Your Religious Views on Abortion

[Black Razor]

Don't your views on abortion depend upon your religious view?

But then wouldn't the separation of church and state require that you

not try to make others live by your religion?

[Riverwind]

Don't your views on abortion depend upon your religious view?

But then wouldn't the separation of church and state require that you

not try to make others live by your religion?

Of course. Each woman should be free to decide whether they believe having an abortion violates their religious principals. Banning abortion is nothing more than an effort to impose a certain religious view on all citizens.

[Renegade]

Don't your views on abortion depend upon your religious view?

But then wouldn't the separation of church and state require that you

not try to make others live by your religion?

Yes it is true that your religious view will shape your view of abortion but it is not the only factor. Religious factors aside, abortion is also about conflicting rights. The fetus right to life (or even if it has rights at all) vs the woman's right to control her body. So the issue transcends a religious view, in the same what that you may have a religious view of robbery or murder, but yet expect the state to enforce laws around robbery or murder.

[geoffrey]

There are ethical non-religious oppositions to abortion that I've outlined in countless other threads on the topic. It's a sad reality that most of the pro-life movement uses religious reasoning, and for that, the pro-choicers will always have their way with things.

[Black Razor]

Don't your views on abortion depend upon your religious view?

But then wouldn't the separation of church and state require that you

not try to make others live by your religion?

Yes it is true that your religious view will shape your view of abortion but it is not the only factor. Religious factors aside, abortion is also about conflicting rights. The fetus right to life (or even if it has rights at all) vs the woman's right to control her body. So the issue transcends a religious view, in the same what that you may have a religious view of robbery or murder, but yet expect the state to enforce laws around robbery or murder.

What you say is interesting, we should watch this program on the 23th this should be very good http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ScUKhmD7c8.

What do you think?

[Riverwind]

There are ethical non-religious oppositions to abortion that I've outlined in countless other threads on the topic.

The trouble is for every 'ethical' arguement there is an equally valid counter argument. Whenever a person has to choose between those arguments they often are forced to use the religious principals that are the basis for their system of ethics.

[fellowtraveller]

There are ethical non-religious oppositions to abortion that I've outlined in countless other threads on the topic. It's a sad reality that most of the pro-life movement uses religious reasoning, and for that, the pro-choicers will always have their way with things.

'Have their way with things' implies a rigidity that is only found in the anti-abortion side. The prochoice side allows a woman to go either way with reproductive choice, and respects that choice.

[Renegade]

we should watch this program on the 23th this should be very good http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ScUKhmD7c8.

What do you think?

While the program may be interesting, it is unlikely to reveal any new insights on abortion. It is more about human nature in how humans with opposite views will be able to get along.

[Black Razor]

we should watch this program on the 23th this should be very good http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ScUKhmD7c8.

What do you think?

While the program may be interesting, it is unlikely to reveal any new insights on abortion. It is more about human nature in how humans with opposite views will be able to get along.

Yeah your absolutely right! It was aired earlier and this show was good and inspirational to watch.

[Shady]

Don't your views on abortion depend upon your religious view?

Absolutely not. My views on abortion are purely scientific. These days, only a neanderthal ignores the facts of fetal development.

Day 6: embryo begins implantation in the uterus.

Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mothers’.

Week 3: By the end of third week the child’s backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.

Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop.

Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.

Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming.

Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.

Weeks 9 and 10: Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop. The baby can turn his head, and frown. The baby can hiccup.

Weeks 10 and 11: The baby can “breathe” amniotic fluid and urinate. Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning. The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.

To not see abortion as the destruction of human life, out of 99% convenience rather then necessity is appalling. It's my opinion that history will look back on the abortion years similar to that of the period of slavery in America, when African-American's were said to be two-thirds of a human being. This is not just a "clump of cells". It's a living, breathing, human being, in early development.

[Riverwind]

It's my opinion that history will look back on the abortion years similar to that of the period of slavery in America

In my opinion history will look back on these years of religious fanatics opposing abortion much like history views the Salam Witch Trials.

