• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

God does not oppose abortion

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The purpose of this 2-part post is to explain how the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, claimed to be smart and knowledgeable and loving, will as a simple logical consequence of those claims not condemn anyone for getting (or performing) an abortion. Replies should be restricted to attempting to point out errors in the logic.


We start with some background information, mainly some claims about "souls". Religions tend to claim that a soul is a special thing associated with every person, that that thing that is "immortal" and able to survive physical death, that that thing endows living persons with Free Will, and that that thing will be Judged after death for choices made during life. Here I will point out that while in other places I have stated that a person is a mind, not a body, a soul must have a mind in order to understand Judgement --and therefore a person is still a mind, even if souls exist. (If souls exist, then the person is the soul's mind, not the body's mind.)


It needs to be mentioned that in ancient times living things were perceived to be fundamentally different from non-living things, and one consequence of that perception was the notion that living things had some sort of "life force", which even today some folks seem to think is the same thing as the soul. (Research the topic of "vitalism" for more details.) Unfortunately for those folks, however, modern scientific investigations have quite thoroughly proved that living things are made up from the same fundamental physical elements (like carbon and nitrogen and oxygen and hydrogen) as non-living things (like diamonds and air and stars). There is no such thing as "life force"; living things are somewhat equivalent to fuel-powered toys, like model airplanes --and when they run out of fuel, they stop working. If souls exist, they are something entirely different from "life force".


For the purposes of this 2-part post, the most relevant of the above claims is the one about souls being "immortal". That word has been defined in such a way as to allow us to say that in all of the physical Universe, there is nothing that can harm a soul (not even if it dives into a black hole). In other words, a soul is a non-physical thing (or perhaps a "meta-physical" thing), and its existence cannot be affected by physical things. But that same definition leads us to a very specific logical conclusion: It is impossible for a soul to begin to exist as a direct consequence of some physical event. Only a non-physical (or meta-physical) event can cause a soul to begin existing.


Well, The Fact Is, the process of ovum-fertilization is purely a physical event (of physics, chemistry, biochemistry, and biology). Any religion that claims a human zygote is associated with a soul needs to explain how that soul began to exist, when it is just plain impossible for the purely physical conception-event to affect a non-physical soul (like cause it to begin to exist). Logically, some sort of non-physical event is necessary, such as an Act of God.


Which leads us to various standard claims about God, such as the claims that God is smart and knowledgeable and loving. Well, a smart God will be able to think logically, so here is a Question: Does a human zygote need a soul in order to survive? Since God is knowledgeable, God knows that a zygote is a living thing very similar in many ways to other very-common single-celled living things, like amoeba and paramecia (research "eukaryotes"). And since God knows those living things are equivalent to fuel-powered toys, God certainly knows zygotes don't need souls to survive.


So here is another Question: What might a zygote do with a soul? A zygote is a fairly simple entity that will follow various genetic instructions built into its DNA; having Free Will makes absolutely no difference regarding what it must do if it is to ultimately yield a whole human body.


That last thing leads us to something well-known to humans, and therefore must also be known to God: About 2/3 of all new-formed human zygotes will ultimately and quite Naturally fail to yield a whole human body (most often because of defects in the DNA code). Well, if a soul cannot begin to exist without an Act of God, and if God knows that zygotes very often don't survive, and if God is knowledgeable enough to be able to "read" DNA code and directly detect fatal defects, and if God is smart/logical, then why should God bother to create a soul for every single new human zygote? (Does your religion claim God is a mindless soul-creating automaton?)
 
{part 2 of a 2-part post]

The Natural death rate of zygotes is only one relevant thing known to humans (and assumed also known to God). It is also known that a few days after conception, a completely different event can happen, which can result in more than just one human body developing ("identical twins", "identical triplets", "identical quadruplets"...). Furthermore, it is also known that separately-developing unborn human bodies can, a few days after conception, merge to form just one human body (research "chimerism"). The various possible combinations of multiple separate conceptions ("fraternal twins", "fraternal triplets", ...), multiple separate identical-twinning events, and multiple separate mergings, are such that we can ask another Question: If a smart and knowledgeable God knows that unborn humans don't need souls to survive, knows that unborn humans can't use souls for anything before birth, and also knows that the total number of unborn humans isn't even "fixed" until days after conception, why should a soul ever be created at conception?

