Abortion

[Sculptor]

Karma is Hinduism.

No.
That is like saying fruit is apples.

Most of Hinduism, not all, make karma an important part of the religions, but Buddhism and Brahmanism do too.
And it's not as if Hinduism is A religion; it's a blanket term for a large number of often, competing ideas.

[Walker]

Back to the topic ...

This article also identifies that federal banning of abortion in the USofA is feasible, albeit improbable.

Drowning Dems Grab a Pro-Life Preserver
https://www.takimag.com/article/drownin ... preserver/

“Even now, Nebraska GOP Sen. Kevin Cramer, who blames mass shootings on abortion (don’t ask…), has declared that once Roe’s gone, pro-lifers won’t be satisfied going state by state. They’ll push for a 'federal ban.'

“Count on that. Don’t be mollified that Roe’s end will 'just mean it’s thrown back to the states.' The pro-life lobby will ensure that by November, voters will get this message loud and clear: ‘Give the GOP the House and Senate, and you’ll get a federal abortion ban that will abrogate states’ rights.’”

[Sculptor]

Back to the topic ...

This article also identifies that federal banning of abortion in the USofA is feasible, albeit improbable.

Drowning Dems Grab a Pro-Life Preserver
https://www.takimag.com/article/drownin ... preserver/

“Even now, Nebraska GOP Sen. Kevin Cramer, who blames mass shootings on abortion (don’t ask…), has declared that once Roe’s gone, pro-lifers won’t be satisfied going state by state. They’ll push for a 'federal ban.'

“Count on that. Don’t be mollified that Roe’s end will 'just mean it’s thrown back to the states.' The pro-life lobby will ensure that by November, voters will get this message loud and clear: ‘Give the GOP the House and Senate, and you’ll get a federal abortion ban that will abrogate states’ rights.’”

Feasibility is irrelevant.

Banning legal abortions means illegal abortions.
Banning abortion means that raped girls will have to carry a brat to full term.

Not one pro-lifer has acknowledged these facts on the three forums I post to.

[Sculptor]

Here's the dope on WHY.

Primary reason for choosing an abortion.

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or employment
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other

So which category do you think is not a valid reason

[Immanuel Can]

You seem to be suggesting that God makes religion...

Heh. Not a bit.

Man makes "religion."

God makes salvation.

[Immanuel Can]

Karma is Hinduism.

Hinduism is a system, as you call it, that recognizes what is.

No, actually: it doesn't.

What it does, instead, is tells you how it wants you to interpret the various phenomena you see. And it tells you to interpret those things in ways quite diffferent, and sometimes diametrically opposted to what other beliefs tell you to interpret.

Just because Hinduism says what is, does not mean that the saying makes it so.

Nobody said it did.

I say there is no such thing as "karma." Period.

[Immanuel Can]

Karma is Hinduism.

No.
That is like saying fruit is apples.

An apple IS a fruit. It is part of the set called "fruits."

Nobody said it was the totality of "fruits," nor did anyone imply that karma is the totality of Hinduism.

[Sculptor]

Karma is Hinduism.

No.
That is like saying fruit is apples.

An apple IS a fruit. It is part of the set called "fruits."

Nobody said it was the totality of "fruits," nor did anyone imply that karma is the totality of Hinduism.

Whilst an apple is a fruit it is not correct to say that fruit is the same as apple.
Am going too fast for you?

[Immanuel Can]

No.
That is like saying fruit is apples.

An apple IS a fruit. It is part of the set called "fruits."

Nobody said it was the totality of "fruits," nor did anyone imply that karma is the totality of Hinduism.

Whilst an apple is a fruit it is not correct to say that fruit is the same as apple.

Nobody said, "All Hinduism is, is karma." You made that idea up.

What was said is, "Karma is a fixture of Hinduism, not Christianity or other 'religions.'"

So no, you're going too fast for yourself. I'm doing just fine. Try reading in the context of the discussion, and you'll be less misled by possible ambiguities.

[Sculptor]

An apple IS a fruit. It is part of the set called "fruits."

Nobody said it was the totality of "fruits," nor did anyone imply that karma is the totality of Hinduism.

Whilst an apple is a fruit it is not correct to say that fruit is the same as apple.

Nobody said, "All Hinduism is, is karma." You made that idea up.

