Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:11 pm +0000

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Main » Questions & Answers

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 7
  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:17 am +0000
Posts: 137
84:7.3 Sex association is natural, but marriage is social and has always been regulated by the mores. The mores (religious, moral, and ethical), together with property, pride, and chivalry, stabilize the institutions of marriage and family. Whenever the mores fluctuate, there is fluctuation in the stability of the home-marriage institution. Marriage is now passing out of the property stage into the personal era. Formerly man protected woman because she was his chattel, and she obeyed for the same reason. Regardless of its merits this system did provide stability. Now, woman is no longer regarded as property, and new mores are emerging designed to stabilize the marriage-home institution:

1. The new role of religion—the teaching that parental experience is essential, the idea of procreating cosmic citizens, the enlarged understanding of the privilege of procreation—giving sons to the Father.

2. The new role of science—procreation is becoming more and more voluntary, subject to man's control. In ancient times lack of understanding insured the appearance of children in the absence of all desire therefor.

3. The new function of pleasure lures—this introduces a new factor into racial survival; ancient man exposed undesired children to die; moderns refuse to bear them.

4. The enhancement of parental instinct—each generation now tends to eliminate from the reproductive stream of the race those individuals in whom parental instinct is insufficiently strong to insure the procreation of children, the prospective parents of the next generation. *

84:7.8 But the home as an institution, a partnership between one man and one woman, dates more specifically from the days of Dalamatia, about one-half million years ago, the monogamous practices of Andon and his immediate descendants having been abandoned long before. Family life, however, was not much to boast of before the days of the Nodites and the later Adamites. Adam and Eve exerted a lasting influence on all mankind; for the first time in the history of the world men and women were observed working side by side in the Garden. The Edenic ideal, the whole family as gardeners, was a new idea on Urantia.

I do not believe The Authors make any judgment here but they do seem to equate abortion to the exposure of undesired children. They do equate the fetus to a child, or so it seems.

The home institution is described as a partnership between one man and one woman, yet again, I sense no judgment other that to describe this arrangement as the Edenic ideal.

What are your views on this as they relate to current events?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:55 am +0000
Posts: 432
Always an interesting topic, though burdened with much emotion to discuss rationally with your average Urantian.

From an eternity viewpoint, all potentials are actuals. So if a zygote has the genetic potential to mature into a full-fledged human being, then it is no different than a newborn infant with the same potentialities. The infant just happens to be further along in time.

Acts of god or man, mechanical defects or medical interventions, bear nothing on the reality of the potential. Thus, as the Papers seem to intimate, early termination of pregnancy is no different than leaving an undesired child exposed to die.

But that's as far as I take it. Despite the equivalency, I cannot make a value judgement on this issue. Yes, it is heart-wrenching to think of negatives. But at the same time, refusing to rear undesired children, particularly those who otherwise would carry on undesirable traits, can from a more objective standpoint be seen as overall good for the species. Why propagate defective strains?

Re: Marriage.. Well, the Papers seem to indicate that as far as civilization as whole is concerned, the most valuable function of the marriage institution is home building. The home is where the child learns culture. So I am personally OK with homes filled with goodness and promoting civic responsibility, even if they aren't living up to the Edenic ideal. Mine certainly doesn't. My wife and I can only hope to reach some small degree of the ideal. But we use it for inspiration nonetheless to do the best we can for our children.

I definitely believe that a same-sex couple can create a home that is FAR superior to many homes with heterosexual couples or single-parent households.

That said, one other function of marriage is the subjugation of the procreative instinct to societal control. Put another way, for most of history, marriage also functioned to control mating. This feature of marriage seems to have gone by the wayside in the last 150 years. People claim that same-sex marriage is death of the institution, but my personal opinion is that it's been "dying" in that regard for many generations and this was the final "nail in the coffin."