And now we can talk about the claim that God is loving. This is a somewhat newer claim than the others, at least partly because the Old Testament of the Bible has some rather non-loving stories in it, like the Great Flood. On another hand, God knows that souls are immortal, and no soul could get hurt by any such trivial thing as a Great Flood. Apparently, to God, human bodies are irrelevant; only souls matter. Now think about what that means, with respect to unborn humans before God creates souls for them!

Now consider the pregnant woman, a fully-ensouled human. She might or might not want to be pregnant --and God most certainly knows the exact probability that she might choose to abort. If souls exist, then "murder", the killing of a person, is also the killing of a soul-possessing entity. Abortion cannot qualify as murder if an unborn human does not have a soul. So, if God knows that a woman will probably seek an abortion, and if God loves the woman, will that loving God create a soul for the unborn human just so that the abortion can become murder, and the woman can be condemned for it?
 
The last paragraph in the first part brings up an excellent point. Are the vast majority of people walking around in heaven miscarriages and zygotes that never stuck to the uterine wall? It seems absurd.

If one believes in souls, deciding exactly when the soul enters the body is problematic.
 
When does something have a soul then... and why.
 
When does something have a soul then... and why.

I do not accept that ensoulment ( the breath of life ) begins with a fertilized egg.

The Bible teaches that the breath of life first happened when God breathed life into Adams nostrils.

I believe God values souls and would not allow more than half of souls to perish before implantion and 15 to 20 percent of known pregnacies to perish before quickening.

I have faith that God values souls and no souls were lost when I had my miscarriages.
 
Future,

If you believe abortion is moral (like yourself) I very much doubt you believe in God. When you support the legalized killing of a fully developed fetus (which you have admitted).
 
{part 2 of a 2-part post]

The Natural death rate of zygotes is only one relevant thing known to humans (and assumed also known to God). It is also known that a few days after conception, a completely different event can happen, which can result in more than just one human body developing ("identical twins", "identical triplets", "identical quadruplets"...). Furthermore, it is also known that separately-developing unborn human bodies can, a few days after conception, merge to form just one human body (research "chimerism"). The various possible combinations of multiple separate conceptions ("fraternal twins", "fraternal triplets", ...), multiple separate identical-twinning events, and multiple separate mergings, are such that we can ask another Question: If a smart and knowledgeable God knows that unborn humans don't need souls to survive, knows that unborn humans can't use souls for anything before birth, and also knows that the total number of unborn humans isn't even "fixed" until days after conception, why should a soul ever be created at conception?

And now we can talk about the claim that God is loving. This is a somewhat newer claim than the others, at least partly because the Old Testament of the Bible has some rather non-loving stories in it, like the Great Flood. On another hand, God knows that souls are immortal, and no soul could get hurt by any such trivial thing as a Great Flood. Apparently, to God, human bodies are irrelevant; only souls matter. Now think about what that means, with respect to unborn humans before God creates souls for them!

Now consider the pregnant woman, a fully-ensouled human. She might or might not want to be pregnant --and God most certainly knows the exact probability that she might choose to abort. If souls exist, then "murder", the killing of a person, is also the killing of a soul-possessing entity. Abortion cannot qualify as murder if an unborn human does not have a soul. So, if God knows that a woman will probably seek an abortion, and if God loves the woman, will that loving God create a soul for the unborn human just so that the abortion can become murder, and the woman can be condemned for it?

Why can't it?
How about a question more relevant to all and less a surrogate to bash religion or God or whatever else you were doing?
Like this for example ...
Does a human life have value only when someone wants it?
 
Future,

If you believe abortion is moral (like yourself) I very much doubt you believe in God. When you support the legalized killing of a fully developed fetus (which you have admitted).

The god of the bible absolutely LOVES abortion. What are you talking about?

If you don't believe that the god of the bible loves abortion, I very much doubt you believe in god.
 
The god of the bible absolutely LOVES abortion. What are you talking about?

One thing is for certain there are more zygotes that never implant or self abort within the first week of implantation and about 1 in 5 known pregnancies miscarry so if one believes God knowingly put souls in them just to abort them than one would believe that God loves abortions.

As for me , I don't believe God does that.

I don't believe he gives the unborn souls just to not allow them to receive the breath of life with birth.
 
The premise of this thread is absolutely laughable. Even if a god did exist, how the hell could any mortal claim to know what it does or doesn't support/oppose?
 
