them.

Why should the mother be punished for something she had no choice in, by being forced to harbor a parasite for nine months?

The mother shouldn't be punished either. I feel it is completely morally unjustifiable to force, against their will, one person's body to support another. If, say, Fred Astair can only live by attaching himself to my kidneys, there is no moral justification for the forcing of me into a machine that would allow that. I could decide to allow it, but it should always be my choice.

Similarly, no woman should be forced through a pregnancy that she never had any control over.

At least, such is the classical defence of abortion in cases of rape.

Not slamming your beliefs; merely offering a counterpoint. I believe in consequences as well, but if the result will be a child who is unwanted from conception and who will be raised in a neglectful or abusive home, then it might be better for them to be aborted before they can know what pain is like. I don't say this lightly; I came from an accidental conception (probably alcohol or pot influenced) and my childhood was spent in the care of a woman who, no exaggeration, fits the definition of a sociopath. I've often wondered if the pain I went through as a child was worth it, especially in light of my ongoing mental illness now, and whether or not it would have been better for me never to have existed. I'm not saying I'm decided on this, only that I seriously wonder sometimes.

And if you believe in the soul, why not choose to think of it this way: when one baby dies, their soul is simply born to another, hopefully better, mother.

>Just as a side note I really wish people would quit bashing on Christianity so much...

Honey darlin' we will just as soon as your people stop standing in the way of my people's civil rights. ;)

Which people would that be, if you don't mind my asking?

Limp-wristed swishy lah-dee-dahs, daaaaaaaarling! ;)

Oh I see. Well, I have to say that even though I am a Christian, I do believe you should have your civil rights granted to you. See, I'm also black, and I know the value of civil rights through my history. And it isn't right to withhold those rights from anybody.

As for abortion, like I said earlier, I don't like it, but I won't hate someone who has done it. While those other options are available, such as adoption, if someone gets an abortion, who am I to judge?

>Oh I see. Well, I have to say that even though I am a Christian, I do believe you should have your civil rights granted to you. See, I'm also black, and I know the value of civil rights through my history. And it isn't right to withhold those rights from anybody.

<applause> Awesomely stated! :)

Forgive me, it annoys me to see people trying to justify obviously selfish and stupid goals with Christianity (not really related to this topic). Though you have to admit some folks are down-right cut-throat about ripping into Christianity.

Ok I agree that no a child shouldn't have to grow up in a cold home, we should look back on our youth and remember happy times. I believe if the mother does not wish to keep the child I believe adoption should be an option. Though I think you could act as an argument against your own point in a way. Even raised by someone like your Mother you are still here, your still living and working.

>>I don't want this to sound selfish but the people standing in the way of your people's civil rights are not my people.

Much as I do wish adoption was a viable option, it seems that most adoption agencies are packed to the rafters already. It seems most parents don't want a kid unless it's *their* kid. Believe me, my disgust is indescribable when I hear on TV about some barren couple who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get embryos surgically injected into them, when there's tons of kids who already exist and are in need of a home right now.

>I don't want this to sound selfish but the people standing in the way of your people's civil rights are not my people.

It doesn't sound selfish. In fact I'm glad to hear it. But from my standpoint, I don't see, for example, the Buddhists kickin' up much of a fuss over gay marriage. So, for a variety of reasons, when I hear the word 'Christ', I tend to be a tad wary. Unless it's Jesus Christ Superstar. That's one thing Christians and Atheists can agree on: some damn catchy tunes in that sucker. ;)

*sighs* its not easy to wear a gay pride pin and a cross....

Oddly, or perhaps not so, I'm reminded of the peace button on Joker's helmet in Full Metal Jacket...

Dang, I posted this twice

There are a lot of Christians who are ready and willing to listen to both sides of any arguement, such as myself and my family. However, there are others who don't want to listen to the other side, and unfortunately, these are the people who make it seem that Christians hate everything but Christianity, like other religions, gay rights, abortion, etc. If it makes anybody feel better, there are plenty of Christians that I've met who are open-minded enough to HEAR the arguments rather than shunning them.

Hey, I'm a furry: you don't have to convince me that in _any_ group, the nuts are the ones to get all the TV coverage. ;)

And with many groups, I can have intense dislike for the organization itself, while simultaneously liking individual members. Carlin probably put it best: "I love and treasure individuals as I meet them; I loathe and despise the groups the identify with and belong to."

