 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > When Human life begins: in reality and legally | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BillZeeBub
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 8/1/2003 3:29 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
...to pass a constitutional amendment allowing referendums that will redefine the legal definition of when human life begins.
QUOTE: "...pass a constitutional amendment allowing referendums..."
LOL!
That's "Cali-forni-cation" of the federal government. Next thing is a referendum on an amendment to declare Jerry Springer as Emperor. His Caesar would be anyone who responds to "Proposition 666."
(Thanks for the laugh.) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
BillZeeBub
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 8/1/2003 6:16 PM (GMT -6) | | That was clear. California invented "government-by-proposition." No way that this country should have what you are suggesting.
Ever hear of trying to herd cats?
That's an idea worthy of a goat-roper. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/2/2003 7:28 AM (GMT -6) | | This is an article that has just begun circulating in economic circles. It uses a lot of econ-speak, but what it basically says is that when one views the household as an area of basic conflict over who does what with a husband and wife bargaining then the legalization of abortion granted more freedom to women that enabled them to reduce their share of the work in the household. The evidence pinpointing to this is that the reduction in household work, after controlling for the number of children, is apparent for women of fertile age, but not women who are not of fertile age.
"Abortion and Female Power in the Household Evidence from Labor
Supply"
BY: SONIA OREFFICE
University of Chicago - Department of Economics
Document: Available from the SSRN Electronic Paper Collection:
http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=419061
Other Electronic Document Delivery:
http://www.feem.it/web/activ/_activ.html
SSRN only offers technical support for papers
downloaded from the SSRN Electronic Paper Collection
location. When URLs wrap, you must copy and paste
them into your browser eliminating all spaces.
Paper ID: FEEM Working Paper No. 41.2003
Date: April 2003
Contact: SONIA OREFFICE
Email: Mailto:soreffic@midway.uchicago.edu
Postal: University of Chicago - Department of Economics
1101 East 58th Street
Chicago, IL 60637 UNITED STATES
ABSTRACT:
Legalization of abortion in the 1970s represents a major
institutional family change, giving women a higher degree of
freedom to directly control their fertility. We focus on the
effect of this law change in the US on women's position in the
household and find that legalization positively affected
bargaining power of women who by age or family status can use
abortion as an actual opportunity to ultimately control their
fertility. Specifically, we analyze the legalization of abortion
as a distribution factor in a collective model of household
behavior through its effects on female labor supply and find
that (controlling for the number of children) the legalization
significantly decreased labor supply of married women in their
fertile age. No such effect is found for older married women,
single and divorced women or men.
Keywords: Abortion, Collective Household Behavior, Labor
Supply
JEL Classification: D12, J12, J22, K39
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BillZeeBub
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 8/2/2003 5:43 PM (GMT -6) | | LOL
Goat roper wants Springeresque government-by-referendum. That'll bring the "wild" back to the wild west.
Any proposals of his will have to loose a few sylables to pass, though.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BillZeeBub
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 8/2/2003 5:45 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
BillZeeBub
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 8/2/2003 5:54 PM (GMT -6) | | You'll find that you meet up with a few end swappers. Someone will hoolihan you when you least expect it. By then, where will your pick-up man be? You'll get piggin stringed before you can sunfish.
Good luck, goat roper! | | Back to Top | | |
|
fencesitter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 8/2/2003 6:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
An important apologetic objective is to understand the arguments/reasoning made by your opponents.
Did you understand what Bill was saying, DLW? Didn't look like it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/2/2003 6:04 PM (GMT -6) | | | Interesting sociological article, DLW. Was that centered in Africa? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/2/2003 6:06 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2003 11:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
As such, we need to be pragmatic, while at the same time reconsidering why we believe what we believe about when human life begins.
dlw
DLW, don't you see that you are saying TWO different things in one sentence. (You do that often -- ussually that calls for two separate paragraphs.)
Needing to be pragmatic sounds fine.
But if you already know the truth about "when human life begins" then it is childish folly to throw that out just -- preesumably (and that is all that tis evident in what you write) based on letting pragmatism overtide all -- to get a result one wants.
"Here I stand; I can do no otherwise." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/3/2003 11:36 AM (GMT -6) | | This is taken from another board. It gives the (orthodox!) Jewish approach to abortion by Rabbi Dr. J. David Bleich:
Thus, normative (i.e. orthodox) Judaism absolutely rejects abortion as a means of birth control.
Jewish law says that once the mother has begun to give birth, her life no longer takes precedence over the fetus & thus killing the fetus, even if ostensibly to save the mother, would, at this stage, be cold-blooded murder & thus absolutely forbidden. No orthodox rabbi would ever sanction an abortion if the mother has begun to give birth or if the doctors said that the fetus is viable, regardless of the mother's wishes.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2003 12:42 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW: Ultimately, even with certainities regarding what ideals we should pursue, there would still be a need to cope with the compromises inherent in politics in the fallen world we live in.
