K, i don't want to start a prolife vs prochoice debate here, just letting the pro-lifers know about an upcoming event.
October 23rd(tuesday) is the pro-life day of silent solidarity. it's primarily a student event. you pretty much just don't talk all day in order to raise awareness and grief for souls lost to abortion. it is led by a christian organizaiton. there is a ton of information about it on these two sites:
www.silentday.org
www.standtrue.com

quote:

Clpo, pretty sure she meant the day of silence.

My reading comprehension is apparently not as high as I thought...

"I know it's an overused argument, but by this logic, every time a man masturbates he is committing a holocaust."

Not if you believe life begins at conception. And by conception I mean cell division. You can't have cell division just by sperm.

quote:

What makes you think that people take abortion lightly? It's a serious procedure, and I'd say that most people who undergo it think seriously about it before ever going through with it.

Clpo, pretty sure she meant the day of silence.

quote:

I think people should consider doing this.

What makes you think that people take abortion lightly? It's a serious procedure, and I'd say that most people who undergo it think seriously about it before ever going through with it.

Abortion is wrong.
I think people should consider doing this.
That's a little being that will never see, touch, or smell.
look at a little innocent baby and think that they could have been taken away just because their mom didn't want the responsibility that she took when she had sex.
If someone has sex they have to know there is no guarantee. and that's part of the growing up process.
But i wish the men would also have to take responsibility.
There should be some law against them leaving a girl they got pregnant. It's also their kid.

quote:

if carried to term, we know that child will be.

That's a rather big if, though. I agree with Agua. It's potential life up until the actual birth. Any number of things could go wrong that would terminate the pregnancy naturally.

quote:

Originally posted by AllenOz:
Why is a natural desire for self-preservation not a good justification?

I admit, killing anything with a natural desire for self-preservation is not ideal, but in my opinion what makes death so horrific for the dying being is comprehension of what is about to happen to it. When you kill something that has no greater intellectual understanding of life and death than, say, a fly, I consider it infinitely better than killing something that knows exactly what's going on.

quote:

The problem with claiming an embryo is not sentient is you have no evidence either way.

I'm not pretending I can telepathically communicate with embryos, I'm just saying that comprehension and cognizance have to come from somewhere. During the early month of pregnancy, the cerebral cortex, which is the main part of the brain responsible for higher thought, voluntary muscle movement, language skills, reasoning, and memory, is still extremely undeveloped. Given that death's existence is something that's shocked many four-year-olds, I have a lot of trouble believing an embryo is losing any sleep over the thought (if, indeed, an embryo even has what we can consider thoughts).

quote:

And it's really a moot point because if carried to term, we know that child will be.

I know it's an overused argument, but by this logic, every time a man masturbates he is committing a holocaust. If a baby is carried to term, you immediately have a very different situation. People other than the mother start bonding with it, getting to know it, and caring deeply for it. If the mother were to "impose her will" and murder her newborn, many, many people would suffer. However, if she were to take action before the baby was born, she would be destroying a potential life that only she had the opportunity to bond with. Huge difference in my book.

Perhaps we can assume that the being would like to go on living in the same biological sense that every living being is hardwired to physically reject and avoid death. We have no evidence for anything beyond that. Perhaps you could argue that the fetus's "soul" would suffer spiritual anguish, but my challenge to you is this: find a verifiable text, "holy" or otherwise, that says human beings so much as have souls.

Why is a natural desire for self-preservation not a good justification? The point about imposing will is still valid. Just because it is biological it should be denied what that desire, that need to live? The only difference exiting the womb makes are the boundaries we make so we feel comfortable with allowing women to commit murder. That's why we banned late term abortion.

The problem with claiming an embryo is not sentient is you have no evidence either way. So why are we erring on the side that is most destructive to the possibility it is sentient? And it's really a moot point because if carried to term, we know that child will be.

As for having souls try 1 Peter 1:9.

I'm just going to say this. You cannot mix science with spirituality. They not only answer two different questions (science: how, spirituality: why) but many spiritual things do not happen or even exist on the physical plane, which is the only place science can explain. If you want logic, someone other than me might be able to help you, but science and spirituality have nothing to do with each other, and neither one can explain or prove the other.

quote:

Originally posted by AllenOz:
She's inflicting her will upon a being that we can logically assume would like to live.

Perhaps we can assume that the being would like to go on living in the same biological sense that every living being is hardwired to physically reject and avoid death. We have no evidence for anything beyond that. Since the fetus does not have a developed cerebral cortex, it seems impossible that it would comprehend life or death in any sort of intellectual way. Perhaps you could argue that the fetus's "soul" would suffer spiritual anguish, but my challenge to you is this: find a verifiable text, "holy" or otherwise, that says human beings so much as have souls.

If there is any great horror to be found in abortion, it is not in the anguish the fetus must endure.

All of those actions are used to educate, not to force opinion. By making something a law, binding, is inflicting their beliefs on others.[/QUOTE]

We have a humanitarian system worldwide that in many places is self-sustaining. It neither solves or decreases the problem.

I think "enforcing" is a better word. Inflicting is what happens when a mother decides to terminate her child without any good reason. She's inflicting her will upon a being that we can logically assume would like to live.

