Abortion Views

[leechy]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So if I understand you correctly, the only thing keeping you from performing abortions is the same thing that kept me from being a podiatrist, namely the "gross out" factor. In other words, neither nasty, disgusting feet nor nasty, goopy products of conception carry any moral baggage whatsoever and your objection to abortion are the same as my objection to treating ingrown toenails.

Hey Panda, I actually would be willing to perform abortions if I decided to become an OB/GYN doc, but I doubt I'll be entering that specialty for totally unrelated reasons (less interested in that field than in others, lifestyle, etc). I was just speaking for others when I said that you could find something disgusting but not immoral.

On another topic, when do the products of conception actually become "morally equivalent" to a person? Isn't this the 64 thousand dollar question? Would you draw the line at the so-called "partial birth" abortions and if so why? Maybe we should draw the line at 24 weeks gestational age when a fetus can survive (albeit with a lot of medical support) outside the womb.

I find that a lot of the so-called "eloquent" debate about abortion is merely sophistry and an attempt to muddy the waters. Adoption, unhappy children, woman's reproductive rights and the whole cargo of mud are irrelevant until the fundamental issue of the "moral equivalence to a person" of a fetus is resolved.

I agree with you here. This is a fundamental question. I don't think the line should be drawn at the age when a fetus can survive outside the womb, since this is an arbitrary consequence of the state of our medical technology. Like you, I'm not entirely sure where the line should be drawn either, but I don't think the entire path from conception to birth is one big gray area. Zygotes and early stage fetuses (perhaps even mid-stage fetuses) don't have human consciousness/awareness. The ones with rudimentary nervous systems may have brain waves, and may experience pain, but so do animals. When do those uniquely human features of consciousness develop? Until then, I think killing a fetus cannot be logically distinguished from killing an animal.

If a person believes that the products of conception are just tissue he might as well just say so. This gives him a firm, intellectually consistent position from which to argue without forcing him to come up with a zany formula where a fetus is only 3/5 of a person until, say, 32 weeks gestational age at which point it crosses the 7/8 mark becoming morally equivalent enough where it is a crime and a forty dollar fine in Arkansas to kill it.

Like I said before, you can believe a fetus is not "just tissue" and yet not a person, either. I believe many animals fit this criteria. Fractional personhood is actually manifest around us. Chimps aren't full persons under the law, but they are well on the way towards resembling human children in consciousness, ability to reason and communicate. It would be difficult (on secular grounds) to grant a human zygote rights that we would not grant to chimp zygotes.

For my part, as a religious man who believes in the God, the soul, Satan, heaven, and hell I confess that I don't know when a fetus becomes a person. All I know is that somewhere between conception and birth it becomes a child and because it is impossible to know when God breathes a soul into a child I am not willing to guess wrong.

If you don't believe in God that's all right too. Just say so.

Too complex to get into my views on souls/god/religion here, but suffice to say I think we need to rely on secular arguments when legislating.

Also, you say ensoulment happens somewhere between birth and conception. Couldn't it possibly happen after birth, too? There are some religions / cultures in which a baby is not considered a person until its naming ceremony, a week or two, sometimes months after birth. We don't (and can't) know if those religions are wrong. Just to broaden that aspect a bit.

 

[logos]

To all the people who are going to be interviewed or have interviewed: What do you think about abortion and what are you views on it?

As far as most interviewers go, all they really want to see is that you understand the arguments levied by both sides and that abortion is a complex multifaceted issue. There is a very good chance you can avoid giving away your position on the issure at all.

 

[fourthyearmed]

I remember being asked about abortion when I interviewed 4 years ago. I don't remember exactly what I said but I realize now that I have become much more conservative in my views on abortion than I was at that time. I guess maybe now because I understand the procedure more clearly. I still support the right of abortion in cases of rape and danger to the mother's health but otherwise don't like it being used a "birth control". It just seems wrong to force a women to carry a child that is a reminder of such a horrible experience as rape. I personally think that we should make the morning after pill more widely available and eliminate the need for abortion. If we prevent the pregnancy before it ever takes place then there's no need for abortion.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I know people who still haven't gotten over the baby they aborted 20+ years ago. It's really sad. You know how they have little support networks for people with breast cancer? They should have people who had abortions talk to women contemplating abortions. It might give women a better idea of what they are doing. My previous post was just pointing out that many women don't have any regrets and think having the abortion is the best thing they ever did. People might be offended if you suggest counseling 😛

there are support groups for this, and I know there are people who go around to schools, etc that talk about their experiences. also some of these people become social workers or other related fields and do talk to patients about their experiences.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Thank you Panda Bear. I am sickened by the thought that the law could force you to refer a woman to a willing baby-killer. This really works against my consience. Good to know that we have not yet descended to that level.

I also agree!! Glad to hear there are many others!

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Let me gently suggest that occasionally it is acceptable to impose your religious beliefs on others. Certainly whether the unwashed armies of the unconverted eat meat on Friday is of little concern to me. And I'm leery of trying to legislate anything done by consenting adults behind closed doors. But for the big moral issues, if you aren't willing to champion your faith then why bother holding it?

In other words, since Islam is against abortion, if your going to be a Moslem then even if you occasionally enjoy a pork BBQ sandwhich you should at least be Moslem enough to push your beliefs on abortion (peacefully) on other people. As a pro-life physician this should involve at a minimum opting out of any involvement with elective abortion, even encouragement or "non-judgementalism."

Come to think of it, people who insist that a pro-life doctor refer them for an abortion are actually trying to push their moral beliefs on the doctor.
If you really believe in an absolute God who holds man to an absolute standard of morality, then to say, "It's wrong for me but OK for you" is a contradiction." See my point? If you're more afraid of offending your friends then offending your diety I suggest that your religious beliefs are more a form of personal morality than religion.

👍 👍 👍 you're awesome Panda Bear!

 

[QofQuimica]

It is interesting that someone brought up the analogy of plastic surgery with abortion. That is actually a very good analogy (though not perfect, since a late-term abortion in particular affects a second person), and it describes my views aptly. I am strongly opposed to both elective abortions AND elective plastic surgery, on the grounds that they do nothing to promote the health of the patient, and like all medical procedures, they come with a set of serious health risks of their own. There are situations where either type of procedure might be appropriate if the patient actually NEEDS the procedure (as decided by her doctor), as has already been discussed, but if the doctor decides that the procedure is unwarranted, s/he ought not help the patient obtain a procedure that goes against that doctor's judgment of what is in the patient's best interest!

The question of when to consider a fetus a person is also a difficult one. I am inclined to agree that it is best to err on the side of caution and not abort unless absolutely necessary to save the mother's life. There is some wiggle room about how to define this, if we include such factors as the risk of her committing suicide (thereby killing the fetus as well). I believe that some victims of rape would fall into that category, and therefore legitimately need an abortion. Others might not. So rape victims (and also mentally ill patients) would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case evaluation.

