New Posting to Old Thread

[Doug1066]

I prepared a new posting for the thread "The Harm Done by Religion," only to discover that the thread has been closed, apparently for good reason.  I apologize for not being able to monitor it better.  Perhaps I could have damped down the hostility.  At any rate, I am starting a new thread along the lines of the previous one, but with a little less Hitler and, I hope, more scholarship and better-thought out discussion.  I intend this more as a place where we can acknowledge what religion does and perhaps come up with ways to mitigate the damage, not as a medium to put down other's beliefs.  Our own beliefs are often part of the problem.  Please remember UM's rules and go by them.

 

In 2001 the Bush Administration decided to prohibit Federal funding for research involving human stem cells.  This policy, supported only by some American fundamentalists on dubious ethical grounds, hobbled an important area of biomedical research.  The damage it did continues today, 20 years later.  What medical advances have we given up for this?  A cure for diabetes?  A means of repairing damaged tissue?  A cure for cancer?  The question can’t be answered.  But any of these would have saved thousands of lives.

The Administration decided to allow existing cell lines to continue in use, reasoning that they were needed and no further embryos would be destroyed by so doing.  There were about 45 cell lines at the time, only 11 of which have turned out useful for research.  People wanting to use them must wait months or years to obtain them.

So what medical advances have we foregone for the sake of religion?

Doug

 

 

[Tatetopa]

Good luck with this Doug although it seems like a magnet for strong opinions and controversy more than scholarship.   When you write of ways to mitigate the damage, you stake out your territory. Those that agree might come up with other examples like birth control or state control of abortion.  Some will never take that view and believe their faith is more important than medical advances. There is no argument that will change the minds of those  who believe their religion has no negative side. 

[Doug1066]

"Monotheism has not necessarily been an advance in the history of morality and why the pagan tradition still beckons."  --Tom Flynn

 

Paraphrased from 'A Pagan Approach to the Abortion Debacle' by Shadia B. Drury:

If a pantheon were replaced with a single supreme deity bent on punishing the wicked and rewarding the virtuous, religion would provide morality with invaluable support.  Plato and Augustine disparaged the the arbitrariness and caprice of Homer's gods as depraved models for human conduct.  BUT:  the gods were never intended to be models for human conduct.  Zeus was the embodiment of thunder and lightning; Poseidon the embodiment of the violence of the sea; Aphrodite the force of sexual passion, and Hades (mentioned in the NT) as the sting of death.  These were forces to be reckoned with - not paragons of virtue.

Religion was about confrontation with the forces of nature; morality was about dealings with others.  Emulating the gods is hubris.  In ancient Greece, hubris was a serious crime because it led to criminality on a large scale.

Bu moralizing the divine, monotheism shifts the focus of morality from fear of consequences to rigid compliance with divinely ordained rules and prohibitions.  

 

I'll be back to finish this later.

Doug

[simplybill]

On 12/4/2021 at 2:02 PM, Doug1066 said:

In 2001 the Bush Administration decided to prohibit Federal funding for research involving human stem cells.  This policy, supported only by some American fundamentalists on dubious ethical grounds, hobbled an important area of biomedical research.  The damage it did continues today, 20 years later.  What medical advances have we given up for this?  A cure for diabetes?  A means of repairing damaged tissue?  A cure for cancer?  The question can’t be answered.  But any of these would have saved thousands of lives.

The same arguments could be made about abortion itself:

We’re approaching 70,000,000 abortions since the Roe v. Wade decision. How many potentially brilliant scientists and medical researchers were aborted that may have discovered the cure for diabetes? A means of repairing damaged tissue? A cure for cancer? The question can’t be answered. But any of these would have saved thousands of lives.

Edited December 6, 2021 by simplybill

[Tatetopa]

How many brilliant scientists and great humanitarians would there be if every child born was nurtured and treasured? Sufficient nutrition, a safe place to live, parents that love them, medical care, and a quality education  would be a good start.

