Abortion

[BilliardsBall]

At best you are simply wrong.
At worst you are a bold faced liar.
At this point in the "discussion" I do not know which it is.


"can not guarantee"?
What are you talking about?


Again you reveal you do not understand what "bodily autonomy" is.

I apologize if I've been unclear:

1. The bodily autonomy argument is not accepted by both sides as a valid argument. However, it is also true that both pro-life and pro-choice advocates (most of them!) would NEVER kill a baby. The heart of the argument is "when is it a baby". I know you don't advocate infanticide, either.

2. You are saying bodily autonomy is a right in all things. I'm unable to think of another human right that is observed only by killing a life form.

3. "Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. It considers the violation of bodily integrity as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal." This concept is expressed in things like anti-rape and anti-battery laws. If abortion is murder, autonomy does not "cover" it.

If the baby is a separate being entirely and not part of the mother's body, than abortion is killing another life to preserve one's autonomy--which is as I wrote, the sole "human right" established by killing another. If the baby is dependent on the mother, then the mother is destroying her own self. This seems to be the case as abortion does irreparable damage to the aborting mother. That is why people on both sides are calling the mothers abortion victims.

I'm not a liar, nor should you call me a liar and write of the same post "I don't understand what you've written... what are you talking about?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I apologize if I've been unclear:

1. The bodily autonomy argument is not accepted by both sides as a valid argument.

That's not true. There's no shortage of so-called "pro-lifers" who would be against things like forced organ and tissue donation, even when it would save a life. They accept bodily autonomy; they just don't acknowledge that it's relevant to abortion.

Heck - a lot of them are even against "opt-out" organ donation programs where, when a person dies, it's assumed that they're willing organ donors unless they've left instructions that they don't want to donate.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's not true. There's no shortage of so-called "pro-lifers" who would be against things like forced organ and tissue donation, even when it would save a life. They accept bodily autonomy; they just don't acknowledge that it's relevant to abortion.

Heck - a lot of them are even against "opt-out" organ donation programs where, when a person dies, it's assumed that they're willing organ donors unless they've left instructions that they don't want to donate.

Sorry, I was using "both sides" in a general way. But most of the most fervent pro-life people I know would gladly serve as organ donors, too.

Of course, organ donors are dead. I think God is more concerned with what the living do and have done.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, I using "both sides" in a general way. But most of the most fervent pro-life people I know would gladly serve as organ donors, too.

The issue isn't whether they'd choose to do it thenselves; the issue is whether they'd deny someone else the right to refuse.

Of course, organ donors are dead.

You don't need to be dead to donate a kidney. Or bone marrow. Or blood. Or a number of other things.

I think God is more concerned with what the living do and have done.

You mean like burying perfectly good organs to rot in the ground instead of using them to save lives? People die waiting for transplants every day, but even most anti-choicers consider the bodily autonomy of a corpse to be too important to violate, even to save a life.

 

[Scott C.]

There are a lot of religious arguments (and general political ones) against abortion. But I think that the argument, generally speaking, demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of the everyman.

So you're against abortion for whatever reason, but consider this argument from Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

"Most abortions are spontaneous and happen naturally within the human body. Most women who have such an abortion never know it because it happens within the first month. It is very, very common. So in fact the biggest abortionist, if god is responsible for what goes on in your body, is god."

Now when he says 'very common' what he means is 50-70%. That's 50-70% of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion that you 1) can't control and 2) are never aware of.

So how is the anti-abortionist stance tenable given this dataset?

I know this is an old thread with 100 pages or so. I'm simply commenting on the OP without regard for any recent tangents. I don't follow your line of reasoning. Nature kills every human being eventually. That's 100%. Yet, few would argue that God is a murderer simply because people die. Nor would they argue that humans should be able to murder since God either causes or allows nature to take all of our lives eventually, be it at 2 years old or 100 years old.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yet, few would argue that God is a murderer simply because people die.

Depends on what sort of God we're assuming.

If everything is unfolding according to God's plan, then every death is an intentional killing by God. I'm not sure how to take that except as murder. God can't use self-defense as justification for killing.

Also, if everything is according to God's plan, then God's complicit in all the deaths we've already decided are murders.

 

[Scott C.]

Depends on what sort of God we're assuming.

If everything is unfolding according to God's plan, then every death is an intentional killing by God. I'm not sure how to take that except as murder. God can't use self-defense as justification for killing.

Also, if everything is according to God's plan, then God's complicit in all the deaths we've already decided are murders.