What was said is, "Karma is a fixture of Hinduism, not Christianity or other 'religions.'"

You said. Karma is Hinduism, which is bollocks. Hinduism is not even Hinduism since it is not even a single religion, even if it was it does not own Karma as that is part of Buddhism and Brahmanism.
Karma is an idea attributable to many things.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You obviously don't have a clue what abortion involves and don't want to know.

Quite the opposite. I know what it is in detail...graphic, horrid detail.

But pro-abortionists don't want people to know. Have you noticed that?

Their waiting rooms are not filled with pictures of children at the 3, 6 and 9 month stages of development, so "patients-victims" can make informed choices about the thing they're calling "a cluster of cells." They also don't lay out in detail for the "patients-victims" what is going to happen to them psychologically, morally and physiologically as a result of what they're doing. They don't present the abundant alternatives in adoption. They don't do anything, in fact, to inform their victims of the true horrors of what they are doing. Rather, they do all to "medicalize," sterilize and depersonalize the act of murder, so the victims cannot make informed choices, and will just go through with the murder... which they will be told is merely a "therapeutic procedure."

Well, we'll see what the Giver of Life has to say to them when they stand before Him. They have something to answer for.

That's all you have ever had: 'God doesn't like it', which is why you have to make up all kinds of twisted bullshit to try to beef up your complete lack of an argument. That's the kristofuck stance in a nutshell. Cretaionists do exactly the same thing. This post is the only one you ever needed to make
A 'nine month abortion' has another name, dipshit. It's called BIRTH. And your cherry-picked Trumpist mis-quotes aren't going to wash on here either.
As I have pointed out multiple times, the vast majority of abortions occur in the first 9 weeks, which is about the same amount of time your god takes to perform his own abortions. Later abortions can occur for any number of reasons. The foetus might be dead or dying. The mother's life might be in danger. Humans are complicated. Pregnancy is complicated. Like is complicated. And why even mention the extremely rare later term abortions? According to you, even the termination of a one day old pregnancy is 'murder', so why would you bring up third trimester terminations? What's the difference? If you were genuine in your 'concern' then you would be fine with early terminations and only be against later term ones. The only genuine thing about you is your kristoturd hypocrisy and thick skin. Why do you think the ONLY people against safe, legal abortions are kristofucks? You really expect anyone to believe that your stance comes from a place of empathy, tenderness, and kindness? Yeah right. The exact opposite is the reality.

[Immanuel Can]

You said. Karma is Hinduism,

Did you bother with the context? Naw, didn't think so.

We were talking about whether karma was compatible with Christianity. Thus, when I said, "Karma is Hinduism," it was like me saying, "Buddha is Buddhism." But Buddha is not the sum and total of Buddhism; he's a fixture within Buddhism -- important there, but not in, say Islam or Judaism. He's something that only makes sense within that particular set of ontological assumptions, that worldview, and cannot be meaningfully put inside any other set of assumptions. For Islam, Buddha is a false prophet, as for Jews. You can't appeal to Buddha within those worldviews; and you can't appeal to karma within a Christian worldview...there, there's no such thing.

In that sense, karma is (a fixture of) Hinduism. True story.

Get it?

And they say we Christians are "too literal"! Wow.

[Immanuel Can]

That's all you have ever had: 'God doesn't like it',

"All"?

Trust me, you're going to find out that's plenty.

But if you want to enumerate the rotten social and personal consequences of abortion, we could do that too, of course. It's just nowhere near so important as what God thinks of it.

But since you raise the point, let's think about what it means to look your eldest child in the face, and say to yourself, "There could have been more like this in the world, but I murdered one." Think about that. Let that digest slowly. And you'll know why abortion is an evil, even just from a psychological perspective.

A 'nine month abortion' has another name, dipshit. It's called BIRTH.

No, it's called "a partial-birth abortion." It's infanticide. But really, once a woman has started murdering her children in utero, why not? What evil will she not do?

[iambiguous]

That's right. Not all thoughts are equal. Some, such as what I've provided, are rooted in reality, the situation as it is, rationality, and human nature.

Others are based on ideologies that wander around saying, "what if, Biff?"

Right, right. As though others who think the opposite of you here aren't making exactly the same claims about their own rendition of reality.

But, just to be clear, what is the one and the only Walker reality in regard to abortion?