In the USA, we now for sure lack an institution we could use to control breeding. To me, that's a setback. We've chosen the individual over the group. But things aren't fixed in stone. Subsequent generations may finally get the problem and revise their concept of marriage or perhaps create whole new institutions altogether to tackle this giant, unspoken problem.

Overall, though I don't think the issue is nearly as morally meaty as civil rights for the races and sexes, I am happy that two people who are dedicated to each other finally have the legal means to effect their union to enable them to build a loving home. But I worry for the institution itself.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:28 am +0000
Posts: 52
ancient man exposed undesired children to die; moderns refuse to bear them.


Seems to me that ancients did this because they realized the child was defective, had little chance of survival or they knew that their family or tribe could not provide for it. This likely strengthened the race.
Moderns refuse to bear as a means of birth control, correcting mistakes in judgement giving rise to making pleasure seeking more part of every day life. I cant imagine moderns refusing to bear in order to strengthen the race, its not PC.
As for same sex parents, if two women, the child will miss a fathers influence - with two men it misses mother influence. Not to be taken lightly and is likely detremental to the race. The only positive I see is that the same sex partners are pleased.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:23 pm +0000
Posts: 641
Nelsong wrote:
I cant imagine moderns refusing to bear in order to strengthen the race, its not PC.


You don't have to imagine. Prenatal genetic testing can detect many congenital defects in the womb and gives rise to induced abortions. Eugenics is well under way.

BTW, this genetic testing was not available in 1934; abortion was available.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:28 am +0000
Posts: 52
Technology is there for sure
All I hear about abortions is they are all unwanted pregnancies.
I don't hear any talk of racial improvement.
Improving race would not go over very well
You would either be labeled a racist or a Nazi or playing God.
Maybe real eugenics is happening, I certainly hope so.
It seems that technology could easily advance so that decision to avoid pregnancy as opposed to decision to abort would be a better way to practice eugenics.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:23 pm +0000
Posts: 641
Read Margaret Sanger, an activist eugenicist and founder of Planned Parenthood.

Question. If Abortion is not a racial matter then why are the vast majority of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in poor black neighborhoods?

There is no talk of racial improvement but talk is cheap, but actions speak volumes.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:28 am +0000
Posts: 52
MannyC wrote:
Read Margaret Sanger, an activist eugenicist and founder of Planned Parenthood.

Question. If Abortion is not a racial matter then why are the vast majority of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in poor black neighborhoods?

There is no talk of racial improvement but talk is cheap, but actions speak volumes.



Well Sanger certainly had an agenda eh? Ill try to give my impression for what its worth.
Do you think planned parenthood of today is carrying out her agenda? Do you think they deliberately plant themselves in poor black communities? Or do they tend to go where the demand is? I really dont follow them with exception of what is in the news lately - butchering fetus for purpose of profit - selling its parts. Is this intended to improve some aspect of humanity? How could anyone plan parenting and abort - its a paradox.
Everything is racial. Few really want to improve their race. It seems to me that when an activist like Sanger gets ambitious about doing eugenics it comes out a bit warped. As part of her agenda was focused in the bedroom for the sake of bedroom activities, not child production it adds a dimension to what she was all about - kind of the image I have of PP - abort as opposed to avoid - very convenient I suppose. This has nothing to do with eugenics, its just pleasure seaking and consequence avoidance.
Not what I would call focused on real improvement. However, improvement may indeed come of this in years to come but it will be unintentional and accidental imho.
German people had an analogous experience. Did anything improve as result of their efforts? I have no idea. I think they were at least a little scientific about it.
Possibly we can say its a start with much wisdom needed in order to really make improvements.
TUB says we should go there. Life Carriers are out of it. Its our responsibility now.
Haphazard or less than altruistic approaches will get haphazard results.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 958
I'd have to say the ideal of romantic love and the desire of couples to be together, have children and create a home is still very much alive, at least in middle class Europe (and likely in the U.S.). The main problem is that if the couple is too young, that often aren't prepared for the eventual hardships and sacrifices. On the other hand, European couples get rather lavish parental leaves in addition to very lavish vacation leaves. Parenting can become a lower stress pasttime than a too heavy focus on occupation can be.