Very true. Well put, my friend. I like the Carlin reference.

I think humans tend to be better in small doses. It's been my private hypothesis for quite a while that the more of them you gather in one place, the more their intelligence goes down individually. ;)

Intelligence probably goes down because once an arguement starts, all logical thinking goes out the window, and people resort to personal insults.

I was thinking more like mob mentality in those situations. I observed it firsthand when I was in Disneyland once, in the New Orleans part. Someone was throwing beads from a balcony and people were jumping up and down and reaching out for them and hollering. And I found myself right in there with them. Then suddenly I was like, "What the hell am I DOING!? What do I want with a bunch of damn BEADS!?" I don't really wonder anymore how sports riots start...

haha That's true. It's amazing that we have gone from discussing abortion to Disneyland.

Dammit, I wanna say something scathing and witty about Disney here but I'm coming up dry.

Pretend I said something scathing and witty.

>.< I read that to myself as "scathy and witting." :P

Or 'scatty and writhing'.

That says something about you, I think.

My family finds no problem with it at all.

Not to mention that most adopted children, no matter how happy their family is, they go through life with a deep down sense of abandonment and there's quite a few examples I know of bad foster families. I've known 5 adopted kids in my life and they've always had that problem, I've heard from those who've studied kids who've been adopted.

I don't know what to say to that, other than that it hurts my heart.

It's always different when it's someone you know.

One of my roommates has grown up in a negative emotional environment with his mother and grandmother, and in a recent argument, his mother had the audacity to say to his face, "If I had known I would have to put up with this much sh*t from you, I would have rather had an abortion." This has left him feeling, essentially, that he was a mistake baby, and it's taken a great deal of effort on the rest of us--his roommates, friends, and Furry family--to convince him otherwise...and trust me--we're ALL furious at her for that comment. He just turned 18, but if he had been any younger, I would have personally called CPS on her for that remark. While the jury on abortion itself is still out for me personally, I have more than enough heart to know that you never, EVER even let such a thought enter your head about the child you've been raising, let alone have the gall to speak it to their face.

This makes me question more my own thoughts about abortion itself. I've never been fully decided, because I can understand the legitimacy of arguments on both sides of the coin. Yes, adoption would be a wonderful option, if so many more couples were willing to adopt. Hell, legalize gay marriage nationwide, and right there you'd have scores of thousands of new couples ready, willing, and able to adopt children from orphanages. The cold, hard truth, however, is that everything has a price, and this axiom plays very true when it comes to Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice.

Foster families, can't tell you about. As for adoption, I am adopted, and for some reason seem to gravitate towards a lot of other people who also grew up not ever knowing bio parents. None of us have the problem of abandonment. Five for five. We either live in a magical paradise of nice people, or it's not an always situation! Shitty families are shitty, awesome families are awesome, I don't think any of us are deeply scarred because we weren't raised by the same people we share our genes with.

In fact, I might present the point that people with biological families are more likely to hate them, since it's far harder to adopt a child than to forget one's pill, thus leaving the offspring with a higher likelihood of ending up with unpleasant individuals who weren't ever keen on raising kids.

True, they'll always be exceptions to the prevalent situation...though a few adopted people who had happy families still reported a deep down sense of abandonment. It took them therapy sessions to realize what was causing the disconnection from trusting people fully. It seems those who are moved over to an adoption family from birth are happier as long as it's a good family, but without the biological connection to parents/children there's mostly an instance of a slight disconnect from those parents even though they might have lead a pretty happy life. How the person deals with this sense of disconnection from the family varies greatly but it mostly leads to a dissatisfaction in life.

Ohhh! Are you talking about people who were removed from their families after periods of time with other caretakers? I can see that being true. All of my current friends who were adopted were pretty much taken from hospital to agency to new parents, leaving little room to bond with others before being removed from that situation.

But I'm going to say that many people have a slight disconnect from their parents. Most people aren't forever cheerfully willing to be part of the family unit, especially teens and twentysomethings. Many people in that age range can lean towards bratty behavior and rebellion anyway.