I have concluded that I would actively attempt to dissuade any patient whom I believed did not need an abortion from having one. Ditto on the plastic surgery. If she insisted on having the abortion or plastic surgery anyway, I certainly couldn't stop her, but I don't have to aid and abet her, either. I believe that moral suasion is the only appropriate way to convince women not to have elective abortions, however, so if my best attempts to do so failed, I would have to advise her that I could not in good conscience perform the procedure.

 

[8744]

It is interesting that someone brought up the analogy of plastic surgery with abortion. That is actually a very good analogy (though not perfect, since a late-term abortion in particular affects a second person), and it describes my views aptly. I am strongly opposed to both elective abortions AND elective plastic surgery, on the grounds that they do nothing to promote the health of the patient, and like all medical procedures, they come with a set of serious health risks of their own. There are situations where either type of procedure might be appropriate if the patient actually NEEDS the procedure (as decided by her doctor), as has already been discussed, but if the doctor decides that the procedure is unwarranted, s/he ought not help the patient obtain a procedure that goes against that doctor's judgment of what is in the patient's best interest!

The question of when to consider a fetus a person is also a difficult one. I am inclined to agree that it is best to err on the side of caution and not abort unless absolutely necessary to save the mother's life. There is some wiggle room about how to define this, if we include such factors as the risk of her committing suicide (thereby killing the fetus as well). I believe that some victims of rape would fall into that category, and therefore legitimately need an abortion. Others might not. So rape victims (and also mentally ill patients) would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case evaluation.

I have concluded that I would actively attempt to dissuade any patient whom I believed did not need an abortion from having one. Ditto on the plastic surgery. If she insisted on having the abortion or plastic surgery anyway, I certainly couldn't stop her, but I don't have to aid and abet her, either. I believe that moral suasion is the only appropriate way to convince women not to have elective abortions, however, so if my best attempts to do so failed, I would have to advise her that I could not in good conscience perform the procedure.

That's all I'm saying. Pro-life physicians do not have to take any part in elective abortion. Period.

I also appreciate the general civil tone of this thread, especially Leechy who is obviously pro-choice but willing to discuss the topic reasonably.

I just want to tackle another "distractor" in the abortion debate, namely the idea that abortion is justified because an unwanted baby may be born into abusive or non-optimal situation where he would have been better not to have been born at all. The close corallary of this idea is the notion that we will all pay a price in social pathology for every baby born into poverty and neglect.

On the face of it, this seems reasonable if somewhat cold-blooded. But let's turn it around and see how we can use the principle of reductio ad absurdum to show the weakness of this argument.

If potential for neglect and abuse is a valid reason for abortion, why limit ourselves to unwanted pregnancies? Presumably, even babies who are planned or wanted by the parents are also occasionally abused and neglected. Since we have no way of knowing except by applying broad generalizations to demographic groups (crack mothers, for example) which children will suffer, wouldn't it be prudent to counsel all mothers to abort their babies? This way we would avoid future child abuse.

See my point? If preventing future child neglect is a rational for abortion, it should apply to all pregnancies. This of course is absurd.

I would also add that it has been my limited experience that poor, uneducated, single, minority woman of the kind who are reputadly at a high risk for neglecting their children usually want to keep their babies while the daughters of the educated middle class who would presumably make good parents are the ones who view thier pregnancies as an inconvenience.

 

[Brain]

I remember being asked about abortion when I interviewed 4 years ago. I don't remember exactly what I said but I realize now that I have become much more conservative in my views on abortion than I was at that time. I guess maybe now because I understand the procedure more clearly. I still support the right of abortion in cases of rape and danger to the mother's health but otherwise don't like it being used a "birth control". It just seems wrong to force a women to carry a child that is a reminder of such a horrible experience as rape. I personally think that we should make the morning after pill more widely available and eliminate the need for abortion. If we prevent the pregnancy before it ever takes place then there's no need for abortion.

I agree in part with statement. Abortion should not be used as birth control. However, a sizable portion of women who undergo abortions were using birth control. These women were acting responsibly. Pregnancy is not a pleasant experience. It should not be forced upon anyone that does not wish to have it. Unfortunately, there is no perfect form of birth control short of sterilization (and do not dare say abstinence because people are going to have sex). Until we have a have an affordable, 100% effective, reversible form of birth control abortion will continue to need to be offered. Anyone know what the leading cause of death among pregnant women was before Roe vs Wade? That's right, illegal abortion.

Also, for those of you who say women will have aweful feelings after having an abortion, that is not at all true. Most women do not regret their abortions. Most of the very few women that do have symptoms of depression had these symptoms BEFORE their abortions. A women is more likely to be injured or experiece depressive symptoms after giving birth than after an abortion. Read some articles on this topic that were published by real scientists.

 

[leechy]

That's all I'm saying. Pro-life physicians do not have to take any part in elective abortion. Period.

I also appreciate the general civil tone of this thread, especially Leechy who is obviously pro-choice but willing to discuss the topic reasonably.

Thanks so much Panda! 🙂 I feel the same way about the way you've been discussing the topic. Reassuring to know people of both sides can discuss controversial issues with civility. 👍 I also do agree with some aspects of your argument, pro-choice though I am.

[/QofQuimica]
I am strongly opposed to both elective abortions AND elective plastic surgery, on the grounds that they do nothing to promote the health of the patient, and like all medical procedures, they come with a set of serious health risks of their own. [/QUOTE]
Interesting viewpoint. I admire your consistency, though obviously I have a different viewpoint about both types of procedures and how they may promote patient health. I'm curious to know how you feel about prescribing "lifestyle" drugs that are of debatable health benefit, and that carry side effects, such as Viagra, antipsychotics for ADD, etc?

In any case, I wanted to elaborate a bit more on this idea that I jestingly called "fractional personhood", but by which I am essentially referring to the idea that living beings can occupy moral statuses that make them neither equivalent to insensate clumps of tissue, nor full persons whom it is "murder" to kill. I've seen a tendency in pro-life arguments to strictly dichotomize the situation: either abortion is no different from clipping your nails, OR it is murder. Either abortion should elicit no more emotional response than having a mole removed, or if it elicits any emotion, it's because it's really equivalent to murder.

Let's look at a scenario that plays out regularly. Cops rescue a starving dog from a negligent owner. Why do they bother doing it? Humans don't need that particular dog (there are enough to go around already). Something about that dog's moral status - its capacity for suffering, its awareness of its surroundings, perhaps other criteria - makes it "bad" to starve it. Not as bad as starving a person, perhaps, but still worse and different from failing to water a plant. Let's say they take it to the SPCA, and find that it displays aggressive behavior that would make it unsuitable for adoption. The SPCA staff decide they have to euthanize it. They feel sad about it, they may wish circumstances were different, they may hope it doesn't happen often, but at the same time, they do not feel they are committing murder, and they are not forever haunted by guilt.

I am not claiming abortion can be mapped onto this scenario with a one-to-one correspondence, but I am using this example to show that living beings can logically occupy a moral status in between a rock and a full person. Secondly, this example demonstrates that you can logically have an emotional response to the deliberate ending of a life, but still not feel that murder occurred.