You mean there's a day where I don't have to listen to pro-lifers yelling at me? I do think I am in heaven.

quote:

How do you separate soul and sentient? Is there a holy text you can quote from that says that our identity is separate from the soul?

I seperate soul and sentient from my own beliefs. Sure, the Book of Shade, chapter seventy-two verse six says: "And lo, there shall be a soul in every living and breathing thing upon the earth, and in the earth itself but some shall be cursed to the years and of non-thinking." Holy texts aren't the only source for spirituality. That's a shallow question for a subject that defies our understanding.

quote:

By what moral standard are you saying such a thing? Every time you volunteer, you write an article, or whatever you are imposing your own morals upon others.

All of those actions are used to educate, not to force opinion. By making something a law, binding, is inflicting their beliefs on others.

quote:

Originally posted by Shade:
I refuse to inflict my beliefs on other people.

I'll use the GLT [Gay, Lesbian, Transgender] Day of Silence for an opposing example. It is for people who have lived through pain, that pain including abuse, rape, depression, suicide issues, and murder. Unborn children have not suffered (I have seen and heard of cases, and common practices of aborted children being born alive, so don't give them to me). There are none of them living today to be silent for this cause. There are no people directly affected by abortion. Say the mothers, but it's only their pain you speak of, and their pain is not the argument, it is for the children, no?

Abortion is a choice. You choose to destroy a life. Being gay or transgender is not a choice. People suffer from abortion because others make the decision to carry it out. GLT people suffer because they can't change who they are.

Abortion is ending a life, something no one should intend or willingly carry out, and people know it, deep inside. Being GLT is different. They do not choose to suffer or to be hated or hurt, and only through education can that suffering end.

The abortion day of silence has a good side to it, though. It's a nice switch from the disgusting protests we've mostly seen. I would, though, not protest abortion with this day, but the suffering of the mothers who have chosen to kill their children or for a day to discuss the reasons why we shouldn't use abortion as a means out of a tough situation. We should be convincing people not to do it, instead of forcing them.

It's a fundamental characteristic of humanity: the ability to change one's self. I really don't like that argument; I find it a cop-out. To say they do not wish to change who they are, they like who they are; whatever is really a better argument than to say that change is impossible. That's what I find so ironic about the gay movement. They can be humanitarians, change the world, but they deny that they could change themselves, if they simply had the desire to do so.

How do you separate soul and sentient? Is there a holy text you can quote from that says that our identity is separate from the soul?

Really it's a unusual thing to say that one shouldn't impose their own morality upon others. By what moral standard are you saying such a thing? Every time you volunteer, you write an article, or whatever you are imposing your own morals upon others. It's a hypocrisy to say otherwise. The reason you can volunteer for things like feeding the homeless is because we all believe that to be a good thing, but you are imposing your idea that the homeless are better off with your help than without. I'm not arguing against that kind of volunteering, but I am saying you are imposing a moral will upon others when you do so. It's just that nobody wants to stop you.

There are so many ways to prevent childbirth during intercourse in this day and age that it is downright disgraceful we have 1.3 million abortions a year. I don't want to take this idea to the nth degree and force everyone into the confines of marriage for sex, although that wouldn't be a bad idea, because it's none of my business. But we keep making this ridiculous argument that it's wrong to make someone responsible for their actions (IE sex). Free will happens in the bed room, abortions are what happen when we allow people to discard their obligations so they can keep enjoying sex.

Because something has a soul does not make it sentient or responsive. I am for all purpouses pro life except that I don't believe we can take away our given right to choose what to do to ourselves or others. If we save lives by taking away free will, who are we emulating? Not God like many of these people claim. I refuse to inflict my beliefs on other people.

I'll use the GLT [Gay, Lesbian, Transgender] Day of Silence for an opposing example. It is for people who have lived through pain, that pain including abuse, rape, depression, suicide issues, and murder. Unborn children have not suffered (I have seen and heard of cases, and common practices of aborted children being born alive, so don't give them to me). There are none of them living today to be silent for this cause. There are no people directly affected by abortion. Say the mothers, but it's only their pain you speak of, and their pain is not the argument, it is for the children, no?

Abortion is a choice. You choose to destroy a life. Being gay or transgender is not a choice. People suffer from abortion because others make the decision to carry it out. GLT people suffer because they can't change who they are.

Abortion is ending a life, something no one should intend or willingly carry out, and people know it, deep inside. Being GLT is different. They do not choose to suffer or to be hated or hurt, and only through education can that suffering end.

The abortion day of silence has a good side to it, though. It's a nice switch from the disgusting protests we've mostly seen. I would, though, not protest abortion with this day, but the suffering of the mothers who have chosen to kill their children or for a day to discuss the reasons why we shouldn't use abortion as a means out of a tough situation. We should be convincing people not to do it, instead of forcing them.

quote:

It's almost making a mockery of the days set aside for respecting suffering people, suffering sentient people.

The argument pro-lifers would make is that fetuses are sentient people and when they are aborted they are being murdered/opressed. Thus a day of silence, in their world view, is completely appropriate.

Days of Silence aren't for people who've died, but for people who are being oppressed. I've seen this conversation in other places, and I completely disagree with it. It's almost making a mockery of the days set aside for respecting suffering people, suffering sentient people.

AMEN! just to let you know i WILL be participatin that day, bless God