Unspoken eugenics is naturally part of reproduction in those situations. Parents usually wish and dream that their children will be rather much like themselves and carry the better characteristics of the combination of the parents. I find it intriguing and expressed often enough that a child born into a home filled with love will be exceptionally well adjusted and capable.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4079
Sometimes facts really are an obstacle to rhetoric and false assertions (this from NPRs Fact Check regarding such claims as posted above regarding the wild allegations by Mr. Carson, candidate for Republican nomination):

Was Sanger "not particularly enamored with black people"?

Sanger's birth control movement did have support in black neighborhoods, beginning in the '20s when there were leagues in Harlem started by African-Americans. Sanger also worked closely with NAACP founder W.E.B. DuBois on a "Negro Project," which she viewed as a way to get safe contraception to African-Americans.

In 1946, Sanger wrote about the importance of giving "Negro" parents a choice in how many children they would have.

"The Negro race has reached a place in its history when every possible effort should be made to have every Negro child count as a valuable contribution to the future of America," she wrote. "Negro parents, like all parents, must create the next generation from strength, not from weakness; from health, not from despair."

Her attitude toward African-Americans can certainly be viewed as paternalistic, but there is no evidence she subscribed to the more racist ideas of the time or that she coerced black women into using birth control. In fact, for her time, as the Washington Post noted, "she would likely be considered to have advanced views on race relations."

Are most of Planned Parenthood's clinics in black neighborhoods?

In 2014, the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research center, surveyed all known abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood clinics, in the U.S. (nearly 2,000) and found that 60 percent are in majority-white neighborhoods.

Planned Parenthood has not released numbers on the neighborhoods of its specific clinics, but responding to a request for demographic information, the organization said that in 2013, 14 percent of its patients nationwide were black. That's nearly equal to the proportion of the African-American population in the U.S.



article here:

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolit ... population


:roll: 8)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:23 pm +0000
Posts: 641
NPR is pro-choice and liberal. Two thirds of Planned Parenthood Clinics are in black neighborhoods. We need to fact check the fact checkers.

Sanger was a stealthy racist, not a stupid racist. Abortions for black Americans and birth control for black Americans means fewer black Americans. An excellent result for a racist.


The Washington Post and the Guttmacher Institute are both liberal pro-choice sources.

Planned Parenthood has their own statistics of course.

Yes, facts really are obstacles to rhetoric and false assertions, and truth. And NPR survives on tax dollars (truth).


According to TUB, when is personality bestowed? Is it related to the beating of a heart? Is it related to muscle movement due to a functioning neurological system? Is it related to Human DNA replication in a human embryo? What of potentials and actuals?


When quoting statistics, tell me its source and I'll decide as to the bias it contains.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4079
Based on your own bias of course. So, liberals are the racists then? And although Margaret Sanger was anti-abortion herself but pro birth control (prevention vs. termination), and despite the fact that she spoke to and served far more whites than blacks, and despite her alliances with the Harlem League and the NAACP....you have determined she was a racist and an abortionist....when she was neither.

This is why there is a rule here about current politics....we all have a very different perspective on whose to blame for what and the political solution to social ills. Margaret was a champion of the collective human rights for all women - regardless of race or political affiliations. You have some facts to add to your claims?

