Is the abortion issue only about religion?

[Defender]

I really want to know what people think about the abortion debate. Are pro-lifers only the religious right? Anyone have statistics to show otherwise. What arguements are there for banning abortion that are not motivated by religion.

[Deacon]

Here are statistics:
Â*Â*Â*Â*
-In 54 countries (61% of the world population) abortions are legal.
-In 97 countries (39% of the world population) abortions are illegal.
-There are approximately 46 million abortions conducted eacy year, 20 million of them obtained illegally.
-There are approximately 126,000 abortions conducted each day.

I think that abortion is rapped up into religion, because many believe the baby should have a chance at life, but were I disagree with the pro-lifers is, even though their religon is about giving everyone a chance, I only agree that abortions should be conducted for women that were raped, are preg. teens, and other sexual assualts not totally banned.

But the Christians who are the majority of the pro-lifers believe it should be banned because The Roman Catholic Church says that deliberately causing an abortion is a grave moral wrong. It bases this doctrine on natural law and on the written word of God. Also, to conclude other religions like Judaism believe each new life that begins at this point is not a potential human being but a human being with potential.

Some argue however that, for some reason or another that abortion promotes unsafe sex, becasue a women could get pregnant if the pill fails and get an abortion and continue again, so that is a view not based off religon, but most of what I have heard on this issue is based on morals and religon

[Extreme89]

abortion is not and never will be ok, you are killing people, the ones that abort should go to jail

[digital_freeway]

It is not only an issue about religion. It is also an issue about morality. We are held liable for our own actions but not the kid inside the womb. Why not give him a chance to live... to experience the outside world.

[Spaz]

It's not purely religion, but it's pretty closely tied to religious beliefs since beliefs about beginning of life are usually determined by religions.

Although I think contraception should be used responsibly I think abortions are better than having someone give birth to a child that they don't want. Children shouldn't suffer for their parents' mistakes.

[AlonzoMourning23]

There are many non religious people, or at least people who didn't consciously base their decision on religion, among the pro life movement. But I think there are far fewer among them who actually use a scientific argument to oppose all (or almost all) abortions. You can use a fully scientific argument to oppose abortion after 5 or 6 months, but it gets progressively harder the further back you go.

[E-Z-B]

I'd like a "religious" person to point out ONE instance in the bible that says abortion is immoral. And, no, the guy who was supposed to get his dead brother's wife pregnant but instead pulled out too early doesn't count.

[Labrocca]

How about "thou shall not kill"?

Sorry but "abort" isn't really what happens. They KILL the fetus. It's a helpless baby growing inside the mother. It is life.

[Muhammad Haris]

Abortin is kind of illegal in Pakistan but due to the 21st century world , it is not anymore! :(

[AlonzoMourning23]

How about "thou shall not kill"?

Sorry but "abort" isn't really what happens. They KILL the fetus. It's a helpless baby growing inside the mother.Â*Â*It is life.


I'm not saying that the bible supports or opposes abortion, but simply that you need to use multiple supporting passages to support that argument. The problem with simply saying "thou shall not kill" is an opposition to abortion is that you haven't defined a 2 week old embryo, or a 2 month old fetus etc. as something that is included in that law, according to the bible. There are exceptions, such as killing in war. The bible does make distinctions between an unborn child and someone who is already born:

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25

The bible also addresses awareness in the womb:

"Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb."
Job 10:18-19

"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5

Though, again, my only point is that it isn't as obvious as most think it is. I'm not saying the above passages show that the bible does or does not support abortion.

[KrAzY3]

I think one shouldn't confuse morality with religion. Yes, abortion is a moral issue but it is not inherently a religious issue.

I am a agnostic, yet I consider abortion to be immoral. I don't have a problem with day after pills or the like but once a living (human) being with a heartbeat exists I can not morally justify killing it.

[AlonzoMourning23]

So you have no problem with abortion until the 4th or 5th week?

Though, just out of curiosity (trying not to be argumentative), why would you choose a heartbeat as more important than brain activity?

[KrAzY3]

So you have no problem with abortion until the 4th or 5th week?

Though, just out of curiosity (trying not to be argumentative), why would you choose a heartbeat as more important than brain activity?


It is a bit arbitrary but I think most of us view a heartbeat as a important sign of life. Although, on second thought saying I didn't have a problem might be a stretch. Morally, I still find it questionable but ambiguous enough to say that I don't think it could or should be legislated at that point. But, once we see a beating heart, we can verify that it is indeed alive in the commonly accepted sense.