PoW: But (1) what one hopes to influence about the general population's behavioral boundaries VERSUS (2) what one celebrates as inclusive in one's community (which is not centered on us and our actions, but on God) are two entirely different things.
And someone with a possition such as I am representing can not accept "ideals" that are any different; not call them "ideals" in the first place. Calling truth an "ideal" is not value-neutral! | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/13/2003 9:16 AM (GMT -6) | | New technologies to end abortion?
quote:
Jinx72:
Will New Technologies Mean the End of Abortion?
...
The nation's conscience has grown weary of abortion, and the legislative victory in banning partial-birth abortions is the first sign of a cracking in the death culture of post-Roe America.
Another major issue has also emerged as rapid advances in medicine have pushed fetal viability well into the second trimester--and may soon push viability all the way back to conception. The "compelling point" is on the move.
The August 18 issue of The New Republic features an article by Sacha Zimmerman that warns its readers of "The Real Threat to Roe v. Wade."
That threat? Ectogenesis.
Just in case this term is not yet a part of your conversation over breakfast, be informed that ectogenesis "is the process by which a fetus gestates in an environment external to the mother." [see magazine's website]
The article details rapid advances in the development of artificial wombs and artificial amniotic fluids that could mean that an embryo could develop all the way to maturity in this artificial environment. Once this happens, viability begins with conception--and, as Zimmerman notes: "If and when that happens, the legal and philosophical premises underpinning Roe could be completely dismantled."
Without doubt, this new technology itself raises a host of moral and ethical issues. The opportunities for its misuse will be legion. But, as this article makes clear, ectogenesis is a significant threat to the culture of death and the logic of Roe, and that, by any measure, is good news.
Will New Technologies Mean the End of Abortion?
...
The nation's conscience has grown weary of abortion, and the legislative victory in banning partial-birth abortions is the first sign of a cracking in the death culture of post-Roe America.
Another major issue has also emerged as rapid advances in medicine have pushed fetal viability well into the second trimester--and may soon push viability all the way back to conception. The "compelling point" is on the move.
The August 18 issue of The New Republic features an article by Sacha Zimmerman that warns its readers of "The Real Threat to Roe v. Wade."
That threat? Ectogenesis.
Just in case this term is not yet a part of your conversation over breakfast, be informed that ectogenesis "is the process by which a fetus gestates in an environment external to the mother." [see magazine's website]
The article details rapid advances in the development of artificial wombs and artificial amniotic fluids that could mean that an embryo could develop all the way to maturity in this artificial environment. Once this happens, viability begins with conception--and, as Zimmerman notes: "If and when that happens, the legal and philosophical premises underpinning Roe could be completely dismantled."
Without doubt, this new technology itself raises a host of moral and ethical issues. The opportunities for its misuse will be legion. But, as this article makes clear, ectogenesis is a significant threat to the culture of death and the logic of Roe, and that, by any measure, is good news.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/14/2003 7:00 AM (GMT -6) | | | Births involving "third parties" are against God's will. (Surrogate partents, like that TV host is doing, etc.) Just because the surrogate would be something not alive doesn't make what is suggested any less against God's will. There is a reason that God'y people call it "pro-creation" and not just "(whatever the other word is)". Being created in God's image is not a utilitarian thing; it is sacramental. This is true for the mother too. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/14/2003 7:15 AM (GMT -6) | | In the context of Modes comment (quoted below), let me just point out that the virtue of being an image-bearer is something given by God, not accomplished by achieving neurons. And the even the zygote is qualified to be in communion: BOTH with God and with other fellow humans. If we fail to be in such communion with the dead, or with zygotes, it is our failures and not theirs. And they may still be in communion with their Creator even when we fail to be through them.
quote:
Originally posted by ModesofThought
There are a couple of dogmatic points that I think ought to limit the boundaries of a discussion on God's love.
The obvious one is that of unconditiona love and working that out systematically. If God's love is worked out in such a away that it is not unconditional then that should be a faithful indicator that an error has been made. We say that God is love, and we say that God does not show partiality, God loves the whole world, does not will that any should perish, etc. The specific term "unconditional" is indeed implied in these biblical assertions and has been assumed throughout church history. Enough said...
Another problem with the discussion on love here recently is its tendency to reduce the imago dei to simply sentience or willing or some other philosophical category that is not expressly relevant to the texts from which we derive our dogma regarding the imago dei. I see a reductio ad absurdum at work here...
1. If our way of imaging God is merely our sentience, then we are not distinct from angels and demons in this way. What the makes us specifically in the image of God?