I know that much of the pro-life argument ultimately comes from some forms of theology, and I greatly respect those views, and the rights of physicians with those views to have no involvement with abortion. I'm just referring to the fact that those with different beliefs can reasonably come to different viewpoints about the matter.

 

[carinaluna]

If a woman came to me requesting an abortion:
If a woman requested an abortion, there would be a couple of things that I would note. First would be the reason behind her wanting an abortion I would listen to her. I would also see if there was something injust that could have happened to the woman such as rape or molestation. No matter what I would send the woman to a provider who does abortions, I would also suggest counseling to the woman to not only educate her about abortions but also to make sure of any incident that might have been damaging to the woman herself. -Side not do you think that our interview will want this kind of answer or do they want this but much more simplified, like take her to a healthcare providerthat performs abortions and make sure she is counseled on exactly what an abortion entails 😎 ?

 

[mcjay]

Life is... life. Your opinion should be based on when life originates and what sitituations merit abortion. Aren't making choices that are indefinable at this point obligatory? 👍

Check out the stats in Cuba according to MTV and 2 others; are they real?

 

[QofQuimica]

Interesting viewpoint. I admire your consistency, though obviously I have a different viewpoint about both types of procedures and how they may promote patient health. I'm curious to know how you feel about prescribing "lifestyle" drugs that are of debatable health benefit, and that carry side effects, such as Viagra, antipsychotics for ADD, etc?

I would say that those drugs are way over-prescribed. Some men legitimately need drugs like Viagra for physical reasons, and should receive the drug if they do not have any contraindications. Others are taking it in hope that it will somehow improve their sexual experience, even though they do not have erectile dysfunction. I would disagree with prescribing Viagra in the latter case. ADD is a more complicated issue because there is legitimate disagreement about what the disorder actually entails. I would say that if a patient had severe enough psychological problems of any type that affect his/her ability to function normally (go to school, hold a job, etc.) then some sort of medication would be in order.

In any case, I wanted to elaborate a bit more on this idea that I jestingly called "fractional personhood", but by which I am essentially referring to the idea that living beings can occupy moral statuses that make them neither equivalent to insensate clumps of tissue, nor full persons whom it is "murder" to kill. I've seen a tendency in pro-life arguments to strictly dichotomize the situation: either abortion is no different from clipping your nails, OR it is murder. Either abortion should elicit no more emotional response than having a mole removed, or if it elicits any emotion, it's because it's really equivalent to murder.

I agree with you here. People on both sides of the debate tend to portray abortion as an either-or scenario, and I think we all can agree that it is a very complicated issue, the antithesis of either-or. Your dog example is a good one.

I know that much of the pro-life argument ultimately comes from some forms of theology, and I greatly respect those views, and the rights of physicians with those views to have no involvement with abortion. I'm just referring to the fact that those with different beliefs can reasonably come to different viewpoints about the matter.

Assuming you'd call my views "pro-life" (which I consider them to be, although I'm not sure they actually are in normal usage, since I do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned or abortion outlawed altogether), I'm the exception that proves your rule. I've been an open atheist for over a decade now. I never was a Christian at any point in my life. As a teenager, I called myself a deist once I learned the word. 😉

 

[vhawk]

Ok, this is kind of a different side of the issue, but it is something that has been brought up and that I have always been confused by. How can one person say abortion is wrong and immoral and bad....except in cases of rape or incest? Obviously these are very tragic and terrible things to have happen, but it seems to me that these people are saying that it is tacky to have an abortion to correct a mistake you made, but if it wasnt your mistake and you were forced it is ok. If you honestly believe that abortion is killing a human, can it honestly matter if you were raped or not?

Also, I am confused by people who hold signs and picket places with slogans like "Abortion is murder." Now, I am personally pro-choice, just so I get that out there and you can judge what I am saying with that in mind, but does anyone actually believe that abortion is murder? As in Abortion = Murder, Abortion/Murder = 1, they are identical and actually the same thing? I have a hard time with this. If someone told me that a guy was down the street shooting kids, just pulling them in about 10 a week and shooting them, and the law was looking the other way and saying it was ok, I would like to think I would do everything I could to prevent it from continuing. I hardly think I would hold up signs and march in front of his house. So, my conclusion is that either people dont REALLY think that abortion = murder (maybe something that is immoral and should be illegal, but certainly not a mass slaughter of children) or these sign-holders are more afraid of the possible legal consequences of action than they are with saving the lives of countless innocent children? Obviously this is inflammatory, and the typing of someone who is very tired, but it seems to me a contradictory and inconsistent belief.

 

[sohana]

If a woman came to me requesting an abortion:
If a woman requested an abortion, there would be a couple of things that I would note. First would be the reason behind her wanting an abortion I would listen to her. I would also see if there was something injust that could have happened to the woman such as rape or molestation. No matter what I would send the woman to a provider who does abortions, I would also suggest counseling to the woman to not only educate her about abortions but also to make sure of any incident that might have been damaging to the woman herself. -Side not do you think that our interview will want this kind of answer or do they want this but much more simplified, like take her to a healthcare providerthat performs abortions and make sure she is counseled on exactly what an abortion entails 😎 ?

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT TOUCHES THE HEART
10/10 TO THIS POST

 

[8744]

Ok, this is kind of a different side of the issue, but it is something that has been brought up and that I have always been confused by. How can one person say abortion is wrong and immoral and bad....except in cases of rape or incest? Obviously these are very tragic and terrible things to have happen, but it seems to me that these people are saying that it is tacky to have an abortion to correct a mistake you made, but if it wasnt your mistake and you were forced it is ok. If you honestly believe that abortion is killing a human, can it honestly matter if you were raped or not?

Also, I am confused by people who hold signs and picket places with slogans like "Abortion is murder." Now, I am personally pro-choice, just so I get that out there and you can judge what I am saying with that in mind, but does anyone actually believe that abortion is murder? As in Abortion = Murder, Abortion/Murder = 1, they are identical and actually the same thing? I have a hard time with this. If someone told me that a guy was down the street shooting kids, just pulling them in about 10 a week and shooting them, and the law was looking the other way and saying it was ok, I would like to think I would do everything I could to prevent it from continuing. I hardly think I would hold up signs and march in front of his house. So, my conclusion is that either people dont REALLY think that abortion = murder (maybe something that is immoral and should be illegal, but certainly not a mass slaughter of children) or these sign-holders are more afraid of the possible legal consequences of action than they are with saving the lives of countless innocent children? Obviously this is inflammatory, and the typing of someone who is very tired, but it seems to me a contradictory and inconsistent belief.

I do believe that abortion is murder. That's why I'm opposed to it. If I thought it was only a medical procedure or at worst the equivalent of euthanizing a stray dog (a practice which saddens me but which I do not oppose) It wouldn't be such a big issue.