[AlonzoMourning23]

That's not entirely true. Human cognition is what supposedly makes humans special, and a person is not considered dead simply because their heart stops. People can be recucitated for minutes after, though after 4 or 5 minutes brain damage will normally result. Cessation of heart beat, or any other bodily function, is not enough in and of itself.

While brain activity can cease and then return, or even suffer catastrophic irreversable damage (though life support would be required), brain activity is the primary determinant of life and death in the medical world, though, again, no one thing alone is enough.

I just don't fully understand why, barring a religious reason, it is so reprehensible to abort an embryo or foetus that does not have any brain activity, let alone cognitive activity. It seems to me to be either a sentimental or an uninformed reason. I'm not trying to insult you or anything, I just don't understand what is so important about saving it. I can understand not wanting to engage in it personally, but what is so important about stopping others from doing so? I'm not sure if you think abortion should be illegal, or illegal in some cases, so I'm not sure if that question applies to you.

[KrAzY3]

I didn't say what makes a human special, I said most people view it as a sign of life.

If it is ok to abort a fetus because we think they have limited cognitive abilities then we could go into a hospital and start killing anyone with limited brain activity. Last time I checked, we do not kill the severely retarded and I also wasn't aware of us fully unlocking or understanding the human brain.

If we value a life outside of the womb, why can we kill it with reckless abandon inside the womb? If that is ok, then anytime a human being shows limited brain activity it would be justifiable to kill them since after all our high level of activity is what makes us unique.

Is it pragmatic to kill unborn babies? Nazis thought they were being pragmatic. China, with its forced abortions and harvesting of executed criminals for organs is being pragmatic. I consider it a life, it has a beating heart and we damn sure know it has human parents so how it is not human? We supposedly value human life, yet our most innocent lives we kill with indifference. I find that abhorrent.

The beating heart tells us that it is alive, I do not believe there should be any questions beyond that point. It is alive, it is human. To kill it is to kill a innocent human being. To question the morality of that stance (whether or not you agree with it) is simply foolish. We know it is living, we know it is human, what is the quandary? Am I to believe that convenience is of a higher priority than the life of a human?

[Fartbubble]

Can we eat the ones we kill? I have heard they are like placenta in that they are a great source of vitamins.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I'm not sure why the "common understanding" is more important than the understanding of the medical establishment. You cannot say it's not "alive", as every cell in your body meets that criteria. But heartbeat is not the primary method of telling whether a full person is alive, brain activity is the primary way.

And it's not a question of minimal awareness, they have absolutely no awareness. Without brain activity you cannot think. For much of development the fetus (and embryo) has no past, no present, and no awareness that it may have a future.

Old data, based on information conducted in the 60's (and misinterpreted at that), stated that brain waves first appear around 6 weeks. That is a claim asserted by many pro life groups, but not by the modern medical establishment. In truth, brain waves cannot be detected until about 3 months. By this point about 90% of fetuses that will be aborted have been.Â*Â*Live nerve cells in primitive areas of the brain (particularly the brain stem, which does not control cognition) are not even present until about 2 months.

The beating heart tells us that it is alive, I do not believe there should be any questions beyond that point. It is alive, it is human. To kill it is to kill a innocent human being. To question the morality of that stance (whether or not you agree with it) is simply foolish. We know it is living, we know it is human, what is the quandary? Am I to believe that convenience is of a higher priority than the life of a human?

There is no definitive morality. What is human? Why should I care about inflicting damage if there isn't a level of awareness or even pain? If a human has never had any thought at all (meaning nothing to return to, no history to protect etc.), and has no capacity for thought or awareness currently, what's the concern?

I don't believe anything is innately superior (ie. due to simply being of a certain type or species) to anything else. While there are many ways I would determine which is more valuable, the primary one is cognition. A 2 month old foetus is genetically human, it has some physical human characteristics, and (barring a medical problem) can eventually becoming a fully aware human animal. But, in that state, with that beings history, what is so significant about it as to give it legal protection? I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't have moral opposition to abortion, emotional and sentimental attachment to the foetus etc., but what makes the concern so significant as to be enacted into law?

Again, I'm trying to be respectful as I can.

[KrAzY3]

What is human? Why should I care about inflicting damage if there isn't a level of awareness or even pain?

hu·man
A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

human being
any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae

Hominidae
modern ma n and extinct immediate ancestors of man

Homo sa·pi·ens
The modern species of humans, the only extant species of the primate family Hominidae.

man
A human regardless of sex or age; a person.

fe·tus
In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

em·bry·o
In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.