2. In another way of getting at this, it seems that the image of God in us is being reduced to what we frequently refer to as our soul. What of our spirit and body? Do these aspects of us also image God is some way? I understand a human being to be made up of all three in such a way  (Greg's favorite phrase) that they are inseperable and all necessary to what it is to be a human being. Furthermore, our imaging of God does NOT happen in us as individuals. The prism thing fails in this regard. We are a BODY collectively, not individually. We can be a prism collectively, not individually. Thus the command to reconcile with one another (and all the other "one anothers"...). The lack of sociality being discussed here is seriously problematic. We do not image God individually. It is in our uniting with one another that we can do this. God is communal and we can only image God in that manner.
So, these questions would have to be addressed before I could get with anything like Greg's understanding of love and God's conditional application of that for individuals.
Additionally, since SK has been brought up (:D), I'd recommend people reading the chapter on "loving the one who is dead" (In Works of Love) It is used as an excellent test case for what it means to love unconditionally. Very telling...We cannot excuse ourselves and say, "I don't love John Smith anymore because he changed!" No, the only change that occurs when we track our progress in loving the one who is dead is the change that occurs in us and our faithfulness to that person....
There's just a start of the problems I see with God's conditional love as expressed recently.
(all underlining, etc. by Fred.)
"Time is the freedom to love."
(from Ware's "The Inner Kingdom")
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 8/14/2003 11:43 AM (GMT -6) | | I've gone back and forth on this issue so much. Obviously there's no way that people's religious beliefs can have any real influence on the laws that are made to rule a country. So, nothing I or any other pro-lifers say about this is going to make a difference. The only thing that can ever determine a law regarding anything is if it has some scientific evidence to support it. So, the only way a law will be made that says a person is a person at conception is if science definitively proves it. I think that Christians and other people who are pro-life are pretty much just wasting their breath. As much as I don't believe babies should be aborted, I just don't think we'll ever be able to get the laws changed permanently. Just like I said in the Affirmative Action thread, laws can only go so far. It's our hearts that have to really believe in the message its saying. I guess the more people come to Jesus, the less we'll see abortions taking place. The Church needs to spend more time bringing people to Christ, and less time trying to influence politics.
Personally I think abortion is probably a sin no matter what reason for it, but it's one of those that involves choosing the lesser of two evils. The only instance I can think of that it might be "okay" to abort a baby is if the mother is likely to die is it isn't aborted. But, even then it's still a sin. It's the same as divorce no matter what is a sin. It's just that sometimes it is necessary.
I don't know what verse it is, but in the Bible God said to one of the prophets that we (humans) sometimes have to sin to make good happen. For instance, police having to kill criminals sometimes, or going to war to free oppressed people, or lying to spare someone's feelings, etc. That's why we need a Saviour. Because, even if our intentions are good, they're not always completely holy. Christ's sacrifice for us, covers all the bases. So in regard to abortion, it's a matter of what's truly best for all concerned.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/14/2003 11:54 AM (GMT -6) | | It's news to me that a policeman killing a man to stop a violent crime is committing a sin. Are the soldiers who are fighting right now in Iraq committing sins? What about when someone breaks into my home and tries to kill me, and I kill him in self defense? None of these things are sins.
And, I also don't see how having an abortion to save the mother's life could be a sin either. If you don't have the abortion and the mother then dies, there's a good chance the baby will die too during the ideal, and if not, is left without a mother. I would sure hope that if it came down to a choice between me or my unborn child, my husband (or any other family) would choose me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 8/14/2003 12:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
It's news to me that a policeman killing a man to stop a violent crime is committing a sin. Are the soldiers who are fighting right now in Iraq committing sins? What about when someone breaks into my home and tries to kill me, and I kill him in self defense? None of these things are sins.
And, I also don't see how having an abortion to save the mother's life could be a sin either. If you don't have the abortion and the mother then dies, there's a good chance the baby will die too during the ideal, and if not, is left without a mother. I would sure hope that if it came down to a choice between me or my unborn child, my husband (or any other family) would choose me.
My point is that all killing is sin. But, the best thing we can do is kill the right person in certain circumstances like the police officer trying to protect civilians by killing a criminal who's about to kill them. Even though it's still a sin to kill, the officer chose the lesser of two evils. To allow the criminal to kill the innocent civilians would be worse than the sin of killing the criminal to prevent it. God doesn't differentiate between circumstances. Sin is sin whether with good intentions or not. But, He understands that sometimes we have to choose between sinning in one way or the other. So if a woman would surely die because of her unborn child, I think God understands if she chooses to abort the baby. But, this doesn't change the fact that aborting the baby is still a sin in His eyes. It was just the lesser of two evils (like you said - not aborting the baby would cause both the mother and baby to die anyway) so it's better to abort the baby. That's why it was so necessary for Christ to come and save us from our sins, because we live in a world where we sometimes just can't avoid committing them.
Tigress
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
| 291 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:55 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|