I am, by the way, opposed to all elective abortions even in the case of rape and incest. This is the only intellectually consistent position for someone who is pro-life for religious reasons.

 

[sohana]

I do believe that abortion is murder. That's why I'm opposed to it. If I thought it was only a medical procedure or at worst the equivalent of euthanizing a stray dog (a practice which saddens me but which I do not oppose) It wouldn't be such a big issue.

I am, by the way, opposed to all elective abortions even in the case of rape and incest. This is the only intellectually consistent position for someone who is pro-life for religious reasons.

u r going to rape again by giving such views

 

[medstyle]

I don't get how another person's body is your business. If you're against abortion, that's cool, but how does someone's decision effect anyone else in any physical way? It doesn't, so that's why i am pro choice.

People should mind their own business, simply put.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I do believe that abortion is murder. That's why I'm opposed to it. If I thought it was only a medical procedure or at worst the equivalent of euthanizing a stray dog (a practice which saddens me but which I do not oppose) It wouldn't be such a big issue.

I am, by the way, opposed to all elective abortions even in the case of rape and incest. This is the only intellectually consistent position for someone who is pro-life for religious reasons.

i agree. The only reason to possibly warrant an abortion is if the pregnancy would jeopardize the life of the mother..and then I still think it needs to be evaluated and analyzed and certainly prayed about.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I don't get how another person's body is your business. If you're against abortion, that's cool, but how does someone's decision effect anyone else in any physical way? It doesn't, so that's why i am pro choice.

People should mind their own business, simply put.

performing the abortion as a physician or giving the patient the means of the abortion does not make the physician accountable or an accessory to murder (if he believe abortion to be murder)? well that's news to me. I personally could not be involved in any way to ending a new life that is not endangering the mother whether it is my body or not..therefore it IS my business and I have every right to refuse to perform it.

 

[Geronimo]

Ok, this is kind of a different side of the issue, but it is something that has been brought up and that I have always been confused by. How can one person say abortion is wrong and immoral and bad....except in cases of rape or incest? Obviously these are very tragic and terrible things to have happen, but it seems to me that these people are saying that it is tacky to have an abortion to correct a mistake you made, but if it wasn’t your mistake and you were forced it is ok. If you honestly believe that abortion is killing a human, can it honestly matter if you were raped or not?

I agree that people who see abortion as okay in some situations are contradictory and inconsistent. Why would you punish the embryo and mother for something that some other man did? You can't correct one wrong with another (as in capital punishment).

Also, I am confused by people who hold signs and picket places with slogans like "Abortion is murder." Now, I am personally pro-choice, just so I get that out there and you can judge what I am saying with that in mind, but does anyone actually believe that abortion is murder? As in Abortion = Murder, Abortion/Murder = 1, they are identical and actually the same thing? I have a hard time with this. If someone told me that a guy was down the street shooting kids, just pulling them in about 10 a week and shooting them, and the law was looking the other way and saying it was ok, I would like to think I would do everything I could to prevent it from continuing. I hardly think I would hold up signs and march in front of his house. So, my conclusion is that either people don’t REALLY think that abortion = murder (maybe something that is immoral and should be illegal, but certainly not a mass slaughter of children) or these sign-holders are more afraid of the possible legal consequences of action than they are with saving the lives of countless innocent children?

You have some very valid questions. Some that I am afraid I can not answer in full on this forum and possibly not at all. This is perhaps a good time to look at recent (as in the past 200 years) of Christian culture. The majority of opposition to "social evils" has come from Christian culture. Perhaps the best example of this is the fight against slavery. Starting with European nations and eventually in the United States, groups of Christians began speaking out against slavery and pointing to the evil nature of this institution. They did not raise up in arms or bomb auction houses because of the Christian beliefs that it is wrong to kill another. And please, don't bring up the crusades or Christian stances on war and capital punishment. The crusades were entirely unchristian (considered pagan in origin by many scholars) and horrible blemish on the church's history. The Bible is full of war, death, and capital punishment but God is never pleased with such acts. Again, we can discuss that another day. Back to my point, only radical Christians take up arms like John Brown at Harper's Ferry or Eric Rudolph who blew up the abortion clinic in Alabama. Christians have been more effective by influencing change through peaceful means such as the abolitionists movements of the 1850's. Remember it was the south who seceded and began a war. Slavery had been removed throughout Europe without war.

The culture of life movement began with Christian influence but now includes many non-Christians who wish to see life valued to the point that no other human owns another (even a mother's owning their own embryo). If people decided to act violently to stop the murder of children, they would also be seen as contradictory and inconsistent. You could find an excuse to argue against pro-lifers either way. "Your damned if you do and your damned if you don't." I agree the this is a horrible crime for our nation to murder countless defenseless children through abortion. I feel there is no instance when it is morally indefensible. However, for me to go to abortion clinic and hold a gun on a doctor and force him to stop is both stupid and morally indefensible as well. Even if I did go insane enough to pull the trigger, the doctor could quickly be replaced and I would be labeled a nut/right wing extremist and probably be put to death myself. I would not be a martyr but to a very small handful of people and my cause would be completely lost in the heinous details of my crime. Just as you can not fix the crime of rape with an abortion, you can not fix the crime of abortion with a murder.

Societal change is coming. It is slow but steady. Just as it took decades to abolish slavery in most of the world (which is still not completely gone) slowly the world is coming to see the evil nature of abortion. Fewer Americans (percentage wise) see abortion as morally acceptable than have in the past hundred years.

My wife just became pregnant with our first child. As I watched on the monitor and saw our six week old embryo with a clear head and torso, my heart was broken for all those who are not even given a chance to grow in the world. I fell in love with that embryo right away and knew that I could never perform an abortion (not on my baby or anyone's).

 

[medstyle]

what i meant by "how does abortion effect you"...i mean thats fine if you don't want to perform it, but no one has the right over another person's body.

 

[Geronimo]

what i meant by "how does abortion effect you"...i mean thats fine if you don't want to perform it, but no one has the right over another person's body.

When does the embryo become their own body then? You are trying to define something that can not be defined. It either is a seperate being with a soul or it is not. Some would say that the embryo is its own body when it is viable seperate from the mother. However, that isn't entirely accurate either. The same people still argue for partial birth abortion. Still there has been evidence from orphanages in Russia that show that babies without care and affection will die in their first year of life. So, by that same argument, babies aren't their own bodies till they are 2 or 3 and so, murdering babies up to 2 or 3 years of age should not be a crime either.

Embryoes have no defense and so others do have "every right" over another person's body if we want to work to make it illegal for you to kill the being that is growing inside you.

 

[W222]

Aside from the moral arguement, legally privacy granted under the Constitution extends to a person's body and the person has complete control over their own privacy; so people should be allowed complete control over their own bodies.