This is not just a "clump of cells". It's a living, breathing, human being, in early development.

Fetus cannot survive outside of its mother's body - just like her kidney, liver or other internal organ. Only a relgious zealot could possibly describe a clump of cells as a human being.

[Shady]

In my opinion history will look back on these years of religious fanatics opposing abortion much like history views the Salam Witch Trials.

Actually, your comparison is more apt for my argument. In both situations, innocent human life is being terminated.

Fetus cannot survive outside of its mother's body - just like her kidney, liver or other internal organ. Only a relgious zealot could possibly describe a clump of cells as a human being

So what? A new born baby can't survive on it's own either. And it's sad that you had to bring up religion. I didn't reference religion once in my argument. I'm not religious, I don't go to church. My opposition to abortion is based on science. Don't continue to live in the darkages. Stop ignoring scientific facts (ie. Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, Week 6: Brain waves are detectable).

[Renegade]

So what? A new born baby can't survive on it's own either. And it's sad that you had to bring up religion. I didn't reference religion once in my argument. I'm not religious, I don't go to church. My opposition to abortion is based on science. Don't continue to live in the darkages. Stop ignoring scientific facts (ie. Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, Week 6: Brain waves are detectable).

What you do ignore in your argument it the rights of the woman. By what justification do you propose that society should force her to host a fetus, against her will (btw, risking her life and health in the process)?

[Riverwind]

I didn't reference religion once in my argument. I'm not religious, I don't go to church. My opposition to abortion is based on science.

No it isn't. Your entire argument is based on the premise that something that looks like a human must be a human. That is a religious argument - not a science based argument. Furthermore, even if I accept that your argument is science based it is easy refute by pointing about that biologically speaking a fetus cannot survive as an independent living creature outside of its mother until at least 30 weeks. From a scientific perspective a mass of tissue that dies immediately when separated from its host is not a living creature.

On another thread I posted a more complete explanation why I think a fetus is not human even if it apparently has some human attributes.

[ClearWest]

A Fetus is a Homo Sapien in the early stages of development. It doesn't matter whether it 'looks like a human'. It is a human, genetically speaking. And abortion kills it.

Murder is only 'allowed' in our society when it is in self-defense. I think Abortion should be the same way. If the mother's life and/or mental/physical health is at risk, then abortion should be an option for the mother. Or in the case of rape where it was never the mother's decision to get pregnant. But it should not be an "On Demand" thing where you can make a stupid decision, conceive, and then have to kill a fetus.

The funny thing is that the people on the left will defend the lives of baby chicks being slaughtered by McDonalds, but they won't stand up when their own species is killing itself.

[Riverwind]

Or in the case of rape where it was never the mother's decision to get married.

A mother cannot kill a 1 year baby because it was the child of rape or incest. Making an exception in this case simply proves that you believe that a fetus is not a 'true' human despite your earlier comments.

But it should not be an "On Demand" thing where you can make a stupid decision, conceive, and then have to kill a fetus.

Are you willing to pay the cost of raising other people's unwanted children through taxes or would you prefer to pay for the criminal system necessary to protect you from what they have to do to survive.

A woman who cannot care for a child is being a responsible individual if she chooses to get an abortion. People who seek to prevent her from making that choice are the irresponsible hypocrites because they usually do not volunteer to raise the child for the woman.

The funny thing is that the people on the left will defend the lives of baby chicks being slaughtered by McDonalds, but they won't stand up when their own species is killing itself.

The same hypocrisy exists with people on the right who justify preemptive wars that kill thousands of innocents but claim that they are protecting the sanctity of life by opposing abortion.

[ClearWest]

Or in the case of rape where it was never the mother's decision to get pregnant.

A mother cannot kill a 1 year baby because it was the child of rape or incest.

True, but I think that if the mother waited that long then they probably decided to keep the baby.

Making an exception in this case simply proves that you believe that a fetus is not a 'true' human despite your earlier comments.

Very interesting point. I certainly haven't changed my mind that a fetus is a human, but I think it is appropriate to make an exception in the case where the woman may have been victimized, and she should have the option of not having to live with the consequences of someone else's actions.