From Wiki (another notorious liberal rag?):

In 2009, Planned Parenthood provided 4,009,549 contraceptive services, 3,955,926 sexually transmitted disease services, 1,830,811 cancer related services, 1,178,369 pregnancy/prenatal/midlife services, 332,278 abortion services, and 76,977 other services, for a total of 11,383,900 services.[11][41][44][45][46][47] Given that a single patient may receive multiple services, such as a pap smear and contraceptives, it is impossible given publicly available data to accurately determine what percentage each service comprises in the organization's total services.[8] The organization also said its doctors and nurses annually conduct 1 million screenings for cervical cancer, and 830,000 breast exams,[citation needed] which makes Planned Parenthood the largest U.S. provider of reproductive health services. 97 % of services focus on breast and cervical cancer screening, HIV screening and counseling, contraception, and 3% on abortion,[4][5][48][49] although these numbers have been challenged.[8] PPFA conducts roughly 300,000 abortions annually, among the 3 million people the organization serves.[9][50][11] Federal money is not used to fund abortion services.[12]

From Biography.com: http://www.biography.com/people/margaret-sanger-9471186

I look forward to you answering the questions posed regarding when is personality bestowed. A planet is not considered inhabited until all 7 Adjutants are engaged. We are without name until fusion. When is a fetus a person? Great question and I've never discovered the answer in TUB. You?

As to the topic generally - our world is far from the ideal in so many ways related to our jumbled mortal epochs. Is this the most important one(s) compared to family unit, women's domination by men, the spirit, etc.?

8)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:23 pm +0000
Posts: 641
fanofVan wrote:
Based on your own bias of course. So, liberals are the racists then? And although Margaret Sanger was anti-abortion herself but pro birth control (prevention vs. termination), and despite the fact that she spoke to and served far more whites than blacks, and despite her alliances with the Harlem League and the NAACP....you have determined she was a racist and an abortionist....when she was neither.


Everyone is a racist. She did not have the training to be an abortionist, but I do. I have never aborted a living fetus in my career as a gynecologist but I have had to suffer the forced delivery of fetal demises (babies that died in utero). It is a gruesome procedure despite the fact that the baby had already died prior. It is unthinkable for me to consider doing this on a healthy live baby.


fanofVan wrote:
Federal money is not used to fund abortion services.[12]


That is what we are told. My accountant knows how to legally shuffle money from one account to another. I am sure this never happens at PP. Otherwise, we are all subsidizing abortions. That would make us all abortionists by proxy.


fanofVan wrote:
This is why there is a rule here about current politics....we all have a very different perspective on whose to blame for what and the political solution to social ills. Margaret was a champion of the collective human rights for all women - regardless of race or political affiliations. You have some facts to add to your claims?


This is not politics, this is life. I accept that abortion is legal and that is not what I am discussing here. What would Jesus say? Render unto Cesar?

fanofVan wrote:
From Wiki (another notorious liberal rag?):


You've got it right there, minus the question mark.


fanofVan wrote:
PPFA conducts roughly 300,000 abortions annually, among the 3 million people the organization serves.


Far too many of these come to the attention of those like me when we deal with the consequences of botched abortions, post abortion infections, and infertility issues from these procedures. The abortionist does not follow these patients with complications, they are sent to the ER for another to handle and mop up the tragic mess.



fanofVan wrote:
When is a fetus a person? Great question and I've never discovered the answer in TUB. You?


No, Bradley, I have no answer to this in TUB. I am sure that if the answer were there you would have found it.

But I will tell you this. Gabriel told Mary she was with child not days after conception.

Would Gabriel had done this before this child had personhood? How does Gabriel identify a fetus without personality?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4079
We certainly agree we live in a world in need of great reform. We may not agree on the specifics or the priorities. But one critical priority should be the emancipation and equality of women for personal self determination and free will expression as full citizens with equal protection and standing under the law. And another should be the elevation of the family where political and economic policies serve this fundamental social unit rather than tear it apart.

As to Sanger, it was her experience with back alley and self induced abortions that provided motivation for the woman's ability for the predetermination of choosing to have children - unwanted pregnancies and politics of the day combined to create a gruesome set of choices at that time. Sex education and birth control were both crimes for which she was arrested. Birth control was/is considered a humanitarian "solution" to this tragic and horrific ultimate "option" in a brutal and primitive society that treats women as the property of men and the state.