Now, how can you explain the arguement against abortion in the case of rape or incest? How does a man or woman who has never been raped understand the trauma of having to raise the child of their rapist and then having to love it? Have to look at the face of the person who violated them? How can you justify preventing them from getting an abortion?
A male Freshman Senator from Oklahoma who is an OB/GYN and has performed three abortions during his career supports death penalty for abortion providers. His great grandmother was raped by a sheriff and she raised the child and this congressman said that abortion in the case of rape are "abortions of convenience." This is a scary trend considering this person is creating law in this country and is clearly educated on the subject.

 

[medstyle]

When does the embryo become their own body then? You are trying to define something that can not be defined. It either is a seperate being with a soul or it is not. Some would say that the embryo is its own body when it is viable seperate from the mother. However, that isn't entirely accurate either. The same people still argue for partial birth abortion. Still there has been evidence from orphanages in Russia that show that babies without care and affection will die in their first year of life. So, by that same argument, babies aren't their own bodies till they are 2 or 3 and so, murdering babies up to 2 or 3 years of age should not be a crime either.

Embryoes have no defense and so others do have "every right" over another person's body if we want to work to make it illegal for you to kill the being that is growing inside you.

well, if its inside the mother, and she has to physically carry it for it to survive, she certainly has the right to expunge it. Your russian argument is weak at best...a baby doesn't need its own mother to survive, just anyone willing ot look over it.

If you want, outlaw partial birth abortion. But simple abortion within, i dunno, the first 3 or 4 months, it ought to be completely the individual's decision.

What good comes out of outlawing abortion? I wouldn't want someone telling me I have to ejaculate into my wife, or i can't wear a condom, or i musn't let my wife take BC, so this is just an extension of our rights to play wiht our bodies however we want.

When this fetus can at least breath, maybe you can give it its own rights. Till then, its none of your business.

 

[Saved Satan]

Do whatever you like.
And take all consequences.
Life knows no democratic principles.
Thus no need argue what is true of it.
Nor order others what to do.

 

[mrcdsbenz2000]

slowly the world is coming to see the evil nature of abortion. Fewer Americans (percentage wise) see abortion as morally acceptable than have in the past hundred years.

Although I am not sure if this is true, I want to bring up another point. While we argue over the ethics of "killing" embryos and partial fetuses of unborn babies which have absolutely no consciousness or cognitive abilities, we are okay with killing grown adult mammals for research. Now I am not against the pursuit of knowledge and conduct of research, but dont you think this is a little bit odd? In the same sense, no matter how intelligent a monkey is, it will never have the same sympathy from the population as a less intelligent mentally challenged child. This is because the child is a human and the monkey is not. There is no sound reason as far as moral ethics go that grant a fertilized egg any rights according to our value system besides the fact that it could one day become a human. But then where does it stop? Are you against killing sperm and unfertilized eggs? And one day when even skin cells have the potential to give rise to humans, will you be against the sloughing off of skin cells while you are sleeping? My point is that you have to draw a line somewhere and that line should be based on cognitive/ conscious abilities of the organism...not based on what species it is or what "potential" it may have. Just something to think about.

 

[Geronimo]

well, if its inside the mother, and she has to physically carry it for it to survive, she certainly has the right to expunge it. Your russian argument is weak at best...a baby doesn't need its own mother to survive, just anyone willing ot look over it.

You are making my point for me. I am saying that the line of reasoning that says the child can not survive separate from a mother is a weak side-line argument. It is beside the point. The point is that the "it" you describe is much more than an "it" and "expunging it" is the same as killing another human being. If you want to argue it isn’t a human being because it isn’t viable, then a child isn’t viable until it is able to completely live on its own without any help from society.

our rights to play wiht our bodies however we want.
.

We have "a right" to play with our bodies however we want? This is news to me. It is technically against the law to commit suicide or inject illegal drugs into your body. Government has always played a role in determining what is moral. The debate may continue forever as to whether government should or should not legislate morality, but the fact remains that government always had and probably always will legislate morality whether or not it should or not. The only question then becomes “whose” morality. Then you spiral into discussions of religion. However, there are universal themes through nearly all religious views. Those include theft, murder, etc…Abortion is a fairly new argument in World History because it is a fairly new practice in its current form. Before, it was just understood to be wrong because of the obvious harm it caused the mother. Now, the harm is less obvious (mostly in emotional scarring and other less physical ways).

To argue with the rape story, I would ask you to find all the mothers out there who went ahead and had their babies. You will find a vast majority of those moms are so incredibly happy with their decision and would never conceive that having an abortion would have been the better route. If a mom is looking into the child’s face and seeing the perpetrator every day of their lives, then they need some help. There is healing for those scars. That pain is still minimal compared with the horror of murder. How selfish of a mom to have an abortion just because she fears that she will have pain when she’s sees her child and that makes her think about the time she was raped. Granted, the rape is horrible and I feel that the person who committed the rape, should be punished to the maximum, but the child did nothing to deserve death. This is where the miracle of life triumphs over the evil deed. Something that man did for selfish twisted evil pleasure has been turned into a glorious life full of hope and potential. I realize that my views sound extreme to you since you really don’t see the embryo as a life but if you did see it that way, then my arguments would be a lot easier to understand. Really, it all comes down to whether or not you view an embryo as a life or as a blob of cells.

 

[medstyle]

I know a few girls that abortions. It didn't affect them much negatively and it helped them maintain their lives tremendously.

They didn't want a miracle baby. They wanted to live as they did before, albeit more carefully. Its their life and i respect them and their decision. They aren't murders by any means.

The only people that really want to talk about religion are the ones that believe in it. The rest of us just want you to your thing, and let us to ours, and as long as we don't hurt each other, stay out of our lives.

I see embryo's as nothing but blobs of cells, just the same way as I see people. But people have feeling and emotions and understanding, while embroes have nothing.

You are making my point for me. I am saying that the line of reasoning that says the child can not survive separate from a mother is a weak side-line argument. It is beside the point. The point is that the "it" you describe is much more than an "it" and "expunging it" is the same as killing another human being. If you want to argue it isn’t a human being because it isn’t viable, then a child isn’t viable until it is able to completely live on its own without any help from society.


We have "a right" to play with our bodies however we want? This is news to me. It is technically against the law to commit suicide or inject illegal drugs into your body. Government has always played a role in determining what is moral. The debate may continue forever as to whether government should or should not legislate morality, but the fact remains that government always had and probably always will legislate morality whether or not it should or not. The only question then becomes “whose” morality. Then you spiral into discussions of religion. However, there are universal themes through nearly all religious views. Those include theft, murder, etc…Abortion is a fairly new argument in World History because it is a fairly new practice in its current form. Before, it was just understood to be wrong because of the obvious harm it caused the mother. Now, the harm is less obvious (mostly in emotional scarring and other less physical ways).