What is human? Well, I think those definitions help clarify. A human fetus, by definition is human. You might argue about brain waves and that I say 4th week when fetus is clearly the 8th week. Well, prior to the heartbeat I will give way to ambiguity, afterwards if I err it will be on the side of caution. The beating heart is as clear a sign as we can have. As you pointed out, tracking brain activity is difficult and I feel it is a moot point. Also, in order to become pregnant one would need to have sex without proper use of contraceptive. One would then have to wait a full month to take action in order to fail to meet my preferable legal criteria. I think this is more than a fair point to side with value for human life over convenience.

You seem to be resorting to semantics to justify abortion. Why, the baby does not yet exhibit the intelligence that makes us unique so it is sub-human. Well in that case a one year old is sub-human as well. I suppose we should kill them as we see fit? I suppose we should have a test that you have to pass in order to become human. You have to demonstrate that you are indeed smarter than Dolphin or African Grey or what ever animal scientists determine to be the most intelligent and at that point you are now officially human. Until then you are sub-human and your life is worthless. Of course anyone that can not pass this test for what ever reason will forever be sub-human.

You alluded to cognitive abilities. Well, human beings in various states lack significant cognitive abilities (to our knowledge). If you accept the logic in killing a human being because it lacks cognitive abilities, then I would argue that killing someone instantly in their sleep would be completely justified since they would not be aware of what happened hence they would not suffer.

Suffering is not the primary issue I have here, nor is intelligence. It is that is a human being we are killing. Is it aware? In many cases it is not. Is it intelligent? Certainly not intelligent by our common definitions. Is it human? Yes it is the living product of the mating of two human beings and as such I think it deserves the same protections any other human being deserves. You can argue with my logic but you can not argue with the choice to protect what I view as a innocent human being.

From my perspective, if I do not value what I see as the most innocent of human beings then the rest of mankind should be beware.

[AlonzoMourning23]

What is human? Why should I care about inflicting damage if there isn't a level of awareness or even pain?

hu·man
A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

human being
any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae

Hominidae
modern ma n and extinct immediate ancestors of man

Homo sa·pi·ens
The modern species of humans, the only extant species of the primate family Hominidae.

manÂ*Â*
A human regardless of sex or age; a person.

fe·tus
In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

em·bry·o
In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.



What is human? Well, I think those definitions help clarify. A human fetus, by definition is human.

As I said, there is a difference from genetically human and human in the full moral sense. A dead human is still genetically human.

Also, in order to become pregnant one would need to have sex without proper use of contraceptive. One would then have to wait a full month to take action in order to fail to meet my preferable legal criteria. I think this is more than a fair point to side with value for human life over convenience.

Many do not realize they are pregnant within that timespan, many states have waiting periods, and many times transportation has to be worked out to get to the clinic, especially in areas where there aren't any clinics.

You seem to be resorting to semantics to justify abortion. Why, the baby does not yet exhibit the intelligence that makes us unique so it is sub-human. Well in that case a one year old is sub-human as well. I suppose we should kill them as we see fit? I suppose we should have a test that you have to pass in order to become human. You have to demonstrate that you are indeed smarter than Dolphin or African Grey or what ever animal scientists determine to be the most intelligent and at that point you are now officially human. Until then you are sub-human and your life is worthless. Of course anyone that can not pass this test for what ever reason will forever be sub-human.


A fetus of 6 weeks for example, does not exhibit the intelligence of a cricket. It isn't a case of "not exhibiting the intelligence that makes us unique" but a case of not exhibiting intelligence on any level, by any definition. I explained that pretty clearly.


You alluded to cognitive abilities. Well, human beings in various states lack significant cognitive abilities (to our knowledge). If you accept the logic inÂ*Â* killing a human being because it lacks cognitive abilities, then I would argue that killing someone instantly in their sleep would be completely justified since they would not be aware of what happened hence they would not suffer.

According to our knowledge, that could not be further from the truth. Sleeping humans are thinking beings. During sleep memory is reinforced. Background noises are often incorporated into dreams (so as they do not wake the person) and people are awoken by noises because part of their brain is unconsciously aware.

Suffering is not the primary issue I have here, nor is intelligence. It is that is a human being we are killing. Is it aware? In many cases it is not. Is it intelligent? Certainly not intelligent by our common definitions. Is it human? Yes it is the living product of the mating of two human beings and as such I think it deserves the same protections any other human being deserves. You can argue with my logic but you can not argue with the choice to protect what I view as a innocent human being.