Who really and truly trusts every person they meet? I'm doubting that it's a high number. And I doubt that living with biological relatives has any effect. To trust blindly is setting oneself up for failure and disappointment, it's naive to assume otherwise.

So I'm going to say that I disagree, since I'm closer to my family than most of my friends who live/lived with their biological family. I have no sense of abandonment, and neither do my other adopted friends. Zero. No therapy, no resentment, no trouble adjusting. No disconnect. The people I was raised by ARE my family, and I don't even think of where my genes came from until someone else brings the subject up.

Nope, in 3 of the people I know who are good examples, they were adopted as babies.

Any response to the rest of the post?

I wonder...is this also the same part of the brain for which researchers developed a drug that produces an effect in test subjects of "feeling closer to God"?

That is the case I believe. It creates a chemical similar to Dimethyltryptamine which is what LSD was developed to simulate :)

Fascinating. I suspect that a lot of these researched thoughts you blog about here are brought up in your spare time for the love of learning. It DOES make me wonder more about you, though, such as your RL profession, educational degrees, etc. It seems all-too-rare anymore to find anyone, let alone Furries, interested in engaging in deeper (or loftier) discussions in an enlightened, intelligent manner.

If you're interested, I founded a (rather inactive, for the most part, unfortunately) LJ community for Furries who like to discuss philosophy as well as related politics, religion, sociology, and the like: http://community.livejournal.com/furry_thinkers/

I find it amusingly telling that such a community within the fandom would be very inactive :3

On another note, I'd be interested in seeing neurological studies done comparing the Pineal Gland in cadavers of nuns and other people who served in religion their entire lives, or who were known to be heavily spiritual, etc., in contrast to life-long atheists, agnostics, and anyone who lived a more secularly-guided life.

It's actually quite pronounced when it is reactivated. You don't need even an xray to see it. The sutures of the skull split open and the brain expands substantially. Those that pursue enlightenment and transcendence will often wear bands or tight caps around their skulls to prevent them from changing shape too much. I've actually met a person that has done this and due to his shaved head i could see bald spots forming clean lines along the sutures of his skull.

Serving in many religions however does not lend itself to the pursuit of this practice so you are unlikely to find any with substantial changes, especially in western religions. Native american shamans, himalayan buddhists and some indian yogis however do pursue this and you will be able to see it consistently among them.

The way I see it, I don't remember a damn thing before I was 2 years old.....

Some say I'm evil, I like to think of myself as more of an.....evil/good guy?

Eh. I've never understood the whole argument no matter how it is rationalized.

When does it become a human life? Does it matter that it's a HUMAN life? Is it that it becomes SENTIENT life, and if so.. when do we become sentient?

And even beyond ALL of those questions, we still wind up in the same place...

Is not living the worst thing that can happen to a person? When a man has been vegetabilized, with no hope of ever living any more of his life in a pleasant way, is it wrong to put him out of his misery or is it merciful, and in that regards if you know a fetus will be born into an awful, unloved childhood and then certainly grow up to be an equally unhappy adult, is it wrong or merciful to prevent them from being born?

Me, I don't know the answer to ANY of those questions, but what I do know is that one person shouldn't be able to set rules on this to govern everyone. ProChoice is the only answer, and despite what the pro-life (or pro-sufferin?) people say, it does NOT mean ProEveryoneGettingAnAbortion.

you bring up alot of good points and I can see your views on things. In a few ways I can relate but I believe abortion is stealing an opportunity. We all have a chance to do something with our lives but we need to live to make those differences. I know I know I probably sound like some bad motivational speaker. We don't terminate severely handicapped children so I don't believe we should terminate children just because the parents made a mistake. Though you did make one point I do respect: pro-life/pro-choice doesn't mean everyone would run out and have abortion parties.

The fuzzy part comes when you weigh the value of that opportunity against the conditions you're bringing the person into life for. Here, have an opportunity! They'll say, as they welcome the unwanted bastard child into the lower class family and a time of great financial hardships. Though I guess it IS true that many of the greatest people in history became what they were by overcoming such terrible adversities..

Either way, I feel like if one religious group got to set a legal standard for everyone on abortion, despite what everyone else' beliefs are, that next some other religious group (or maybe even the same one) will make being gay and having sexing before marriage illegal because they think that TOO is immoral. And then someone will make it illegal for ANYONE to eat foods that they consider immoral!

