posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Openeye
So if there is one political/ethical issue I have a really big problem dealing with it is the issue of abortion. The complexity of this issue to me
seems extraordinary. I mean I would rather get into a Israel vs Palestine debate and find it less complicated than abortion.
In this hand I hold the position that abortion should not be illegal, because the state (IMO) does not have the right to impose laws to control the
On the other hand I have serious ethical issues with the practice. These beings are human and despite being unfortunately tethered to another human
being for a period of time they will eventually become fully functional members of our society.
Most pro-choice advocates argue that a woman should no have to be burdened with pregnancy if she does not want to be. The same way a father or mother
should not be compelled to donate organs to save their child if they do not wish to.
I tried to come up with an analogy about abortion to try and simplify the issue but it did not help at all.
Lets say you have two guys on a train that is traveling on a cliff side. Now the train derails and is hanging over the side of the cliff. One of these
men (man 1) is about to fall and clings to the other mans arm (man 2) to prevent himself from falling. Now at any moment the train could fall and the
longer the men hold on to each other the greater the risk that both of them will die.
Now lets say for the sake of argument that man 2 is incapable of pulling up man 1. If he stays holding on to the man they both will die. Now while sad
I do not find it unethical that man 2 would let go to save himself, in fact I would say it was necessary.
However lets say that man 2 is completely capable of pulling up man 1, but is simply unwilling to. If he lets go is that not unethical?
The above may not be the best of analogies, it is probably grossly simplistic.
I have been watching lots and lots of debates on this issue and they just make me scratch my head more.
So ATS can we discuss this issue here without having a flame war with each other (probably asking a little much there I know)?
I fail to see how the train analogy is relevant to abortion, maybe it's because you switched man1 and man 2's position half way through the analogy,
but I think it has more to do with the whole analogy just being irrelevant.
Abortions are ethically acceptable if performed before the 49 day mark.
I've went into the why of this in detail on another thread, but I forgot which one and I'm too lazy to look for it now.
Basically, long story short, humans receive their pineal gland and their gender simultaneously on the 49th day. This coincides with the Egyptian and
Tibetan books of the dead that say that the human soul spends 49 days (7 weeks times 7, or 7 within 7) in a neutral state before it is reincarnated,
and the ancient texts also agree that masculinity or femininity remain consistent through reincarnations. This might explain homosexuality on a deeper
level as well.
Anyway, "The Spirit Molecule" by Dr. Rick Strassman delves into this synchronicity deeper if you're interested.
It's just saying that embryos are blank canvases until a soul is imparted into them, and the canvas isn't developed enough to receive the soul until
49 days. It has been agreed that the pineal gland is the "seat of the soul", and also the center for the production of dimethyltryptamine,
seratonin, and melatonin.