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

6 hours ago, simplybill said:

The same arguments could be made about abortion itself:

We’re approaching 70,000,000 abortions since the Roe v. Wade decision. How many potentially brilliant scientists and medical researchers were aborted that may have discovered the cure for diabetes? A means of repairing damaged tissue? A cure for cancer? The question can’t be answered. But any of these would have saved thousands of lives.

No offense Bill because I can see this is an emotional subject for you. However Bill, many people who do not want to be forced to be vaccinated will also in the same breath say that abortion must be stopped in anyway possible. Now either case that is a form of Government control, and sadly people can't pick and choose which laws they will follow. Now I am sorry, but I can not agree with you on this subject and here's why, I dont believe any religious organization should have the power to influence the United States Government and force their religious beliefs on all Americans Nationwide. While I dont completely agree with abortions, I also even more strongly disagree with religious involvement in Government especially were the Civil Rights are taken away from a women and she is forced her to carry a fetus to term.

JIMO

[Doug1066]

12 hours ago, simplybill said:

The same arguments could be made about abortion itself:

We’re approaching 70,000,000 abortions since the Roe v. Wade decision. How many potentially brilliant scientists and medical researchers were aborted that may have discovered the cure for diabetes? A means of repairing damaged tissue? A cure for cancer? The question can’t be answered. But any of these would have saved thousands of lives.

This raises the nature or nurture question.  How many of those aborted fetuses would have become brilliant scientists or medical researches when their mothers didn't have pre- or post-natal care?  Brilliant scientists do not come from homes with inadequate food.  Nor do they get a grade school education that can support a later doctoral program.  Even with the student loan debacle, there is not enough money to pay for college if parents don't help.  What you are proposing is guaranteed income and free education.  Otherwise, it' just the wind in the willows.

Doug

P.S.:  You're assuming that abortion is a bad thing.  Lots of people disagree with you.

Doug

Edited December 6, 2021 by Doug1066

[+Hammerclaw]

There are sources of fetal stem cells other than the fetus itself. The rather tenuous ban on harvesting from the fetus in the States didn't slow down research here or abroad.

What is Stem Cell Therapy? (the-stem-cell-center.com)

Advances in stem cell research and therapeutic development | Nature Cell Biology

Edited December 6, 2021 by Hammerclaw

[Coil]

14 hours ago, simplybill said:

The same arguments could be made about abortion itself:

We’re approaching 70,000,000 abortions since the Roe v. Wade decision.

People on earth think that they are the masters of their life and body and they have the right to decide to have an abortion and religion and morality very much hinders them from acting, therefore they want to be free from it, not realizing that they are doing great evil.

I translated the story of a woman in a video under the spoiler who was lowered into hell and what she saw there:

Where I was descending, there were some labyrinths and corridors, terrible and terrifying, it was very difficult to realize where I was, I didn't even understand, I just felt that I was sinking somewhere into some incredibly terrible places. I saw some kind of small human figures, as it were chained to these labyrinths, freaks, and all this was accompanied by terrible screams of intolerably painful, disgusting smell, some kind of haze, and a huge wall of invisible dimensions appeared in front of me. This wall was transparent, but I felt its density. Heat emanated from this wall, as I then understood - it was inferno. When I approached, I saw a huge mountain which consisted of children's hands, legs, heads, guts, hearts. There was a terrible cry, everything was covered in blood, everything alive and moving, the cry is intolerable and it is impossible to forget. With horror and trepidation, I asked myself the question of what I see. Fearful creatures flew over this mountain and, as it were, fed on children's hands, legs and heads, and from this vision I still got scared, what is it in general, in what nature does it exist? And when I asked myself this question, there was an answer from the side of the one who loves me that these are my sins. I had previously heard this word, but for me the concept of sin did not exist and I said that there were no sins on me. But I was answered that these were my abortions. Yes, I had abortions, but I did not understand then that it was a sin.
And suddenly, from this teeming mass, a child was formed, but I do not know him, I have three children in my life, but this child was with my eyes and hair, he looked like my children whom I know and see every day. Here he was formed from this heap , arms and legs joined together and this child came out, saw me and stretched out his arms and shouted "mom", "mom" with such hope for me, with such confidence that mom can help. In that moment I felt a parental feeling of motherhood and the same love as to my children. And I realized that I had killed my child by having an abortion.
Fear arose as a huge bird with a huge beak and wings flew up and grabs this child in front of my eyes, torments and eats and this state is constantly repeated, she torments him, but the child unites in front of my eyes and then again breaks and unites and shouts "mom". I screamed in pain and prayed, God help him, and I put my hands into this wall and the child pulls the hand to me and I can't reach him, the wall is dense. I screamed God help him, get him out of here and the one who was next to me says "I will help you but you help me too. "
I asked how I can help and he said go to Earth and tell everything that you saw here and I cried out in pain that I would tell everyone and everything that I saw here, just get my children out of here.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Coil