LMAO. The purpose of life is to have a mortal experience and then move into eternity. Death is a birth into the next life. It's God's job to decide who's turn it is to move to the next life. That's not murder. It's murder when we play God and take a life without justification. It's God's job to decide when it's someone's turn to be born and when it's their turn to move on to the next life. This is why God cares so much about how we mortals create life and take life. We need to take care to bring life into this world on his terms and if we ever take a life, it had better be justified on his terms.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It's murder when we play God and take a life without justification.

Abortions usually have great justifications. Now what?

 

[Scott C.]

Abortions usually have great justifications. Now what?

That wasn't my point. There are a lot of arguments for and against abortion. But the OP argument is just silly and makes no sense. Also it's silly to say that God is complicit in the murder of humans, since people die. I was responding to those arguments.

The abortion argument has little to do with justification or a mother's wishes. It boils down to whether or not you believe that the unborn have a right to life. That is the only question of any import. If the unborn has the right to life, then it's very hard to find justification to take that life away. There's every reason for society to step in to protect that right. On the other hand, if the unborn has no life and no right to ever have a life, then it deserves no more respect than an annoying tumor. Do what you want with it. Have it surgically removed if you please.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

LMAO. The purpose of life is to have a mortal experience and then move into eternity. Death is a birth into the next life. It's God's job to decide who's turn it is to move to the next life. That's not murder. It's murder when we play God and take a life without justification. It's God's job to decide when it's someone's turn to be born and when it's their turn to move on to the next life. This is why God cares so much about how we mortals create life and take life. We need to take care to bring life into this world on his terms and if we ever take a life, it had better be justified on his terms.

By that measure, saving a life that God doesn't want saved is just as bad as murder. If messing with God's plan is the problem, what's the difference?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That wasn't my point. There are a lot of arguments for and against abortion. But the OP argument is just silly and makes no sense. Also it's silly to say that God is complicit in the murder of humans, since people die. I was responding to those arguments.

I was careful to preface all of that with "if everything unfolds according to God's plan..."

If God plans for a person to die at a particular time in a particular way, and we establish that this death is murder, how could God not be complicit?

If I wanted Bob dead and arranged things so that Jim would shoot him, I would be complicit in the murder, no? Why would God doing it change the culpability?

The abortion argument has little to do with justification or a mother's wishes. It boils down to whether or not you believe that the unborn have a right to life. That is the only question of any import.

Well, no. There's also:

- does the "unborn's" right to life outweigh the woman's right to bodily autonomy?
- is the harm under the status quo (with legal abortions being performed in hospitals and clinics) more or less than the harm under an abortion ban (with illegal abortions being done in illegal places).

If the unborn has the right to life, then it's very hard to find justification to take that life away. There's every reason for society to step in to protect that right. On the other hand, if the unborn has no life and no right to ever have a life, then it deserves no more respect than an annoying tumor. Do what you want with it. Have it surgically removed if you please.

It isn't as black and white as you suggest. We deal with competing rights all the time, and in many cases - involving real, verifiable people who unquestionably have rights under the law - "the right to life" loses out to other rights and concerns.

 

[Scott C.]

By that measure, saving a life that God doesn't want saved is just as bad as murder. If messing with God's plan is the problem, what's the difference?

Your questions show a lack of understanding of how Christians believe that God operates. He wants us to cherish life, to fight for it, to not give up, to save others when possible. But in spite of our respect for life and all of our efforts, all people eventually die. That is not bad. It's part of God's plan. We don't go against God when we try to save a life, who's time is up. But we do go against his will when we take a life. I make an exception for self defense, national defense, etc. I know you're a smart person and use logic. But do you really not know the answers to these questions? I know you don't believe, but I am surprised at what seem like very silly softball questions. No offense.

 

[Scott C.]

I was careful to preface all of that with "if everything unfolds according to God's plan..."

If God plans for a person to die at a particular time in a particular way, and we establish that this death is murder, how could God not be complicit?

If I wanted Bob dead and arranged things so that Jim would shoot him, I would be complicit in the murder, no? Why would God doing it change the culpability?


Well, no. There's also:

- does the "unborn's" right to life outweigh the woman's right to bodily autonomy?
- is the harm under the status quo (with legal abortions being performed in hospitals and clinics) more or less than the harm under an abortion ban (with illegal abortions being done in illegal places).

It isn't as black and white as you suggest. We deal with competing rights all the time, and in many cases - involving real, verifiable people who unquestionably have rights under the law - "the right to life" loses out to other rights and concerns.

If you want the definition of murder to include the act of God returning a mortal soul back to him, then fine. That's a weird definition, since murder is a horribly immoral act. God is not immoral. But if you insist on that definition, then yes, God is complicit in murder. But it seems that you are twisting the definition to make God out to morally bad, which is ridiculous.