But should there be a time frame in which the mother gets a chance to opt-out of the pregnancy in the circumstances of rape? It's such a touchy issue that I don't think we should ban abortion, but we should certainly discourage it, just as much as we discourage the slaughtering of helpless baby chicks, and the slaughtering of civillians in a war situation.

A woman who cannot care for a child is being a responsible individual if she chooses to get an abortion. People who seek to prevent her from making that choice are the irresponsible hypocrites because they usually do not volunteer to raise the child for the woman.

Adoption is another option. (Hey, that rhymes)

The funny thing is that the people on the left will defend the lives of baby chicks being slaughtered by McDonalds, but they won't stand up when their own species is killing itself.

The same hypocrisy exists with people on the right who justify preemptive wars that kill thousands of innocents but claim that they are protecting the sanctity of life by opposing abortion.

I agree with you here, and I do not support war.

[Riverwind]

Adoption is another option. (Hey, that rhymes)

Depends. Do you want to have definition of justified murder that depends on the socio-economic state of society. We live in a wealthy society where there are more willing parents than healthy children. Other societies are not so well off. Would abortion be justified in a society where there are no other people willing to adopt a child? Would abortion be justified for fetuses with severe disabilities because all of the possible adoptive parents are looking for healthy children?

Seems to me that it makes more sense to use independent biological viability as the definition of life - when a fetus can survive in the care of another person then it is a human worthy of protection. If can only 'live' within a womb of the mother that created it then it is no different from a clump of cells or, at best, a non-human primate or other animal.

[myata]

Hi Everyone,

I'll venture to contribute some of my hopefully fresh ideas to this highly entertaining topic. First of all I find it very cool that someone wise is finding time and strength of spirit to be concerned with, and provide their valuable advice as to what some of us should do with their bodies. That insightful investigation can without doubt be extended to other promising areas, such as: passing air; baldness; washing habits; bodily odours and smells; to name only a few.

I also agree that abortion represents a formidable challenge. People of this age happened to pick up some wrong ideas, and the old and proven adage "my God told me so and I'm their profet here, so shut up and do it my way or else" is showing certain signs of stress. Notions of gender equality, independence and even "reproductive freedom" are flying around. Time calls for new and fresh solutions.

Which can be found in the revolutionary concept of "corpuscular democracy" (from corpus (lat) body, the term is mine - feel free to use or modify, spelling included; I think I just invented it but any references to the previous work in the field will be highly appreciated).

In most basic terms, corpuscular (or bodily in plain language) democracy means that a body (yours, mine, everybody's, pun not intended) becomes a subject of the public domain and can be discussed, investigated or even modified on public's behalf, as long as the due process is followed and the principles of democracy are observed (i.e. not unlike e.g. a public consultation to reconstruct a building).

How's it going to help with our problem? Here's the hitch: we should hold a referendum and have corpuscular democracy enshrined in the Constitution; of course we should never reveal our true intent, rather cite some acute current issue as the rationale, e.g. obesity epidemics comes to mind (my personal favourite - imagine, nine months of mandatory daily weight loss stress exercise followed by surgical removal of excess material if necessary - but I'm digressing). If you think it'll never work, especially with females, think again! How many would refuse a right to (vote to) have their foe's nose extended / legs shortened / other unfair advantages removed? With their support, we may just be able to pull it through!

And the abortion? Once population is used to living in a corpuscular democracy, it'll be a piece of cake. After all, only a tiny minority of us would have ever used it, and after having a couple of extra limbs attached (or removed / modified) no one's going to make fuss about having to carry a few pounds of weight around for a few months.

[Black Dog]

So what? A new born baby can't survive on it's own either

That's not what he said. He said a fetus cannot survive outside its mother's body.

My opposition to abortion is based on science. Don't continue to live in the darkages. Stop ignoring scientific facts (ie. Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, Week 6: Brain waves are detectable).