And nobody takes away MY food! Grrrrrh.

I tend to think that Sapience, not Sentience, should be the key.

Sapience, in this case, is 'clearly commencing linguistic learning' which would be at about 3 weeks after birth.

Give it 3 weeks to be careful, and birth seems a good time to draw the line to me.

I say go for up to 60 years old. I've met a lot of adults desperately in need of a post-natal abortion.

Well, a lot of those demonstrate an unwillingness to clearly commence linguistic learning even when you present well-formed rational arguments.

Those questions are addressed more easily if you don't assume that death is a bad thing. After all it is inevitable and everything everywhere is dying in some form.

Well, yes and no. Death itself isn't bad, really. If some time from now I get old or come down with a fatal medical condition, I'll say my goodbyes and then lay down and die.. preferably with a game controller in my hand. ;)

But if I learned that I was to die tomorrow? Well, I'd be awfully dissapointed that I ran out of opportunities in which to experience life, and that I wasted my time so far.

In regards to abortion, however, I can only feel this way myself because I've been around enough to determine a purpose for my life (to gather experience... ... points.) and to decide that I've wasted enough time already. People don't develop that kind of self awareness and sense of purpose for a long time after they're born.

most never do :3

Its not surprising that it isn't mentioned as a part of the debate given its kind of a grey area between both arguments.

The Pineal gland is sometimes attributed as the "3rd eye" because its frontal face looks like one and its in the right position according to accepted beliefs (and hence its functions like you described). Because the implications of this it makes its study and analysis under such things a pseudoscience like anything with mystic phenomena. And alot of times Religious opponents to abortion will borrow from acceptable science to support their claims.

Then you have Western Religion rejects anything mystic as heracy and as such discussion or even examination of such material a crime against god. As such it is ingrained in doctrine that all such things must be avoided and buried and the ideal that the moment of conception is life (rather than get into science not fit for humanity). So saying "this is where the soul goes" is defying god because humans are supposed to not know when the soul comes.


But otherwise it is an interesting argument with everything happening at such a confluence and at the right location one could really wonder whats truly going on.

It also kind of puts the debate to shame as it imposes a deadline of when it is okay and when it is not. Though even then you could still have arguements.

Really, I don't mind the debate on abortion or not abortion, but I am simply appalled at how many peopld have talked shit and made fun of the christian faith. It's simply unnecesary and ignorant.
I'm ashamed of such...hmm, totally speechless here after.

I agree, the Christian faith has taken a pounding for this one. Granted some hard core Christians have be very aggressive about arguments against abortion. I just wish everyone would calm down, take a deep breath and stick to their reasons and not resort to attacking each other

Thank you so much!
Besides. It's been written that the soul is intact at the moment of conception.
Meaning, As soon as a sperm and egg become a zygote it's human.
I really am unsure of where in the bible this is though.
That's what I've been told and I believe it.

The quote that idea is derived from is something like "I knew you before you were born" as said by god to someone else. This has been interpreted as meaning at conception, however it could also be interpreted as meaning that the soul itself exists prior to even conception. Or it could be interpreted as the soul being present only at a non specific time between conception and birth.

I'm sorry to say but that's an excellent example of why I consider myself Agnostic at this point.


If God tells me to do something, I'll do it. But if a person tells me that God told them to tell me to do something? I can't trust that person. If a person tells me that a book allegedly contains the word of God? How can I trust the person who wrote the book? Or the hundreds and hundreds of people who edited and loosely retranslated and added to the book over the centuries? That book is about 10% word of god and 90% word of man by this point.

Worship the God, I say, but do not worship the prophets, for they may be false and lead thee into damnation!

It's true that human error could have been introduced. However, a lot of the Bible still has important lessons, like the Ten Commandments for example.

It's good to be wary of people professing that God told them to tell you to do something. There are many false prophets out there, and many religious orders that are based solely on getting money (a lot of televangelists fall into that category). It's sad, but it's true. It really comes down to your personal faith. People can influence you, but really, it comes down to what you truly believe in.

>Worship the God, I say, but do not worship the prophets, for they may be false and lead thee into damnation!

This is so true. I'm glad that you picked up on this. There are to many people who worship, say, Billy Graham, rather than God. One needs to be cautious.