[Crazy Horse]

10 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

No offense Bill because I can see this is an emotional subject for you. However Bill, many people who do not want to be forced to be vaccinated will also in the same breath say that abortion must be stopped in anyway possible. Now either case that is a form of Government control, and sadly people can't pick and choose which laws they will follow. Now I am sorry, but I can not agree with you on this subject and here's why, I dont believe any religious organization should have the power to influence the United States Government and force their religious beliefs on all Americans Nationwide. While I dont completely agree with abortions, I also even more strongly disagree with religious involvement in Government especially were the Civil Rights are taken away from a women and she is forced her to carry a fetus to term.

JIMO

And what about the rights, and the life, being taken away from the unborn child?

This isn't even about whether one is religious or not, its about being pro-life.

 

[Doug1066]

2 hours ago, Coil said:

People on earth think that they are the masters of their life and body and they have the right to decide to have an abortion and religion and morality very much hinders them from acting, therefore they want to be free from it, not realizing that they are doing great evil.

This morning I ate breakfast.  I had two fried eggs with two strips of bacon.  Two chickens did not live to hatch and a pig was killed because I had breakfast.

In Wichita a doctor was murdered by an abortion proponent.

The State of Oklahoma, very much a "conservative Christian" state recently put one man to death and is planning to execute another one before the end of the year.  People already over-populate the planet by about 30%.  Reducing the number that are born would be a good thing.

 

So where is the line between abortion and murder?  Am I a bad person because I ate breakfast, causing the deaths of three sentient beings?  Is abortion a bad thing because abortionists murder fetuses?  Is being "pro-life" a bad thing because pro-lifers murder abortion doctors, support state-sanctioned murder and support an army whose only job is killing people?

 

To believe in the sanctity of life is to believe in the sanctity of ALL life.  One does not get to make exceptions - "I believe in the sanctity of life, but I'll make an exception for you" does not identify someone who believes that life is sacred.  Neither does "I believe in the sanctity of human life, but I'm ready to send an abortion doctor to the gallows."

 

So the abortion battle really comes down to:  Would you prefer to kill people before or after they're born?  Both sides forget that "pro-life" means no killing at all.

Doug

[Doug1066]

21 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

"Monotheism has not necessarily been an advance in the history of morality and why the pagan tradition still beckons."  --Tom Flynn

 

Paraphrased from 'A Pagan Approach to the Abortion Debacle' by Shadia B. Drury:

If a pantheon were replaced with a single supreme deity bent on punishing the wicked and rewarding the virtuous, religion would provide morality with invaluable support.  Plato and Augustine disparaged the the arbitrariness and caprice of Homer's gods as depraved models for human conduct.  BUT:  the gods were never intended to be models for human conduct.  Zeus was the embodiment of thunder and lightning; Poseidon the embodiment of the violence of the sea; Aphrodite the force of sexual passion, and Hades (mentioned in the NT) as the sting of death.  These were forces to be reckoned with - not paragons of virtue.

Religion was about confrontation with the forces of nature; morality was about dealings with others.  Emulating the gods is hubris.  In ancient Greece, hubris was a serious crime because it led to criminality on a large scale.

By moralizing the divine, monotheism shifts the focus of morality from fear of consequences to rigid compliance with divinely ordained rules and prohibitions.  This has been interpreted as a shift fromn a shame culture where the community provides a stanbdard to a guilt culture in which conscience is the voice of god.  A shame culture concentrates on the effects of one's conduct, whereas a guilt culture focuses on a deity regardless of effect.

