Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Okay, let's run with that argument.
Good question. My initial thought is no because the human life created did not have a say in being created. A person that drives knows there are risks to driving and made a choice to drive. The person at fault has moral and legal responsibilities to have insurance and pay medical bills and repairs of the other person. I will think on this more though.
Even though this isn't directed at me, I take it as it answers my question to you.
It is not a "species". Species is a term that applies to a group of living organisms. Biologists do not tend to count the fetuses, embryos, and zygotes separate from the host. They are not counted until born.
No, you are still operating under the false premise that that is a child. It is not a child until it is born and then both have the same rules applied to them.
Yes, after a child is born both have the same obligations. Before then it is the woman's choice. It is not a "child" until after it is born.
So as I have said pro life to me is a label about abortion not anything else. This has historically been the case. I can show anyone that is pro choice is not pro choice on all issues. It just derails the abortion debate.
Due to restrictions on late term abortions merely being an attempt by the pro-lifers to get a foot in the door I have my favorite compromise. No insurance coverage for abortions after 22 weeks unless medically necessary. Any way halfway honest antiabortionist knows that the number of abortions in the 22 week plus range that are on demand is for all practical purposes zero. Over 99% of abortions occur before then. Almost all that occur after that are medically necessary. I do not mind a person having to show that an abortion was necessary at that stage. Current bans on late term abortions are largely there to make people getting legitimate ones have to jump through hoops a bit. With my compromise they can make their case after the abortion. There would be no need to put off any longer what has to be done. A tiny percentage of less than 1% of all abortions would have to be paid for the the woman. That is compromise enough.
I would say that if Christians can compromise on working on Saturdays, or Sundays, they can also compromise on what they call murder. Both things are in the same short list of moral wrongs delivered by the very giver of morality.
Except this hasn't been the case even historically.
I would say that the Bible is even clearer about working on Saturday. It is not clear at all on the abortion issue. I can find better arguments for abortion being legal than Christians can find against it with their own Bible.
Yes. But the counter factual consequence of assuming the 10 commandments have any value, is that working at Mc Donalds on Sunday is as bad as shooting a baby girl in the face. that is just a pure logical conclusion of the belief. And once you have that, then abortion should be a moral cakewalk.
I would argue that the Ten Commandments do not apply because the Bible clearly did not think that fetuses etc. counted as being human. Though if one goes by the Ten Commandments carved on the tablets in the Ark of the Covenant the Tenth Commandment almost applies. No I take that back. It is more of a ban on cheeseburgers than anything else.
It meets the definition of species. What else is it if not human life?
No, I was referring to raising the child after birth. I have not referred to the preborn as children.
The mother can say I don't want to raise the child once born and terminate it prior to the birth and is applauded for it by pro choice people. The father cannot even just say I don't want to raise the child, nothing about terminating it, and is derided by the same people that applauded the mother.
Not applauded. You can do better than that. And I do agree that a father should be able to "abort" his ties to the potential child. That fight cannot be settled until abortion is settled.
Yes, and since your standards are inconsistent we can't go by those.
I am ok with potential child but it is human and it is life. You say it becomes human at birth, that is just an arbitrary point in the development of the created life. The point is an abortion stops the person from having a chance of becoming a child once the process has started by the free choice of the parents.
So you think the father can just have a child and abandon it to have others take care of it? That is immoral in my opinion.
This is not a response to my statement.
You need to drop the strawman arguments if you want to have a reasonable discussion. When you cannot deal with the arguments given to you you are only admitting that you are wrong.
If you want to stand your ground and go for the only result that you can live with, go for it. If you win, you'll see me in the crowd cheering and waving a flag. You're saying you don't think compromise is possible or even advisable. Fine, that's really all I was asking in the OP. You're not going to win outright though without a constitutional amendment to enshrine, hmmm not abortion, too specific, maybe Privacy, in the Constitution. We've seen how a previously sacrosanct Supreme Court decision can fall to a determined attack.
OK, so how can the other side compromise? Both sides have to give something.
That is my hope too. Do you think the current situation where the States decide for themselves should continue? It's quite possible that one party or the other could pass a Federal law that, once confirmed by the SCOTUS, would affected everyone. Great if "we" do it, horrible if "they" do. If it remains with the States, it seems likely that there would always be options for those seeking abortions at the very least, and maybe slow erosion by those in "red" States could bring about change there.