So? (Oh and your "brain wave" claim is wrong: the cerebral cortex doesn't start firing until around 26 or 27 weeks in.) None of that changes the fact the the fetus is still wholly dependent on the mother, making it essentially a part of her body.

[sharkman]

Getting back to the topic of religious views on abortion, let's ask why it became a reality. Roe v Wade happened in '72. What was happening in the preceding years or decades that led up to this decision? "Free Love", that's what. A decade or so of sex without 'moral' restrictions and now what do we do with all the kids is the problem. Kids having kids, not ready for the responsibility, too hopped up on pot or booze or whatever, but were they sure ready for lovin'.

Every action has a result and it just so happens that when you have sex, you might be making a baby. Instead of realizing what a mistake that generation was making and correcting it, they sued for the right to suck the life out of the womb. So typical in the age of the gland and the year of the pill.

Reminds me of cigarette smoking. Getting yellow teeth and health problems? Don't stop, just buy smokers toothpaste and sue the manufacturers for your stupid decision to suck on a cancer stick.

[geoffrey]

There are ethical non-religious oppositions to abortion that I've outlined in countless other threads on the topic.

The trouble is for every 'ethical' arguement there is an equally valid counter argument. Whenever a person has to choose between those arguments they often are forced to use the religious principals that are the basis for their system of ethics.

True, it's tough not to do, and it happens equally on both sides. I'll stick to my ethics though and not impose my religious views on others. That's why I wouldn't call myself a strict pro-lifer, but near that.

Fetus cannot survive outside of its mother's body - just like her kidney, liver or other internal organ. Only a relgious zealot could possibly describe a clump of cells as a human being.

Weak argument IMO. A baby can't survive without care until at least a few years old. Are they far game because they are just a burden on the mother?

[Riverwind]

Weak argument IMO. A baby can't survive without care until at least a few years old. Are they far game because they are just a burden on the mother?

A red herring - a baby can be cared for by any adult and would take a fair amount time to starve to death. A 3 month old fetus would die almost immediately after being removed from the mother. That is why there is a huge biological difference between a baby and a fetus.

[Charles Anthony]

In most basic terms, corpuscular (or bodily in plain language) democracy means that a body (yours, mine, everybody's, pun not intended) becomes a subject of the public domain

Sounds Shakespearian: "To be or not to be." What was the question???

These arbitrary reasonings that involve "survivability" as a criteria are missing the point. It is a question of rights in the same way as you should have the right to commit suicide regardless of whether you are doing something good or not. Similarly, you should have the right to eat like a pig and die of heart disease. Determining a "survivability" criteria with respect to abortion requires a faith in irrelevant principles in the same as a religion can.

[Black Dog]

Weak argument IMO. A baby can't survive without care until at least a few years old. Are they far game because they are just a burden on the mother?

Again: the point is the fetus is biologically dependent on the mother. Once its borne, that is no longer the case. Yes, it still requres care, but that can be provided by just about anyone.

Getting back to the topic of religious views on abortion, let's ask why it became a reality. Roe v Wade happened in '72. What was happening in the preceding years or decades that led up to this decision? "Free Love", that's what. A decade or so of sex without 'moral' restrictions and now what do we do with all the kids is the problem. Kids having kids, not ready for the responsibility, too hopped up on pot or booze or whatever, but were they sure ready for lovin'.

Every action has a result and it just so happens that when you have sex, you might be making a baby. Instead of realizing what a mistake that generation was making and correcting it, they sued for the right to suck the life out of the womb. So typical in the age of the gland and the year of the pill.

Reminds me of cigarette smoking. Getting yellow teeth and health problems? Don't stop, just buy smokers toothpaste and sue the manufacturers for your stupid decision to suck on a cancer stick.

Abortion goes back way further than the '60s. You can trace abortion back to the time when people started having babies. As I've said before:

Most species of animals, including humans, have some means of controlling their reproductive destiny. Rabbits can sponteneously abort entire litters during times of depravation. Other animals simply eat their young. Humans throughout history have used infanticide as a means of controlling the population: compared to drowning a living, breathing infant, removing a collection of unformed tissue seems positively humane.