One of the "divine" rules is the prohibition of abortion.  The entire community must be punished for the sins of the few; thus, true believers inflict their views on their communities in the belief that if they do not, they themselves stand accused.  Those who kill abortion doctors see themselves as god's avengers, acting in his behalf and in his name (Why God Almighty would need such paltry helpers is an unanswered question.  "Vengeance is mine," sayeth the Lord."),

In countries with strict antiabortion laws, every miscarriage is treated as a criminal act.  This amounts criminalizing women because of a natural function of their bodies.  Many states are poised to emplace laws that force women to have children, even the children of their rapists.

Monotheists have cultivated a callous understanding of morality that is indifferent to both people and the planet.  This is not only irresponsible, but also a prescription for disaster.  In the US monotheists are eager to prevent abortion, but also eager to prohibit birth control.  This is the kind of inhumanity inspired by religion.

Doug

 

[Tatetopa]

Pro life in the common usage seems to mean pro-fetus.  It does not extend to the born.   Somewhere along the line the male ego got involved.  Some men seem to think that it is their holy God-given sperm  that engenders a soul.  Women are just the vessels of their desire.  Some men want to dominate the center of creation alone.  If men were not aware of their part in fertilization and hence stake an ownership claim, many would not care what women did about pregnancy. They would value the life of a fetus as little as they value the life of a  toddler or a school child or future generations.  Notice I said some or many, not all.  But opposing abortion rights of strangers to protect other men's fetal property is to protect their own.  Some may be afraid if they could not enforce their dominance,women would refuse to carry their progeny to term.

 

[Coil]

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

This morning I ate breakfast.  I had two fried eggs with two strips of bacon.  Two chickens did not live to hatch and a pig was killed because I had breakfast.So the abortion battle really comes down to:  Would you prefer to kill people before or after they're born?  Both sides forget that "pro-life" means no killing at all.

 

There is a difference between an egg and a growing embryo, since an egg, if not exposed to the required temperature, does not turn into an embryo. Consequently, eggs can be eaten, this is not yet a state of the fetus and the soul has not yet connected with the growing embryo so that we can say that we have killed the future creature ...
 

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

 

The State of Oklahoma, very much a "conservative Christian" state recently put one man to death and is planning to execute another one before the end of the year.  People already over-populate the planet by about 30%.  Reducing the number that are born would be a good thing.

 

Execution does not give anything if a person has not changed his behavior during his lifetime and he can easily be born again and will continue to kill so that killing does not give anything. And if a person lived to the end of his life in prison, then there is a chance that he will come to his senses and change.
And the execution does not give him any chance of change.

I have said more than once that our planet can feed 50 billion people (according to scientists) if its fields and resources are used wisely, so that a decrease in population is bad. And vice versa, the more people are born, the more training and development takes place on our planet. This is a good place for evolution. On other planets, life is even worse than on ours, so many strive to develop on our planet.
 

 

Quote

In Wichita a doctor was murdered by an abortion proponent.

Do you mean this person?

On May 31, 2009, George Tiller, a physician from Wichita, Kansas, who was nationally known for being one of the few doctors in the United States to perform late-term abortions, was murdered by Scott Roeder, an anti-abortion extremist.

 

This is the reaction of people to the legality of abortion(and later stages of pregnancy are worse than in the early period), because if a person cannot change the law, he takes the life of the one who observes this law. This is certainly wrong, since as long as there is a law and those who want to have an abortion, there will be doctors who will perform abortions and the collective consciousness of people is needed to cancel abortions in a legal way.
Women in different countries are protesting that abortions remain legal and this is a big irresponsibility of the people. People want to have fun and do not want to pay for it. Nature here is wiser than people, she leads them the right way.

 

Quote

 

So where is the line between abortion and murder?  Am I a bad person because I ate breakfast, causing the deaths of three sentient beings?  Is abortion a bad thing because abortionists murder fetuses?  Is being "pro-life" a bad thing because pro-lifers murder abortion doctors, support state-sanctioned murder and support an army whose only job is killing people?