Oh, yes, the Bible does have a lot of good lessons. I agree, it's a good book to have. It's just.. some people need to learn how to use it.

People who never actually READ the whole thing and instead just scan over individual passages until they find one that they can take completely out of context in order to "prove" a moral debate? Yeaaah, if anyone makes Jesus cry, I'm fairly sure it's those people.

The Bible is really, really old, people. The general virtues taught in it still apply, just like in any mythology, but a lot of the nitty gritty details were only relevant to the way life was when it was written.


P.S. Did you know that the sexual practices of the people of.. was it Sodom or Gamora? Either way, I think I'm spelling it wrong. Anyways, God didn't care about their sexual practices; he really decided to nuke the place because they had commited the unforgivable trespass of being inhospitable to travelers!. And I know this is true, because I heard it on the history channel!

That being said... I wonder sometimes if "science" itself isn't just becoming another "religion" since most of the "facts" are studied by people ("false prophets?"). To me, it seems like a lot of science is still in the "theory" stages and yet being "preached" as if it's fact; one time one "study" will say one thing is healthy, the next time another one will contradict it.

There are a lot of Christians who are ready and willing to listen to both sides of any arguement, such as myself and my family. However, there are others who don't want to listen to the other side, and unfortunately, these are the people who make it seem that Christians hate everything but Christianity, like other religions, gay rights, abortion, etc. If it makes anybody feel better, there are plenty of Christians that I've met who are open-minded enough to HEAR the arguments rather than shunning them.

This wasn't supposed to be posted here. It was a response to another post. Sorry.

You always come up with such clever and thoughtful topics in here. o_o

There's no sense in doing any research on it either way because most people in both camps stick to their beliefs and ignore any arguments on either side. I've heard some go so far as to say that even destroying eggs before they're fertilized is the work of the devil and murdering life. *rolls eyes*

Still, thanks for the interesting topic.

I'm pro-choice on abortion, but wish there was less need for it, and I don't think that bringing this up in the debate helps at all. It is just does more to cloud the issue than solve it. It directly implies that there is a soul, but only after a certain gland is formed, while not addressing the either the scientific, moral, or human implications inherent in the idea of abortion. And honestly, why should the formation of a gland be a signal for the presence of one's soul? This is just yet another perspective on an already complicated issue. It may even make the issue more complicated by implying that if a 48 day old human doesn't have a soul, that said soul is not really "attached" to humanity in a more meaningful way.

Long story short: it confuses the situation more than it simplifies it.

... fascinating. o.o;
:D

I'm pro choice, so even if this gets mentioned, that won't change my point of view. Like, when there're severe defects, or severe genetic deseases, or when the child is the result of rape.

Maybe how heated the debate is between pro-choice people and evangelists, is the reason why they only argue using the Bible and the personal opinion, and never facts like what you mentioned.

While your point is reasonable, it still doesn't cut to the heart of the debate.

Once all the politics and red tape is cut, the real question is what is life. Consider this for just a moment, and define life for me.

Working Brain - current definition of life (refuted by single cell life and non-complex multicellular life without a brain)
Beating Heart - old definition (heart can be forced to beat (pacemaker), and some organisms don't even have a heart)
Able to Move - possible criterion (Lichens, trees, and various other organisms can't move)
Need to eat - possible criterion (strictly speaking symbiotes and parasites leech rather than eat)
Has a Soul- religious reason (no way to measure or quantify)

These are only a few arguments, though anything you can come up with can be refuted. The beauty of life is the extreme diversity of it. In short, the debate is focused upon a politically reasoned, "value" driven, and entirely moralistic issue. The truly warped reason for this is that morality is flexible, and this is the area where politicians find it the easiest to exist in. I believe the only way to find resolution is to solve the underlying issue, and not the political BS covering.

All this said, I'm pro-choice. Life deserves a reasonable chance, and barring that it should not be forced upon anyone. If I was to be born a crack baby, in a third world hell hole, or crippled I would hope my parents have the strength to let me go. To force life on someone is hard, to allow them to die is harder.