To argue with the rape story, I would ask you to find all the mothers out there who went ahead and had their babies. You will find a vast majority of those moms are so incredibly happy with their decision and would never conceive that having an abortion would have been the better route. If a mom is looking into the child’s face and seeing the perpetrator every day of their lives, then they need some help. There is healing for those scars. That pain is still minimal compared with the horror of murder. How selfish of a mom to have an abortion just because she fears that she will have pain when she’s sees her child and that makes her think about the time she was raped. Granted, the rape is horrible and I feel that the person who committed the rape, should be punished to the maximum, but the child did nothing to deserve death. This is where the miracle of life triumphs over the evil deed. Something that man did for selfish twisted evil pleasure has been turned into a glorious life full of hope and potential. I realize that my views sound extreme to you since you really don’t see the embryo as a life but if you did see it that way, then my arguments would be a lot easier to understand. Really, it all comes down to whether or not you view an embryo as a life or as a blob of cells.

 

[sohana]

You are making my point for me. I am saying that the line of reasoning that says the child can not survive separate from a mother is a weak side-line argument. It is beside the point. The point is that the "it" you describe is much more than an "it" and "expunging it" is the same as killing another human being. If you want to argue it isn’t a human being because it isn’t viable, then a child isn’t viable until it is able to completely live on its own without any help from society.


We have "a right" to play with our bodies however we want? This is news to me. It is technically against the law to commit suicide or inject illegal drugs into your body. Government has always played a role in determining what is moral. The debate may continue forever as to whether government should or should not legislate morality, but the fact remains that government always had and probably always will legislate morality whether or not it should or not. The only question then becomes “whose” morality. Then you spiral into discussions of religion. However, there are universal themes through nearly all religious views. Those include theft, murder, etc…Abortion is a fairly new argument in World History because it is a fairly new practice in its current form. Before, it was just understood to be wrong because of the obvious harm it caused the mother. Now, the harm is less obvious (mostly in emotional scarring and other less physical ways).

To argue with the rape story, I would ask you to find all the mothers out there who went ahead and had their babies. You will find a vast majority of those moms are so incredibly happy with their decision and would never conceive that having an abortion would have been the better route. If a mom is looking into the child’s face and seeing the perpetrator every day of their lives, then they need some help. There is healing for those scars. That pain is still minimal compared with the horror of murder. How selfish of a mom to have an abortion just because she fears that she will have pain when she’s sees her child and that makes her think about the time she was raped. Granted, the rape is horrible and I feel that the person who committed the rape, should be punished to the maximum, but the child did nothing to deserve death. This is where the miracle of life triumphs over the evil deed. Something that man did for selfish twisted evil pleasure has been turned into a glorious life full of hope and potential. I realize that my views sound extreme to you since you really don’t see the embryo as a life but if you did see it that way, then my arguments would be a lot easier to understand. Really, it all comes down to whether or not you view an embryo as a life or as a blob of cells.

ok

 

[aingeal]

Fetuses are alive, just like cows and ducks are. I just don't happen to think they are fully morally equivalent to persons.

my problem with this line of thinking is where exactly does it end? what then distinguishes a "fully moral" equivalent? it is with this line of thinking that one can justify euthanasia, and so on and so forth. i have actually heard philosophers argue that children, immature adults, and the mentally ******ed aren't fully moral b/c they may lack certain mental capacities, and this is frightening.

 

[llort]

if I put on a condom when boning some chick, isnt that about the same as abortion? I am preventing pregnancy and thus life. I dont want to be a hipocryte, so I guess I would be pro choice. abortion is birth control, and birth control is abortion.

 

[medstyle]

Fetuses are alive, just like cows and ducks are. I just don't happen to think they are fully morally equivalent to persons.

my problem with this line of thinking is where exactly does it end? what then distinguishes a "fully moral" equivalent? it is with this line of thinking that one can justify euthanasia, and so on and so forth. i have actually heard philosophers argue that children, immature adults, and the mentally ******ed aren't fully moral b/c they may lack certain mental capacities, and this is frightening.

this is what we call a "grey area". Just as you wonder "where exactly does it end", we wonder "where exactly does it begin"?. Christians intially fought against condoms, then birth control, now abortion. Nobody is arguing lets kill babies once they are delivered and viable, so I think its reasonable to say it ends there.

Where does it begin? That should be a personal choice. If you believe that your semen is destined to become a child, by all means, don't pull out. If you believe its ok to try to prevent an egg from mushing with some sperm, then put on a rubber. The more liberal can even take BC. Finally, if you believe that its not a baby for several months, or don't care if it is, then you should be able to have an abortion.

If you don't want a child and its born, just give it away to a foster home.

See, solutions for everyone, no matter how liberal or conservative you are. I think the goverment has no right to say what you can do with your private parts.

 

[vhawk]

if I put on a condom when boning some chick, isnt that about the same as abortion? I am preventing pregnancy and thus life. I dont want to be a hipocryte, so I guess I would be pro choice. abortion is birth control, and birth control is abortion.

This sounds kind of weak, but in reality it is a good point. Up until recently, most Christians probably DID believe that condoms, birth control and masturbation were close or equivalent to abortion, and even the Bible put a man to death for "spilling his seed" which was a sin. The point is, the idea of a "soul" and the time when this soul enters the fetus is completely arbitrary, and if you set it at conception based entirlely on your own opinion, not even on religious or scientific views(i.e. where in the Bible does it say a baby becomes a baby when the egg is fertilized?) then you can decide to set that time at any time you like. Then it becomes, whose decision do we use? I fully support the idea that, in cases of individuals, it should be their own individual opinion on when that life starts, unless we have an overwhelming consensus of Americans. For example, an OVERWHELMING consensus of Americans would agree that killing a 3 year old is murder. However, killing a 3 month old is very gray, and therefore should be left up to individuals to chose.

Here is another contradiction in American law....how can killing a woman who is four weeks pregnant be considered double murder? In some states it is, although there is pro-choice action against it, because this implies that, as long as the MOTHER decides its a person, than we as society have to treat it as a person. However, if the same mother decided it WASNT a person, only SHE would be free to terminate. Actually, I kinda like that arrangement.

 

[vhawk]

Jeez. medstyle posted almost the exact thing I wanted to say as I was typing. Good work! 🙂

 

[aingeal]

this is what we call a "grey area". Just as you wonder "where exactly does it end", we wonder "where exactly does it begin"?. Christians intially fought against condoms, then birth control, now abortion. Nobody is arguing lets kill babies once they are delivered and viable, so I think its reasonable to say it ends there.

Where does it begin? That should be a personal choice. If you believe that your semen is destined to become a child, by all means, don't pull out. If you believe its ok to try to prevent an egg from mushing with some sperm, then put on a rubber. The more liberal can even take BC. Finally, if you believe that its not a baby for several months, or don't care if it is, then you should be able to have an abortion.

If you don't want a child and its born, just give it away to a foster home.

See, solutions for everyone, no matter how liberal or conservative you are. I think the goverment has no right to say what you can do with your private parts.

if you read over what i wrote, and then your response, it makes no sense.
i said where does the line of thinking end, not 'where does the life end'. of course i say 'where does it begin' too.

my point was more about the line of thinking that can lead one to eventually accept euthanasia and who knows what else beyond that.

you say there is a solution for everyone, but truly there is not one for me as i cannot morally stad idly by as injustice occurs. i belive we have an obligation to ensure the world we live in is just. i think a lot of people would agree.