To believe in the sanctity of life is to believe in the sanctity of ALL life.  One does not get to make exceptions - "I believe in the sanctity of life, but I'll make an exception for you" does not identify someone who believes that life is sacred.  Neither does "I believe in the sanctity of human life, but I'm ready to send an abortion doctor to the gallows."

So the abortion battle really comes down to:  Would you prefer to kill people before or after they're born?  Both sides forget that "pro-life" means no killing at all.

Doug.

 

The lower the being and the less consciously it is, the less responsibility, this is the general law:

-killing people like you is a crime
-killing an animal for food - for now, you can't do without it
-you can eat the plant
-it is bad to destroy living forests for the sake of wooden products, since not only the tree is destroyed, but the entire ecosystem and invisible creatures (fauns) are looking for new houses because they live in trees.

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Coil

[Doug1066]

16 minutes ago, Coil said:

There is a difference between an egg and a growing embryo, since an egg, if not exposed to the required temperature, does not turn into an embryo. Consequently, eggs can be eaten, this is not yet a state of the fetus and the soul has not yet connected with the growing embryo so that we can say that we have killed the future creature ...

Actually, I have eaten eggs for breakfast nearly every morning of my life.  I was raised on a farm where we grew our own chickens, gathered and sold eggs.  How many of these eggs were fertile (and able to become embryos), I have no idea, but I'd bet there were quite a few.  So the original story stands:  Am I a bad person for eating an egg that could have become a chicken?

 

21 minutes ago, Coil said:

Execution does not give anything if a person has not changed his behavior during his lifetime and he can easily be born again and will continue to kill so that killing does not give anything. And if a person lived to the end of his life in prison, then there is a chance that he will come to his senses and change.

I take it you oppose the death penalty.  I do too, but not for religious reasons.  We, the public, are supposed to be better than the people we are thinking of executing.  So how can we make ourselves better than them by becoming just like them?

25 minutes ago, Coil said:

Do you mean this person?

Yes.

 

35 minutes ago, Coil said:

I have said more than once that our planet can feed 50 billion people (according to scientists) if its fields and resources are used wisely, so that a decrease in population is bad.

The population of the earth is about 8 billion at this time:  https://www.google.com/search?q=earth+population&oq=earth+population&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i433i512j0i512l8.6542j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&shem=ssmd

We are already about 30% above the earth's carrying capacity, meaning that eight billion is not sustainable.  In order to feed and house the extra people, we have to use up resources.  We are mostly producing food by burning oil.  What happens in 30 years when we run out of oil?  We are already experiencing the beginning of this disaster.

33 minutes ago, Coil said:

-killing people like you is a crime
-killing an animal for food - for now, you can't do without it
-you can eat the plant
-it is bad to destroy living forests for the sake of wooden products, since not only the tree is destroyed, but the entire ecosystem and invisible creatures (fauns) are looking for new houses because they live in trees.

As far as plants are concerned, herbivory is total war.  Plants use every trick you ever thought of to protect themselves, especially poisons and thorns.

I'm an e-forester, so I likely see things differently than you.  You can cut a forest without destroying it.  Basically, that is accomplished by selectively cutting parts of it and allowing it to regrow.  By the time you cut the entire area, the first stands have regrown.

How do you obtain the products we use every day without cutting trees?

Doug

[simplybill]

9 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Brilliant scientists do not come from homes with inadequate food.  Nor do they get a grade school education that can support a later doctoral program.  Even with the student loan debacle, there is not enough money to pay for college if parents don't help. 

Doug - But that’s a very fatalist attitude, don’t you think? You’re presupposing that a child born into poverty will inevitably remain in poverty, forever unable to overcome adversity. That’s not reality. There are countless stories of children who have overcome adversity and led successful lives.

Justifying abortion for reasons of poverty or lack of nurture is not a message that will lead to a better society with less poverty, but that’s the attitude our society has unfortunately accepted. A better message, especially for children, is that responsibility and maturity should always precede pregnancy. 