The premise of this thread is absolutely laughable. Even if a god did exist, how the hell could any mortal claim to know what it does or doesn't support/oppose?

Just something to ponder...something along the line of your comments.

The theory of "free will" is blown to hell for people who subscribe to religion who believes that god answers prayer, intervenes, at will, in human affairs, performs miracles, etc, etc, etc.

In fact, that makes it even more plausible that god influences some women to have abortions, natural and medical, if any given conception might be against god's will (or a change of plans) because god knows everything, past, present, and future...all the way to the bitter end of human existence.

In other words....humans don't have the ability to think like a supernatural being or creator of the universe, soooo...

Humans would be completely incapable of knowing whether or not any given woman was influenced by god to have an abortion. Or know whether or not any other specific acts or behaviors by individual persons (or groups of people) are self contrived.
 
Just something to ponder...something along the line of your comments.

The theory of "free will" is blown to hell for people who subscribe to religion who believes that god answers prayer, intervenes, at will, in human affairs, performs miracles, etc, etc, etc.

In fact, that makes it even more plausible that god influences some women to have abortions, natural and medical, if any given conception might be against god's will (or a change of plans) because god knows everything, past, present, and future...all the way to the bitter end of human existence.

In other words....humans don't have the ability to think like a supernatural being or creator of the universe, soooo...

Humans would be completely incapable of knowing whether or not any given woman was influenced by god to have an abortion. Or know whether or not any other specific acts or behaviors by individual persons (or groups of people) are self contrived.

that's why, IMO, gods have nothing to do with the abortion discussion. First off, they're completely imaginary. Second, even if they weren't...how the hell would anyone know what it was thinking?
 
The last paragraph in the first part brings up an excellent point. Are the vast majority of people walking around in heaven miscarriages and zygotes that never stuck to the uterine wall? It seems absurd.

If one believes in souls, deciding exactly when the soul enters the body is problematic.



Because you and the rest of this thread are limiting God to man's understanding. That he somehow must obey "natural laws" when in fact he wrote them and can re-write them.

I suggest you check out a documentary called National Geographic "Inside the Milky Way". What should first occur to you is the astonishing complexity and inter-relationship there is. It is said "God made man in his own image, and man kindly returned the favor".
 
When does something have a soul then... and why.
GOOD QUESTION. Religions have been arguing about the answer for thousands of years. About the only thing they agree on is that after birth, every human has a soul. Since none can prove any claim about the before-birth situation, it is quite appropriate for Secular Law to completely ignore all religion-based claims on the subject of souls and the unborn. Not to mention that in terms of Logic and Known Fact, there are other reasons to assume unborn humans are soul-less for possibly the entirety of a pregnancy. For example, consider the Fact that an unborn human commits assaults upon its hostess, worse than any parasite. If that unborn human Naturally miscarries, but had a soul, how would its worse-than-parasitic actions be Judged? An unborn human has no choice regarding what it must do, to become developed enough to be birth-viable --and God most certainly knows that, in advance of any soul-creating Act. The fundamental question really is, "What does an unborn human need a soul for???" According to Religions, a soul is the source of a human's Free Will --but no unborn human has any freedom to exercise will.
 
Future, If you believe abortion is moral (like yourself)
NOT QUITE. MORALS ARE PROVABLY ARBITRARY AND THEREFORE WORTHLESS, COMPARED TO ETHICS --which can be non-arbitrary and Universally applicable. Abortion is ethical, regardless of the arbitrary blatherings of moralists.

I very much doubt you believe in God.
I BELIEVE THE TRUTH **ALWAYS** MAKES LOGICAL SENSE. There is room in that to accept the notion that God exists, simply because all of our physical science has nothing whatsoever to say about matters non-physical or meta-physical.

When you support the legalized killing of a fully developed fetus (which you have admitted).
IT IS STILL AN ANIMAL ASSAULTING A PERSON IN WAYS WORSE THAN ANY PARASITE. Are you about to exhibit Stupid Fact-Denial? Do you think God is ignorant of the Facts? Do you think God thinks women should be slaves to biology, and forced to accept assault, despite having Free Will?
 
If folks who subscribe to a religion that's tenets teaches that abortion is against their beliefs - the solution is so, so simple. "Be a living example of your faith". If you are a woman - don't ever have an abortion. Men, don't have relationships with women who would have an abortion. Practice your faith and beliefs like there's no tomorrow! But please - don't impose your beliefs on your fellow citizens.
 