Infanticide is still practiced today in some parts of the world, especially perpetrated on girl babies as boys still have higher "value" in some societies. I have noticed how frequently those opposed to abortion also oppose sex education and contraception - seems contradictory to me but......

I do not agree that "everyone is a racist" - which requires an unreasoned and uneducated hate or a personal sense of superiority over others by the fact of color - usually both. Everyone has prejudice based on personal experience and a white guy in America (like me) can never truly appreciate the black "experience" of racism. But I do admire the example of how those so abused and hated can still find love, forgiveness, forbearance, and the spirit in spite of their personal experience within such systemic racism, inequality, and even barbaric hate. The blacks, Jews, immigrants, gays, and all others who overcome hate to live in love and peace are a marvelous example; but more importantly, a critical and vital part of our heritage, culture, national/world character and our future. The oppressed may well be the greatest agondontors in time to come. We will overcome.......

8)

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies."

--- Groucho Marx

:wink:
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:28 am +0000
Posts: 52
A fetus is alive at consception.
If it were not there would be no need to kill it when aborted.
TUB readers likely have a different view of when it is a person based on what is revealed about personality.
Does planned parenthood abortionists ask the mother how she feels about the procedure? Any historic data?
My daughters experience was very traumatic emotionally because her morality was telling her it was wrong. I suspect hers was not unusual.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:15 pm +0000
Posts: 232
MannyC wrote:
fanofVan wrote:
When is a fetus a person? Great question and I've never discovered the answer in TUB. You?


No, Bradley, I have no answer to this in TUB. I am sure that if the answer were there you would have found it.

But I will tell you this. Gabriel told Mary she was with child not days after conception.

Would Gabriel had done this before this child had personhood? How does Gabriel identify a fetus without personality?

Good questions, but until the question "When is a fetus a person?" is resolved one might consider that even before conception, the union of the sperm and egg, these two components are considered to be alive, but to what extent? Even a body without consciousness is considered by some as being alive, or would that constitute as animal being, or lower form of life?
However there are some who believe that life could come at the first "breath of life." Where there are five instances in the UB where this is used, but the first three may be more prevalent to the question mentioned above.

Quote:
(313.3) 28:5.21 I assure you that all these transactions of the spirit world are real, that they take place in accordance with established usages and in harmony with the immutable laws of the universal domains. The beings of every newly created order, immediately upon receiving the breath of life, are instantly reflected on high; a living portrayal of the creature nature and potential is flashed to the superuniverse headquarters. Thus, by means of the discerners, are the Censors made fully cognizant of exactly “what manner of spirit” has been born on the worlds of space.

Quote:
(376.2) 34:2.5 In the creation of a universe of intelligent creatures the Creative Mother Spirit functions first in the sphere of universe perfection, collaborating with the Son in the production of the Bright and Morning Star. Subsequently the offspring of the Spirit increasingly approach the order of created beings on the planets, even as the Sons grade downward from the Melchizedeks to the Material Sons, who actually contact with the mortals of the realms. In the later evolution of mortal creatures the Life Carrier Sons provide the physical body, fabricated out of the existing organized material of the realm, while the Universe Spirit contributes the “breath of life.”

Quote:
(404.2) 36:6.4 When the Life Carriers have designed the patterns of life, after they have organized the energy systems, there must occur an additional phenomenon; the “breath of life” must be imparted to these lifeless forms. The Sons of God can construct the forms of life, but it is the Spirit of God who really contributes the vital spark. And when the life thus imparted is spent, then again the remaining material body becomes dead matter. When the bestowed life is exhausted, the body returns to the bosom of the material universe from which it was borrowed by the Life Carriers to serve as a transient vehicle for that life endowment which they conveyed to such a visible association of energy-matter.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 7
  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Board index » Main » Questions & Answers

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google Feedfetcher

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Switch to mobile style
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group