Let's suppose you have the power to enact and to enforce the "rules of behavior" in your community. A woman gets pregnant and has an abortion. A woman, say, you know and love. What is to be done?

Speak for yourself.

Well, if a woman I knew and loved had an abortion after the right wing moral objectivists here in America made all abortions illegal -- deemed them premeditated murder -- I'd do everything in my power to keep that [and her] from the authorities.

On the other hand, I'd also believe that the abortion itself was the killing of a human being.

And when asked how I reconciled that I'd say that I can't. That "I" am fractured and fragmented here. That I believe abortion is the taking of a human life but that, existentially, it is a necessary choice for some women if women are ever to sustain political equality with men.

You ask for the personal, so I’ll tell you a personal anecdote. The reason it’s interesting is for you to figure out. After all, why should you trust my judgment, my assessment, my evaluation or explanation of the incident? That’s a rhetorical question.

It's not a question of trusting another in regard to the morality of abortion but of recognizing that each unwanted pregnancy is derived from a set of circumstances that may be vastly different among women around the globe. One "incident" may be nothing at all like another.

There would be no generic woman who would be forced to give birth against her will, but individual women with their own personal stories.

Long ago I was with another person and we saw a homeless person who was in bad shape. I wondered aloud what it would be like to be that way. The person with me simply said, “That would never happen to me.”

The fact is, it didn’t happen to her, and everything she did in life made certain it didn’t happen.

You say it could have happened to her? To say that is illogical. To say that is a fantasy. The fact that it did not happen, proves that it could not have happened. Why is this so?

Because she was an element of every situation she was in. Every crossroads she encountered, every thought and intent. Every element other than she*, in every situation she was in, was not enough either singly, or in combination with another element or elements, to alter her simple intent. Her simple intent was the single root from which her life grew. The root caused her to say that homeless person’s sad plight would never happen to her.

I have always known that to raise children so that they get what they want, and don’t get what they don’t want, you need to explain the cause and effect of imagined situations. You say, to get this, you do this thing, or you don’t do this other thing. You say, to prevent that, you do that thing, or you don’t do that other thing.

The how-to’s that you give to your children are personal for that individual, tailored to their proclivities. To not betray that and to speak in general terms, the father knows the son and the daughter completely. When you know the truth and tell them the truth when they are young and trust you, they will be equipped to foresee, to mitigate, and perhaps even create.

You have to influence them in that way when they are young. This is why the government wants control of pre-K.

And since you asked for something personal regarding “how-to,” I’ll tell you this. I have always addressed my children and grandchildren as “Sir,” and “Miss.” That has worked out just as I figured it would.

So that's just the long-winded way to answer your question, what would I do?

The short answer is: Transcend time.



* is "she" the correct pronoun, or should "her," be used?

Note to others:

Please explain to me what this has to do with my own point above. That if abortion is made illegal -- a capital crime -- each of us as individuals in different sets of circumstances might be confronted with an "incident" in which a woman we knew and loved had an abortion or performed an abortion.

What would we do?

And, using the tools of philosophy, is there a way to determine deontologically what every rational and virtuous man or woman is morally obligated to do?

In what I presume to be a No God world?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

That's all you have ever had: 'God doesn't like it',

"All"?

Trust me, you're going to find out that's plenty.

But if you want to enumerate the rotten social and personal consequences of abortion, we could do that too, of course. It's just nowhere near so important as what God thinks of it.

But since you raise the point, let's think about what it means to look your eldest child in the face, and say to yourself, "There could have been more like this in the world, but I murdered one." Think about that. Let that digest slowly. And you'll know why abortion is an evil, even just from a psychological perspective.

A 'nine month abortion' has another name, dipshit. It's called BIRTH.

No, it's called "a partial-birth abortion." It's infanticide. But really, once a woman has started murdering her children in utero, why not? What evil will she not do?

What a fucking idiot. Coming on a philosophy site to preach god to people who don't even share your childish belief. There is no such thing as a 9 month 'abortion', 'partial' or otherwise. It's also not a medical term. It's a political term that anti-choicers came up with. And you never answered why you brought it up. What difference would it make to you even it it was 'a thing'.
And why would I be interested in the garbage you dig up on all those anti-choice sites you lurk around? Who are you to speak for women and what they think or feel? What about all the horrible consequences of forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies?
You are one sick fuck.