The real arguments behind the pro/anti-choice debate is the assumption of linear time and "after" life. The concept of afterlife can only exist in a linear time model, because it assumes life is the starting point and once it ends the after life can begin. The non afterlife mode simply assumes there is no after life and thus perception itself is finite. In both cases the concept ultiamately breaks down if we assume the universe to be capable of existing forever because any finite amount of time on an infinite scale becomes zero.

However the 3rd argument is that time is not linear and that there is both after and before life. Basically the reincarnation model of belief. Under that model even on an infinite timeline existence does not become zero but instead becomes infinite.

The debate is so aggressive because any arguments that support abortion ultimately attack an incomplete belief model. I we take the pro-life stance then we must also assume that life is devoid of meaning. If we take an atheistic view then we already assume life has no meaning. But if we take a non finite view we can assume that life has meaning by virtue of being infinite.

The easiest answer yet on abortion: Can it survive on its own?

A fetus functions like a parasite. If it can get along without the mother, then it's too late for an abortion. Otherwise, it's the mother's choice to stop feeding the fetus. Once it can survive with someone else feeding it, the mother does have a certain responsibility to give that child to someone that will care for it.

A very simple definition.

Mom decided to keep me when there was still very much doubt, not whether I could survive on my own, but at all. I was surgically extracted nearly three months early and given a laughably slim chance of survival, even with 1983 medical technology. Most of the other babies in that room did not survive.

Mom says God must have a purpose for me. But it was human doctors, not divine intervention, that saved me--if God exists, the other side of the coin is that He might've wanted me dead.

If abortion is against God's will, then so is saving people who would otherwise die. Personally, I prefer humanity's collective will, with all its flaws, to that of some imaginary deity.

<thunderous applause> Magnificently stated, amigo!!

interesting theory

Abortion is Satan's way of murdering the second coming of Christ before he's even born.

One would imagine God would see that coming and prevent that, don't you think? He's supposed to know you before you're born and be personally involved with everyone's lives, right?

One also wonders why god hasn't done away with Satan at this point, since it's apparently within his power to do so.

cuz either god is impotent or he's a dick :D

or satan doesn't exist :P

Well, that's the logical answer, yes.

Hmm, sweet =3 I never really thought of it the spiritualistic way, this is some mondo cool info.

So if you remove someone's pineal gland they no longer have a soul?

or what we deem consciousness. Since most people have atrophied or calcified pineal glands already you can see the effects right now.

I try to stay out of abortion debates. What interests me here is the idea that, if one could somehow stimulate one's pineal gland...

Yeah, I wanna spice up my reality.

most drugs do stimulate it, but they also result in damaging it. There are techniques however to stimulate and reactivate the gland.

My curiosity is piqued.

interesting to say the least. So if we have to accept abortion as part of our society then maybe we can make a compromise. Women have 48 days to abort and then after that no deal. 48 days seems reasonable to me. Especially in extreme cases like rape. Because when a woman is raped she doesn't wait around to find out if she got pregnant from the assault.

wow, very interesting ^^

makes sense to me

Good point that and Wolverine is really kind of a pussy with an enhanced bone structure.

The Ancient Egyptians believed the heart was the seat of the mind and it was one of the organs preserved during the process of creating mummies.

They thought the brain was just a big snot gland and threw it out.

Actually the egyptians also believed the pineal was the seat of consciousness. Hence why they have so much imagery with regards to it. The process of removing the mummy's brain was not because they thought it was useless, but because by breaking it apart they believed they could release the spirit.

Sorry, I was talking about the real ancient egyptians, not the neo-pagan internet ancient egyptians.

The pineal gland wasn't even discovered until the 2nd century, by roman physician Aelius Galenus, who thought it was a valve to control the flow of though between the two halves of the brain. It wasn't identified as a gland until 1898 by German physician Otto Heubner.

The attribution of metaphysical properties to the pineal gland started with Rene Descartes, who was the original person to call it the seat of the soul.

Although the gland wasn't recorded to have been identified until aelius, allusions to it did exist much further back as did symbolism implying its significance. There are quite a few spiritual symbols that are based on the appearance of the gland itself.

However you've made me curious as to whether the snake symbol on the headdress being interpreted representing the pineal is a modern interpretation.

Most of what we know of ancient egyptians is still conjecture anyway :P

First journal I have read from you and you got meh thinking (thats good) *runs off to read some more Ó3Ó*