[simplybill]

3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Pro life in the common usage seems to mean pro-fetus.  It does not extend to the born. 

That’s the current message being promoted by the pro-abortion/pro-choice people, but it’s not true at all. There are countless people involved in efforts to give hope to children that have been into hopelessness. In my own extended family, we pro-life people take seriously our responsibility to protect and nurture children orphaned by unfortunate circumstances. I could tell you horror stories about the early lives of the children that have been adopted into our family, but I’d rather tell you the success stories those children have become after being given a chance at life with loving parents. I hang around with people that personally support and work with orphanages, malnourished families, and displaced refugees around the world, some even risking their own lives in hostile places. Seeing the results of those efforts is astounding at times.

[Tatetopa]

6 hours ago, simplybill said:

That’s the current message being promoted by the pro-abortion/pro-choice people, but it’s not true at all. There are countless people involved in efforts to give hope to children that have been into hopelessness. In my own extended family, we pro-life people take seriously our responsibility to protect and nurture children orphaned by unfortunate circumstances. I could tell you horror stories about the early lives of the children that have been adopted into our family, but I’d rather tell you the success stories those children have become after being given a chance at life with loving parents. I hang around with people that personally support and work with orphanages, malnourished families, and displaced refugees around the world, some even risking their own lives in hostile places. Seeing the results of those efforts is astounding at times.

That is so excellent.  I salute you as an exceptional human being and I am serious when I say I admire you.   But I think people like you are the exception rather than the rule.  What is more, neither federal government nor state governments  provide enough assistance for pregnant women in need.  Some cities provide nutrition and prenatal medical care as well as infant care and nutrition, but like you they are an exception rather than a rule.  A low income family may very well need assistance with infant health needs.  Day care is out of reach and yet mom and dad must work to support the family. 

The pro-choice promoted message is not aimed at individuals, especially like you, but at parties and governments who do too little to back up their claim to be pro-life. Believe me, even abortion and pro-choice advocates would rather there be no need for abortions, but they know there is little chance an American government will take action.  Also, surely people who refuse to wear a mask or get vaccinated can understand personal freedom and woman's desire not to be controlled by the state.

[+Pettytalk]

Why will not all the silly goats think positive, and discuss the good that religion has done. There has to be some good in everything, because even from out of the worst harm done, something good will come of it, sooner or later. Bitterness is the outcome from harm done to those harmed, and we all have been harmed during our lives, some less some more. It's all due to not enough love between us all. Some poor guy got crucified for trying to help the poor and helpless, telling everyone who was richer and stronger to lend a helping hand. And using the least possible amount of words, in a nutshell, which would convey the kernel of two large texts, an old one and a new one, put it this way:  "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind," before also paraphrasing a second passage; "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

"Thy" for me, means my Lord and god is my wife, whom I follow religiously to live in peace. But she usually gives me more than ten commandment; take out the garbage, put the toilet seat down after watering the bowl, cut the grass, don't drink, stop smoking, keep quite, etc. And for anyone else Lord and god could be anything you adore and choose to be ruled under.

It's always the head that directs the body, and what the head wants the body does. It's the heads that can harm. But the heads can also do good, if it's a good head. The bad heads use religion to benefit the head more than the body. If the heads of religions had a good head, and a wise one too, there would be little harm done, and that little would be harm to their wallets. They say that money is the root of all evil. And harming others, as well as oneself is evil.

What possible harm can come from anyone on the face of the earth, regardless of religion and atheism, following these simple common sense, civilized, clear recommendations/commandments of love? God or no God!

Edited December 7, 2021 by rashore
removed music video and copyrighted image

[Will Due]

 

Does a forest fire cause harm to a forest?

Not according to ecologists.

Without the "harm" of fire, a forest cannot maintain its health. Without the "harm" of fire, a forest will not allow the next generation of trees to spawn and grow.