 

[8744]

u r going to rape again by giving such views

Huh?

 

[vhawk]

Aingeal,

Not to attack you, but you say you cant stand idly by? Thats exactly what you ARE doing. Name me one significant thing you have done to save the lives of "murdered fetuses," and then tell me how that worked out. This is a good thing though....you have an opinion, but to me, the extreme end of exercising that opinion basically amount to you personally not having an abortion, and possibly to sharing your opinion with those around you who are thinking about it. Luckily, this does not extend to passing legislation criminlizing MY opinion

 

[aingeal]

Aingeal,

Not to attack you, but you say you cant stand idly by? Thats exactly what you ARE doing. Name me one significant thing you have done to save the lives of "murdered fetuses," and then tell me how that worked out. This is a good thing though....you have an opinion, but to me, the extreme end of exercising that opinion basically amount to you personally not having an abortion, and possibly to sharing your opinion with those around you who are thinking about it. Luckily, this does not extend to passing legislation criminlizing MY opinion

i vote

 

[vhawk]

👍 🙂 True, good point

 

[8744]

I don't get how another person's body is your business. If you're against abortion, that's cool, but how does someone's decision effect anyone else in any physical way? It doesn't, so that's why i am pro choice.

People should mind their own business, simply put.

There is no legal precedent or contitutional principle which absolutely grants you exlusive rights to your own body. Sorry. Suicide is against the law, for example, which is the ultimate example of the state interfering with your absolute right to determine what happens to your own body.

Now, you may think that your body is nobody's business but I guarantee I can come up with examples where you think it is. The sale of organs, perhaps? Laws against recreational drugs?

Besides, the issue we're discussing is not the legality of elective abortion but whether a physician can be compelled to participate in the practice (by something as innocuous as the mythical "duty to refer") even if it conflicts with his religious beliefs.

 

[medstyle]

if you read over what i wrote, and then your response, it makes no sense.
i said where does the line of thinking end, not 'where does the life end'. of course i say 'where does it begin' too.

my point was more about the line of thinking that can lead one to eventually accept euthanasia and who knows what else beyond that.

you say there is a solution for everyone, but truly there is not one for me as i cannot morally stad idly by as injustice occurs. i belive we have an obligation to ensure the world we live in is just. i think a lot of people would agree.

my answer makes perfect sense. You, like the rest of your christian brethern, are of course immune to logic. refer to a discussion between religion vs. anything. I said that the grey area of where life starts is in dispute, but grey area is closer to intercourse. By the time a baby is born, it is regarded as alive and is afforded those rights by law and common consensus.

there is a solution for you, to mind your own business. Just like I don't interfere when a poor 15 year old girl gives up her life to attempt to raise a baby that she cannot (a baby who will be a burdeon on society and often the penal system for rest of its existence), you should butt out when a girl/woman decides she doesn't want a child. That's it.

That is the solution. Mutual respect to people. If a person decides they don't want a baby, that's their own decision.

This does not lead to euthanasia or killing off ******ed people or children. No reasonably person supports killing children. Only hitler has made killing ******ed people a priority. No one is arguing to kill babies outside of the womb or anyone else. And euthansia? If someone wants to kill themself, they can do it by themselves.

 

[W222]

Please find for me the thousands of women who have been raped or impregnated by their relatives and then tell me how many are so excited about raising their rapists child. Please tell me where these magical women live because I dont think it is here in the real world.

 

[aingeal]

my answer makes perfect sense. You, like the rest of your christian brethern, are of course immune to logic. refer to a discussion between religion vs. anything. I said that the grey area of where life starts is in dispute, but grey area is closer to intercourse. By the time a baby is born, it is regarded as alive and is afforded those rights by law and common consensus.

there is a solution for you, to mind your own business. Just like I don't interfere when a poor 15 year old girl gives up her life to attempt to raise a baby that she cannot (a baby who will be a burdeon on society and often the penal system for rest of its existence), you should butt out when a girl/woman decides she doesn't want a child. That's it.

That is the solution. Mutual respect to people. If a person decides they don't want a baby, that's their own decision.

This does not lead to euthanasia or killing off ******ed people or children. No reasonably person supports killing children. Only hitler has made killing ******ed people a priority. No one is arguing to kill babies outside of the womb or anyone else. And euthansia? If someone wants to kill themself, they can do it by themselves.

there's no need to be rude
i said nothing about christianity, either
not that it should have anything to do with it, but my views on abortion were formed indepedently of my spiritual beliefs
more importantly, someone HAS in fact argued to me that it's ok to take it to the next step, which is what i was talkign about it my post - taking it to the next step not about grey areas.
i never said there were grey areas or there werent.
i said people have pushed the arguement that a fetus is not moral to extend to other forms of life.

 

[vhawk]

There is no legal precedent or contitutional principle which absolutely grants you exlusive rights to your own body. Sorry. Suicide is against the law, for example, which is the ultimate example of the state interfering with your absolute right to determine what happens to your own body.

Now, you may think that your body is nobody's business but I guarantee I can come up with examples where you think it is. The sale of organs, perhaps? Laws against recreational drugs?

Besides, the issue we're discussing is not the legality of elective abortion but whether a physician can be compelled to participate in the practice (by something as innocuous as the mythical "duty to refer") even if it conflicts with his religious beliefs.

Ok, if we are talking about mythical beliefs, can we stop bringing up this ridiculous "suicide is illegal" thing? Seriously, its not really illegal. SOME states, probably even most, still have it on the books as being illegal, just like all those stupid "CAnt wear a blue hat on a Monday" laws that commonwealths have since like 1804. If you want to kill yourself you can, and although they might get you treatment or help, they certainly wont prosecute you. And laws against illegal drugs? Trust me, they are not on the books in order to prevent you from doing harm to yourself. That is why I HATE laws against illegal drugs, because that is what people claim, that the "state" needs to protect ourselves from ourselves. Laws against cocaine and heroin, etc., are on the books because of things that happen to societies like Hong Kong during the Opium Wars, where the entire society becomes dysfunctional and run by cartels and drug lords, not because they dont think my cousin should smoke joints in his basement.

 

[8744]

Ok, if we are talking about mythical beliefs, can we stop bringing up this ridiculous "suicide is illegal" thing? Seriously, its not really illegal. SOME states, probably even most, still have it on the books as being illegal, just like all those stupid "CAnt wear a blue hat on a Monday" laws that commonwealths have since like 1804. If you want to kill yourself you can, and although they might get you treatment or help, they certainly wont prosecute you. And laws against illegal drugs? Trust me, they are not on the books in order to prevent you from doing harm to yourself. That is why I HATE laws against illegal drugs, because that is what people claim, that the "state" needs to protect ourselves from ourselves. Laws against cocaine and heroin, etc., are on the books because of things that happen to societies like Hong Kong during the Opium Wars, where the entire society becomes dysfunctional and run by cartels and drug lords, not because they dont think my cousin should smoke joints in his basement.