I don't want to respond to all of your quotes on abortion, as I don't want to do down that rat hole of what has been debated ad infinitum (I like that term I learned in math classes. It makes me feel smart).

I will say that I find the overturn of abortion laws to be problematic. I have no idea how we would get that genie back in the bottle. How would we enforce it? What would be the punishment? If we allow abortion for rape or incest, how would the victim prove it? Would she have to wait for a conviction, by which time the child would already be born? While I find the practice to be morally wrong and should be illegal, when 1.4 million women have an abortion each year, we have a title wave too immense to stop completely. (Not sure about the 1.4 million. Did a quick google.)

 

[BilliardsBall]

The issue isn't whether they'd choose to do it thenselves; the issue is whether they'd deny someone else the right to refuse.


You don't need to be dead to donate a kidney. Or bone marrow. Or blood. Or a number of other things.



You mean like burying perfectly good organs to rot in the ground instead of using them to save lives? People die waiting for transplants every day, but even most anti-choicers consider the bodily autonomy of a corpse to be too important to violate, even to save a life.

I'm unsure where you are going with this:

1. Religious people who wish to honor God with their bodies (sometimes) choose not to donate organs after they die. They wouldn't need to claim "body autonomy!" but rather, religious proscription.

2. Some women (and men) terminate children because they don't want them, claiming "bodily autonomy!"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Abortions usually have great justifications. Now what?

Did you mean to write "lazy" or "lousy" justifications?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Your questions show a lack of understanding of how Christians believe that God operates. He wants us to cherish life, to fight for it, to not give up, to save others when possible. But in spite of our respect for life and all of our efforts, all people eventually die. That is not bad. It's part of God's plan. We don't go against God when we try to save a life, who's time is up. But we do go against his will when we take a life. I make an exception for self defense, national defense, etc. I know you're a smart person and use logic. But do you really not know the answers to these questions? I know you don't believe, but I am surprised at what seem like very silly softball questions. No offense.

And sometimes it becomes impossible to bring a kid into the world. Them's the breaks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm unsure where you are going with this:

1. Religious people who wish to honor God with their bodies (sometimes) choose not to donate organs after they die. They wouldn't need to claim "body autonomy!" but rather, religious proscription.

There are very few cases like that. Most of the time, when viable organs get buried, it's because the deceased never bothered to express an opinion either way on the issue.

2. Some women (and men) terminate children because they don't want them, claiming "bodily autonomy!"

Bodily autonomy isn't a reason to have an abortion; it's a reason not to stop a woman who seeks one.

 

[Acim]

For the life of me I can't understand the people that oppose BOTH contraception and abortion. It seems to me that if you are strongly opposed to abortion that you would be all in favour of the availability of contraception for all because obviously that is going to significantly cut down the number of unwanted pregnancies.

For the life of me, I can't understand why if you aren't wanting abortions to happen, do favor the availability of contraceptions, but would dislike having abstinence as the most obvious way to prevent pregnancy (that could lead to decision for abortion). IMO, if contraception awareness is going to be taught, abstinence awareness ought to be conveyed and emphasized. It ought to be presented as method #1 to the newly initiated, for the reality of human dating/mating. Contraception can be noted, considered, but ought to be seen as secondary to abstinence.

Any paradigm that would deemphasize abstinence would then be a philosophy where I could see why contraception awareness would be downplayed even while there is desire to limit or eradicate abortions.

 

[Acim]

There are a lot of religious arguments (and general political ones) against abortion. But I think that the argument, generally speaking, demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of the everyman.

So you're against abortion for whatever reason, but consider this argument from Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

"Most abortions are spontaneous and happen naturally within the human body.

Then they are not (deliberate) abortions (by human hands).

Most women who have such an abortion never know it because it happens within the first month. It is very, very common. So in fact the biggest abortionist, if god is responsible for what goes on in your body, is god."

Now when he says 'very common' what he means is 50-70%. That's 50-70% of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion that you 1) can't control and 2) are never aware of.

So how is the anti-abortionist stance tenable given this dataset?

The same way anti-killing stance is tenable.

 

[McBell]

For the life of me, I can't understand why if you aren't wanting abortions to happen, do favor the availability of contraceptions, but would dislike having abstinence as the most obvious way to prevent pregnancy (that could lead to decision for abortion). IMO, if contraception awareness is going to be taught, abstinence awareness ought to be conveyed and emphasized. It ought to be presented as method #1 to the newly initiated, for the reality of human dating/mating. Contraception can be noted, considered, but ought to be seen as secondary to abstinence.

Any paradigm that would deemphasize abstinence would then be a philosophy where I could see why contraception awareness would be downplayed even while there is desire to limit or eradicate abortions.

Even abstinence is not 100%...