From my perspective, if I do not value what I see as the most innocent of human beings then the rest of mankind should be beware.


What living, post born, human being has no history of awareness, or thought, to any degree, however minimal? What human, in addition to that, also has no ability to feel pain, and never had such an ability?

[KrAzY3]

You just like to argue don't you?
I consider it to be a living human being once the heart starts beating. I stated that cognition and intelligence was not a issue in making that determination. You can disagree but you're just wasting our time.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Well, I've never denied that, and that is the point of forums such as this. But this is one of the few issues where I have difficulty understanding the opposing side, excluding religious arguments. Normally I can see the other view as reasonable, even if I don't agree.

So my arguing is with the goal of understanding your view. Suggesting things that are clearly false (ie. a 6 week old has some brain activity) doesn't aid in that, so that's why I continue to argue. I'm looking for something I can say "ok, I don't agree but at least it's rational".

[KrAzY3]

Suggesting things that are clearly false (ie. a 6 week old has some brain activity) doesn't aid in that, so that's why I continue to argue. I'm looking for something I can say "ok, I don't agree but at least it's rational".


False suggestions? I never suggested a 6 week old has brain activity nor did I ever use that as a basis for my argument. I suppose that would make you guilty of the false suggestion.

What is irrational by considering the offspring of human beings, which meets every definition of a human being, which has a beating heart, to be a living human being? You can disagree, but the rational is clear.

Besides, the burden of proof and caution should clearly lie with the people wishing to end the life of the being. Remember, we are not dealing with some issue of minor consequence. No matter what you consider the being to be, it is living in the common sense of the word (even if no smarter than a cricket or even less aware and intelligent) and killing it is not something we should do with indifference or without the utmost consideration and caution. If I find any reason not to kill it, I feel we should not. I see the beating heart as a clear and easy to understand sign that we should heed.

You can continue to be condescending and label my view as irrational but I have explained it clearly and logically.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I didn't say your belief istelf was irrational. But you responded by talking about degrees of intelligence when I previously said they had absolutely no intelligence, so it appeared as if you were suggesting that a foetus actually does have a level of intelligence, whatever that is.

Though I originally asked what is so vital that means this should be enacted into law. There's a lot of things I wouldn't do, but that doesn't mean I think they should be illegal.

[KrAzY3]

Though I originally asked what is so vital that means this should be enacted into law. There's a lot of things I wouldn't do, but that doesn't mean I think they should be illegal.


I consider it to be a living human being. The rational beyond that should be self explanatory. In essence I believe that idealy you should be able to do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone.

Considering I see it as a living human being then the rest should be easier to understand, even if you do not agree with it. Of course that is oversimplifying my view, there is the matter of guilt and innocence in relation to "harming" others, etc... but considering I also feel that the being is as innocent as possible then I can hardly find it guilty of anything and deserving of any harm.

[Churchel]

about a month ago I recieved a call from one of my female friends who had an unwanted pregnancy. I supported her decision, and kept her from wavering from it. I told her that she could partially blame me for making sure she went through the proceedure.

Years ago I was in a relationship with a female in her early 20's who worked at family planning. How the protesters treated her and what they said when she was entering work everyday was amazing. It seemed almost weekly I watched one of them take down my liscence plate when I dropped her off. It was different people every week, from whatever group shipped people in to "man the streets".

Dealing with my friend it was already a horrible enough experience. She felt horrible about things, I felt bad from my standpoint. It was not my child and she would not have been able to even find the father, it was a new years eve moment of weakness on the other side of the country.

I support population control, it seems religions support it for continuance and growth. Hopefully some day they come up with a "sterile" pill and a "pregnancy" pill. That would solve all of this, as long as we can get the religions on board. The morning after pill is as close as it comes.

[trefer]

I think abortion should be legal.

If religion wouldn't exist, abortion would do.

[penmyst]

Abortion is a moral issue, not a religious one.

My personal view is that abortion is murder.

I believe that when 2 cells split into 4-- that is when life starts. Arguing about when brain waves happen or heartbeats occur is all semantics, meaningless and unnecessary.

While it may be dependent on the mother until actual birth for sustaining it's life- that does not mean it is not alive.

If you take an action to intentionally terminate that growth- then you are killing a living being.

You can tell yourself otherwise. Rationalize it all you like. But it doesn't change the fact that you are terminating a living being's existence.

Being that it is entirely innocent, there is no justification for it's death.