Why can't it?
I SEE I LEFT OUT A TINY DETAIL. It is Religion that defines "murder" in terms of killing an ensouled entity --and of course any Religion that claims unborn humans have souls will also claim that abortion is murder. But since Religions can't even prove souls exist, much less prove that unborn humans have them (especially when other Religions disagree about that), our Nation's attempt to Separate Church and State has led to the concept of "person", an entity independent of ensoulment. While originally a legal construct, the concept is something that scientists can study, simply by asking this Question: "What characteristics does a person possess, than an ordinary animal lacks?" One modern result of those studies is the claim that dolphins could qualify as persons, but it is impossible for unborn humans to qualify as persons (they cannot pass even one of the many personhood tests that dolphins can pass). Persons are minds, not bodies!

How about a question more relevant to all
I NEVER CLAIMED THAT THIS THREAD HAD TO BE RELEVANT TO ALL. It only needs to be relevant to those who have swallowed various Religious blatherings without thinking them through.

and less a surrogate to bash religion or God or whatever else you were doing?
RELIGIONS HAVE CAUSED SO MANY PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD THAT THEY DESERVE TO BE BASHED. Religions are basically about preachers claiming you should pay them to tell you how to run your life, and don't necessarily have anything to do with believing in God or characteristics of God.

Like this for example ... Does a human life have value only when someone wants it?
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE OXYMORONIC CONCEPT OF "INTRINSIC VALUE". There is no such thing, simply because an "intrinsic" property is a property that exists regardless of any tests for that property (like the hardness of a diamond), while "value" is something that only exists as a result of evaluation --ask a dung beetle which is more valuable, a pile of dung or a same-size perfectly faceted diamond, and the beetle will choose the dung every time. It should be obvious that "human life" cannot have "intrinsic value" if the concept cannot exist! Furthermore, even if it did exist, it is easy to prove humans don't have it. Just think of any Historical emergency in which it was announced, "Save the women and children first!" --what happened to the supposedly-equal "intrinsic value" of the men?
 
The premise of this thread is absolutely laughable. Even if a god did exist, how the hell could any mortal claim to know what it does or doesn't support/oppose?
HOW COULD ANY MORTAL CLAIM TO KNOW THAT GOD IS SMART OR KNOWLEDGEABLE OR LOVING? All I've done is taken some extremely standard claims, added various Known Facts about the physical world, and applied some Logic. Logic does not care in the least about the data it works with. The conclusions can be disputed by showing the the claims are faulty, or that the logic is faulty. Have fun!
 
The "God" of this discussion has been thoroughly anthropomorphized, as "God" is in most religions. Of course a few religions don't have a "God" at all.

The "soul" is an invention of human being, religious human beings as well as poetic human beings, to provide an answer to the horrifying fact of mortality.

If there is a "God" -- and I believe there is -- It is not the anthropomorphized one most religious people worship. It is the Mysterious Force that put this event we call a "universe" in motion. But for the purpose of getting the mind around a concept too large for most people to comprehend, the anthropomorphized "God" is eminently serviceable.

This popular "God." however, should not be made a premise in arguments about the conduct of a life lived deep in the Mystery of Existence, which is where we all live.

Abortion is a moral question, but moral questions are best left to moral actors to make according to the dictates of conscience.
So abortion should not be illegal, even if it is immoral, and the question of its morality must be answered in the heart of those faced directly with the question.
 
The "God" of this discussion has been thoroughly anthropomorphized, as "God" is in most religions.
ONE FUN THING TO THINK ABOUT IS NONHUMAN EXTRATERRESTRIAL ALIENS CLAIMING GOD MADE THEM IN GOD'S IMAGE. I can easily imagine Stupidly Prejudiced Religiously Brainwashed Human Idiots declaring a Holy War --how dare the aliens make any such claim!
 
I SEE I LEFT OUT A TINY DETAIL. It is Religion that defines "murder" in terms of killing an ensouled entity --and of course any Religion that claims unborn humans have souls will also claim that abortion is murder. But since Religions can't even prove souls exist, much less prove that unborn humans have them (especially when other Religions disagree about that), our Nation's attempt to Separate Church and State has led to the concept of "person", an entity independent of ensoulment. While originally a legal construct, the concept is something that scientists can study, simply by asking this Question: "What characteristics does a person possess, than an ordinary animal lacks?" One modern result of those studies is the claim that dolphins could qualify as persons, but it is impossible for unborn humans to qualify as persons (they cannot pass even one of the many personhood tests that dolphins can pass). Persons are minds, not bodies!