 

 

[+Sherapy]

12 hours ago, simplybill said:

That’s the current message being promoted by the pro-abortion/pro-choice people, but it’s not true at all. There are countless people involved in efforts to give hope to children that have been into hopelessness. In my own extended family, we pro-life people take seriously our responsibility to protect and nurture children orphaned by unfortunate circumstances. I could tell you horror stories about the early lives of the children that have been adopted into our family, but I’d rather tell you the success stories those children have become after being given a chance at life with loving parents. I hang around with people that personally support and work with orphanages, malnourished families, and displaced refugees around the world, some even risking their own lives in hostile places. Seeing the results of those efforts is astounding at times.

It is awesome you are part of a solution. Kudo’s to you. This world needs people like you. My son is a teacher in a residential facility that houses seriously abused girls and one can barely wrap their head around the kind of suffering these girls have had to endure due to poverty and it is traumatic (vicarious trauma)for those that try to help. The truth is It is along long looong road out and few make it. With that being said, the world needs folks like my son too. All the best.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Sherapy

[+Liquid Gardens]

13 hours ago, simplybill said:

That’s the current message being promoted by the pro-abortion/pro-choice people, but it’s not true at all. There are countless people involved in efforts to give hope to children that have been into hopelessness. In my own extended family, we pro-life people take seriously our responsibility to protect and nurture children orphaned by unfortunate circumstances.

Again, kudos to you and your family for helping people.  I think Tatetopa is correct though, if 'pro-life' in current usage concerns more than pre-born life that message is not getting out.  That some pro-life people also assist and support people who are already alive is of course true, but I don't know if I'd say that pro-lifers are mostly concerned about the pre-born is 'not true at all' based on that.  You, your family, and the pro-life people you know are not a representative sample of millions of pro-lifers.  I have acquaintances who are pro-life in the abortion sense but don't extend that to living people as much, some use something like your previous statement, "There are countless stories of children who have overcome adversity and led successful lives." as reason/justification/excuse to not help people who are already here.

14 hours ago, simplybill said:

Justifying abortion for reasons of poverty or lack of nurture

responsibility and maturity should always precede pregnancy. 

I think both of those messages can co-exist.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Liquid Gardens

[Doug1066]

13 hours ago, simplybill said:

Doug - But that’s a very fatalist attitude, don’t you think? You’re presupposing that a child born into poverty will inevitably remain in poverty, forever unable to overcome adversity. That’s not reality. There are countless stories of children who have overcome adversity and led successful lives.

Justifying abortion for reasons of poverty or lack of nurture is not a message that will lead to a better society with less poverty, but that’s the attitude our society has unfortunately accepted. A better message, especially for children, is that responsibility and maturity should always precede pregnancy. 

There are people who escape poverty.  Poverty is not a justification for abortion, but it is a justification for providing the family with medical care, food and housing.  The lack of abortion is not and excuse to mistreat people.  If you want to do away with abortions, support sex-ed and contraceptive use, especially in the junior and senior high schools.

Get your congressmen to vote for the programs and taxes to support them, or vote the b------s out of office.

Doug

[+Nuclear Wessel]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

Does a forest fire cause harm to a forest?

Not according to ecologists.

Without the "harm" of fire, a forest cannot maintain its health. Without the "harm" of fire, a forest will not allow the next generation of trees to spawn and grow.

 

 

I think it would be interesting to see @Doug1066's thoughts on this, being that he has had an extensive career in forestry.

[Doug1066]

13 hours ago, simplybill said:

That’s the current message being promoted by the pro-abortion/pro-choice people, but it’s not true at all. There are countless people involved in efforts to give hope to children that have been into hopelessness. In my own extended family, we pro-life people take seriously our responsibility to protect and nurture children orphaned by unfortunate circumstances. I could tell you horror stories about the early lives of the children that have been adopted into our family, but I’d rather tell you the success stories those children have become after being given a chance at life with loving parents. I hang around with people that personally support and work with orphanages, malnourished families, and displaced refugees around the world, some even risking their own lives in hostile places. Seeing the results of those efforts is astounding at times.

Would that we had more like you.  But te need is great and volunteer efforts not up to that big a job.  And that means getting govts involved.  What results on that front?

Doug