No. Every attempted suicide thay bring into our Emergency Department is brought in by a police officer who would not allow the person to kill himself. Of course, many folks are just looking for attention when they "attempt" suicide but law enforcement will not allow you to even attempt it if you can be stopped. People are not prosecuted for attempted suicide but they are often involuntarily confined to a psych ward while they get treatment. It is not just a silly "blue law." If it were, the police and health care providors would be ambivalent.

It is also against the law to sell your own organs even though from a strict libertarian point of view nobody should be allowed to stop you from selling a kidney.

As for drug laws, you know, drugs used to be legal. They were criminalized around the turn of the century not because of a fear of drug cartels but from the same moralistic impulses that lead to prohibition. When cocaine was legal, there were no drug cartels of the size and scope we have today. Whether these laws are right or wrong or effective is besides the point. You postulate that nobody can tell you what to do with your own body and I just wanted to point out that this is not the case.

 

[3rd_i]

my answer makes perfect sense. You, like the rest of your christian brethern, are of course immune to logic.

Woh there partner. As a christian, let me be the first to tell you that many of us are pro-choice, and quite comfortably justified so based upon study of the bible. Let me clairify: Nowhere in the bible does it specifically say that abortion is wrong or sinful. Nowhere. Abortion was fully known in ancient times, and many a text or injunction had been written about it. For example, part of the original text of the ancient hippocratic oath:

I WILL FOLLOW that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give a woman a pessary to produce abortion.

This document, written 400 years BC sees the necessity to specify an injunction against abortion. It recognizes that a fetus is not the same thing as a human being, and as such it follows the command to abstain from killing a person with a necessary clairification, a second command to abstain from ending the life of fetus.

If god, being almost by definition omnipotent, had wanted to make clear his/her objection to abortion, s/he would have specified it. Instead, the bible is resoundingly silent about the issue. We are not told that it is wrong or right in the almighty's eyes. Thus, one is left with the only conclusion possible, that the decision should be left up to the individual. Thus god (Jesus) was pro-choice.

 

[8744]

Woh there partner. As a christian, let me be the first to tell you that many of us are pro-choice, and quite comfortably justified so based upon study of the bible. Let me clairify: Nowhere in the bible does it specifically say that abortion is wrong or sinful. Nowhere. Abortion was fully known in ancient times, and many a text or injunction had been written about it. For example, part of the original text of the ancient hippocratic oath:


This document, written 400 years BC sees the necessity to specify an injunction against abortion. It recognizes that a fetus is not the same thing as a human being, and as such it follows the command to abstain from killing a person with a necessary clairification, a second command to abstain from ending the life of fetus.

If god, being almost by definition omnipotent, had wanted to make clear his/her objection to abortion, s/he would have specified it. Instead, the bible is resoundingly silent about the issue. We are not told that it is wrong or right in the almighty's eyes. Thus, one is left with the only conclusion possible, that the decision should be left up to the individual. Thus god (Jesus) was pro-choice.

A lot of Christian doctrine is not explicitly laid out in the Bible either but that doesn't mean it is invalid or wrong. In the Orthodox Church, for example, we have the writings of the various Saints and Church Fathers who "fleshed out" the beliefs of the Church. This is why we have theologians.

One difference between churches like the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches and various Protestant denominations is that the many protestant sects have abandoned almost all aspects of Christian dogma not explicitly laid out in the Bible. (many of the fundamentalists fall into this category)

This is why there are some protestant sects that deny the divinity of Christ and downplay the role of the Theotokos (Virgin Mary). This is fine, of course, as it's a free country where we can all practice any or no religion according to our conscience. But this is also why a sect like the Unitarians, for example, are pro-choice (sort of) while the Catholics and the Orthodox are extremely pro-life. (The Catholics to the point of forbidding birth control)

When I have some time I will search for some of the writings of our church fathers (some from the distant days of the Byzantine Empire) dealing with abortion. Just for your interest, of course. I know that if you don't believe it won't sway your opinion. I only want to demonstrate that some churches have given a good deal of thought to the matter of abortion.

Personally, both from our Church Fathers and a gut feeling, I don't believe that Christ would approve of abortion. Surely there is a special place in the an olympic swimming pool of lava somewhere in Hell for those who perform the so-called "partial birth abortions."

 

[Brain]

A lot of Christian doctrine is not explicitly laid out in the Bible either but that doesn't mean it is invalid or wrong. In the Orthodox Church, for example, we have the writings of the various Saints and Church Fathers who "fleshed out" the beliefs of the Church. This is why we have theologians.

Personally, both from our Church Fathers and a gut feeling, I don't believe that Christ would approve of abortion. Surely there is a special place in the an olympic swimming pool of lava somewhere in Hell for those who perform the so-called "partial birth abortions."

So you're taking on the role of God by passing judgement upon others. Last time I checked, this constitutes blasphemy. Blasphemy is the only sin described in the bible as unforgivable. Who's going to have that "special place in the olympic swimming pool of lava somewhere in Hell" now?

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Ok, this is kind of a different side of the issue, but it is something that has been brought up and that I have always been confused by. How can one person say abortion is wrong and immoral and bad....except in cases of rape or incest? Obviously these are very tragic and terrible things to have happen, but it seems to me that these people are saying that it is tacky to have an abortion to correct a mistake you made, but if it wasnt your mistake and you were forced it is ok. If you honestly believe that abortion is killing a human, can it honestly matter if you were raped or not?

Also, I am confused by people who hold signs and picket places with slogans like "Abortion is murder." Now, I am personally pro-choice, just so I get that out there and you can judge what I am saying with that in mind, but does anyone actually believe that abortion is murder? As in Abortion = Murder, Abortion/Murder = 1, they are identical and actually the same thing? I have a hard time with this. If someone told me that a guy was down the street shooting kids, just pulling them in about 10 a week and shooting them, and the law was looking the other way and saying it was ok, I would like to think I would do everything I could to prevent it from continuing. I hardly think I would hold up signs and march in front of his house. So, my conclusion is that either people dont REALLY think that abortion = murder (maybe something that is immoral and should be illegal, but certainly not a mass slaughter of children) or these sign-holders are more afraid of the possible legal consequences of action than they are with saving the lives of countless innocent children? Obviously this is inflammatory, and the typing of someone who is very tired, but it seems to me a contradictory and inconsistent belief.

A: Not everyone is of that view. I do not support abortion under ANY circumstances - rape, incest, or health of the mother. So your point does not apply to all.

B: I have not considered protesting, because I am well aware that governments and citizens of the opposing viewpoint ignore protests unless they become violent and property/lives are threatened/destroyed. As it is elementarily wrong and contradictory for a Christian to engage in violence to end violence, I cannot engage in such protests. For similar reasons, I will not enter politics because the current system supports the monopoly of violence by the state.