I NEVER CLAIMED THAT THIS THREAD HAD TO BE RELEVANT TO ALL. It only needs to be relevant to those who have swallowed various Religious blatherings without thinking them through.


RELIGIONS HAVE CAUSED SO MANY PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD THAT THEY DESERVE TO BE BASHED. Religions are basically about preachers claiming you should pay them to tell you how to run your life, and don't necessarily have anything to do with believing in God or characteristics of God.


YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE OXYMORONIC CONCEPT OF "INTRINSIC VALUE". There is no such thing, simply because an "intrinsic" property is a property that exists regardless of any tests for that property (like the hardness of a diamond), while "value" is something that only exists as a result of evaluation --ask a dung beetle which is more valuable, a pile of dung or a same-size perfectly faceted diamond, and the beetle will choose the dung every time. It should be obvious that "human life" cannot have "intrinsic value" if the concept cannot exist! Furthermore, even if it did exist, it is easy to prove humans don't have it. Just think of any Historical emergency in which it was announced, "Save the women and children first!" --what happened to the supposedly-equal "intrinsic value" of the men?

How does the LAW define it?

I didn't say you made that claim. But why not make it relevant to all rather than an anti-religion rant badly disguised as a thoughtfully reasoned postulation?

No, I'm talking about the logic of Laws. Does human life have value if it's not wanted or is it being wanted that gives it value? After all, all Laws are meant, at their core, to have a positive effect on human life.
 
I do not believe that bodies receive a soul...rather I believe that we are souls who receive a body...therefore bodies are merely a vessel to house the soul. You can kill the body but not the soul...

abortion therefore is irrelevant

because we are a part of the divine we can know the divine if we know ourselves...I don't judge what I don't know therefore a higher power never would...at least mine doesn't
 
The purpose of this 2-part post is to explain how the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, claimed to be smart and knowledgeable and loving, will as a simple logical consequence of those claims not condemn anyone for getting (or performing) an abortion. Replies should be restricted to attempting to point out errors in the logic.
...



I'd be a little more cautious about making absolute pronouncements in God's name.


But then, you probably don't believe anyway.
 
I'd be a little more cautious about making absolute pronouncements in God's name.


But then, you probably don't believe anyway.
but people make absolute pronouncements all of the time...they condemn in the name of god all of the time :shrug: kind of human to think we know it all

if someone doesn't question their belief doesn't that prove brainwashing?
 
How does the LAW define it?
HOW IS THAT RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD? (Generally, it is the killing of a person with malice aforethought.)

I didn't say you made that claim.
GOOD.

But why not make it relevant to all
BECAUSE NOT ALL RELIGIONS CLAIM UNBORN HUMANS HAVE SOULS. The ones that don't make that claim generally don't oppose abortion.

rather than an anti-religion rant badly disguised as a thoughtfully reasoned postulation?
IF YOU THINK THE LOGIC IS NOT SOUND, LET'S SEE SOME DETAILS ABOUT THAT. Any apparent "anti religion rant" is a consequence of (1) the logic being sound, and (2) the consequences revealing the idiocy of certain religious claims, no better than claims made by the Flat Earth Society.

No, I'm talking about the logic of Laws.
AGAIN, HOW IS THAT RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD?

Does human life have value if it's not wanted or is it being wanted that gives it value?
ISN'T THE ANSWER OBVIOUS FROM WHAT I WROTE IN MY MESSAGE YOU LAST QUOTED? Valuations cannot exist without evaluators. One consequence of that is, ALL valuations are Subjective, Relative, and Arbitrary. Thus unborn humans can have multiple valuations from negative to positive, simultaneously, depending on the evaluators. And no one is in a position to claim that his or her personal evaluation is more accurate than someone else's evaluation.

After all, all Laws are meant, at their core, to have a positive effect on human life.
FALSE. Replace "human life" with "persons" to change that statement from "false" to "true". Then note that persons can include extraterrestrial alien beings and True Artificial Intelligences. It does not include mindless unborn human animals.
 
Back
Top Bottom