And anyone that fools themselves to thinking it is "better off in some cases" for that child to never be allowed to live- are forgetting that NOBODY can guarantee what kind of life you will have. Many of the greatest people in the history of the world came from abject poverty, horrible family situations, or other such "bad circumstances". And many of our most heinous villians and criminals came from quite normal upbringings and environments.

I've not ever heard any person give me a solid reason why abortion is ever the best choice in any situation other than the mother's life being in risk if the baby is birthed. Not one.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Brain waves, heart beat etc. are much more than semantics. The point is, if something is not aware, or cannot survive outside the womb, or whatever other point you want to set, if that is not achieved then it is not valuable enough to override other concerns.

Saying 2 or 4 cells is important, and an actual life, indicated one of 2 things:

A. All killing of life is sinful
B. Humans, in all stages, are innately superior to all other forms of life

I don't think many of us feel bad for killing microscopic organisms, and I don't think many of us support the outlawing of killing mosquitos. There's nothing separating a 2 cell human, at that point in time, from any brainless organism, meaning a mosquito would be more aware.

Though every cell in your body is alive. When it's a zygote it's alive, yet you want to wait until it's a 4 cell embryo. Why don't you care about the zygotes?

[penmyst]

1.Humans ARE superior to all other life.

I don't believe it is even debatable.


2. All killing is not sinful. There are circumstances where it is necessary. Some of those are for personal protection or protection of society at large.


3. I don't draw the line at "4 cells". I was merely illustrating the growth. Inanimate objects don't grow, in chemistry you never have more than with what you begin.

Let me clarify it since you seem to be mincing words. At the point where the entity becomes more than the donation from mother and father- it's a new life. So zygote- yes. New life.


4. Newborn babies are entirely reliant on other humans for their survival. Does this make them "not valuable enough to override other concerns"? Preposterous assumption by me?

I think that is turning a black and white issue into one with varying shades of gray. When you do that- it can lead to all sorts of varying degrees of right, wrong, or amoral at all.

I refuse to see life through such a hazy worldview.

When it comes to dealing with a baby- you either respect it's right to life, or you don't believe it's life is worth anything more than your personal desires. The human life in this case (baby) is entirely innocent.

[AlonzoMourning23]

1.Humans ARE superior to all other life.

I don't believe it is even debatable.

You would be incorrect, that is an issue that's often debated.

But what makes humans innately superior?

2. All killing is not sinful. There are circumstances where it is necessary. Some of those are for personal protection or protection of society at large.

I was referring more to killing all types of life, not so much to individual circumstances.

3. I don't draw the line at "4 cells". I was merely illustrating the growth. Inanimate objects don't grow, in chemistry you never have more than with what you begin.

They can create amino acids in laboratories, which are the building blocks of life. Having more than you began with, and having something that's greater than the individual parts, is two different things.

Let me clarify it since you seem to be mincing words. At the point where the entity becomes more than the donation from mother and father- it's a new life. So zygote- yes. New life.

I was being sarcastic with the zygote thing


4. Newborn babies are entirely reliant on other humans for their survival. Does this make them "not valuable enough to override other concerns"? Preposterous assumption by me?

My focus was on the ability to think in even the most rudimentary fashion. Babies can do that. A 1 month old cannot.

I think that is turning a black and white issue into one with varying shades of gray. When you do that- it can lead to all sorts of varying degrees of right, wrong, or amoral at all.

I refuse to see life through such a hazy worldview.

Slippery slope logic is rarely accurate.

Few things are black and white. Even the most fundamental things tend to have exceptions. If you accept that rape victims, those whose life/health are in danger, and similar circumstances, can have abortions then you've already acknowledged there are varying shades of grey.

When it comes to dealing with a baby- you either respect it's right to life, or you don't believe it's life is worth anything more than your personal desires. The human life in this case (baby) is entirely innocent.


But it's lacking the reason that life is considered special, it lacks thought. It lacks awareness. Up to a certain point it is no more aware than a rock.

[penmyst]

If you don't believe human life is superior to all others- I feel sorry for you.

Not because you don't agree, but because that world view means we are nothing more than animal or plant life. Nothing special at all. I feel sorry if that is how you see your life.

A Christian would say that God created man in his own image and that is why we are special.

I'm not a Christian. But I know that man is special as a living entity.

[AlonzoMourning23]

And I feel sorry if you cannot even defend, or give reasons for, your own belief system.

“Seek knowledge by questioning widely; set aside aversion and reluctance.

Probably should pay attention to that part.

[Churchel]

For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.


I find it interesting this debate is going on during passover.