Seeking Clean Discussion and to Understand Pro-Choice Stance

I'm new to this forum and posting here because, where I generally post, topics related to religion and politics are forbidden. This place is advertised as a fairly friendly discussion spot, so I'm hoping to have a civil and 'in good faith' discussion about abortion.

---

There is one controversial thing I assume are true for religious reasons. And another that I don't think is really up for debate, but folk can contest it if they wish. I'll call them axioms in my discussion since, for the purposes of this conversation, I consider them axiomatically true.
1) Life begins at conception. That is, upon conception, it is a living human being.
2) In general, we do not have a right to cause someone to die. E.g., murder is bad.

If axiom 1 is true, then abortion is equivalent to killing a living person. If done without a good cause, that is murder. If axiom 2 is true, then abortion (as murder) is bad.

So now I'll discuss some things I've heard about abortion. Please discuss/debate.

It'll ruin my life
This might (not sure) be a strawman argument, but the idea of someone wanting an abortion simply because having a child ruins their plans or complicates their life seems obviously want. I can emphasize; I had a pregnancy scare while in college (turned out to be nothing or be a miscarriage--not sure) and abortion was a tempting option.

But, given axiom 1, this seems equivalent to killing someone for convenience. Obviously not a good reason.

I can't care for the child / The world is horrible
I can see why many would want an abortion. The present world is harsh, and having a baby one can't provide good care for it is a horrible feeling, and it seems better even to me to have it die rather than live in the world without loving parents. But I don't think that's a choice the parents have to make.

If axiom 1 is true, then it's a living person, and we don't get to kill them because it ruins our life or it seems like they are destined for a horrible life. If a parent cannot (or refuses to) care for a child, they can put it up for adoption. I realize doing that might seem like setting the child up for a bad life, but, again, it's not our choice to kill someone because we think they will have a bad life.

Rape Victims/Medical Danger
I can understand special cases and exceptions for things like victims of rape or when there's something medically wrong that makes taking the child to term dangerous for the mother.

In case of victims of rape (or any similar crime), though, it seems like a horrible situation to be put in, but aborting the fetus is murdering an innocent third party. Adoption is an option if the mother (quite reasonably) doesn't want the baby.

In cases where there's a medical conflict (e.g., baby or mother will die if child comes to term, mother will die if child comes to term, baby and mother will die if child comes to term), I think that's also a horrible situation to be in and I can see abortion as a reasonable outcome there.
Here, I think the mother having the choice makes sense. They can choose to try to bring the child to term (whatever the risk to themself or the baby), or choose to abort since it's life-threatening to have the child.

Similarly, I don't think we should allow abortion due to medical defects in the child, at least in cases where the person could live. Would I be tempted by the idea of an abortion if I found out my child had some severe mental or physical deformity? Probably. But that's a lack of compassion on me. If it's not allowed to kill them if they are living with the defect, then I don't think it should be allowed to abort them.

My body, my choice

I hear some people argue some version of this, or say that women's sense of identity, sexuality, or some other quality is tied to the right to abortion. This is the part I really do not understand and would like clarification on.

No abortion means danger to women
This is also something I'd like clarification on.

I get that some women will choose to have abortions by going to 'back-alley' doctors and get shoddy treatment and die. And I can be sympathetic. But if abortion is equivalent to murder, then it's hard to strongly think that action should be taken besides making other options than abortion available, such as contraceptives and easy adoption.

I do believe that, even if abortion is banned, people should be more supportive of women who are pregnant, regardless of the cause of the pregnancy. Even in a conservative/traditional community where premartial sex is considered taboo, the community can still support and love for someone who breaks the taboo and gets pregnant. (I was surprised and heartened by something like that happening in my community a couple years back.)

If it is dangerous to women in some other way, please let me know what ways.

JeenLeen said:

I'm new to this forum and posting here because, where I generally post, topics related to religion and politics are forbidden. This place is advertised as a fairly friendly discussion spot, so I'm hoping to have a civil and 'in good faith' discussion about abortion.

---

There is one controversial thing I assume are true for religious reasons. And another that I don't think is really up for debate, but folk can contest it if they wish. I'll call them axioms in my discussion since, for the purposes of this conversation, I consider them axiomatically true.
1) Life begins at conception. That is, upon conception, it is a living human being.
2) In general, we do not have a right to cause someone to die. E.g., murder is bad.

If axiom 1 is true, then abortion is equivalent to killing a living person. If done without a good cause, that is murder. If axiom 2 is true, then abortion (as murder) is bad.

So now I'll discuss some things I've heard about abortion. Please discuss/debate.

It'll ruin my life
This might (not sure) be a strawman argument, but the idea of someone wanting an abortion simply because having a child ruins their plans or complicates their life seems obviously want. I can emphasize; I had a pregnancy scare while in college (turned out to be nothing or be a miscarriage--not sure) and abortion was a tempting option.

But, given axiom 1, this seems equivalent to killing someone for convenience. Obviously not a good reason.

I can't care for the child / The world is horrible
I can see why many would want an abortion. The present world is harsh, and having a baby one can't provide good care for it is a horrible feeling, and it seems better even to me to have it die rather than live in the world without loving parents. But I don't think that's a choice the parents have to make.

If axiom 1 is true, then it's a living person, and we don't get to kill them because it ruins our life or it seems like they are destined for a horrible life. If a parent cannot (or refuses to) care for a child, they can put it up for adoption. I realize doing that might seem like setting the child up for a bad life, but, again, it's not our choice to kill someone because we think they will have a bad life.

Rape Victims/Medical Danger
I can understand special cases and exceptions for things like victims of rape or when there's something medically wrong that makes taking the child to term dangerous for the mother.

In case of victims of rape (or any similar crime), though, it seems like a horrible situation to be put in, but aborting the fetus is murdering an innocent third party. Adoption is an option if the mother (quite reasonably) doesn't want the baby.

In cases where there's a medical conflict (e.g., baby or mother will die if child comes to term, mother will die if child comes to term, baby and mother will die if child comes to term), I think that's also a horrible situation to be in and I can see abortion as a reasonable outcome there.
Here, I think the mother having the choice makes sense. They can choose to try to bring the child to term (whatever the risk to themself or the baby), or choose to abort since it's life-threatening to have the child.

Similarly, I don't think we should allow abortion due to medical defects in the child, at least in cases where the person could live. Would I be tempted by the idea of an abortion if I found out my child had some severe mental or physical deformity? Probably. But that's a lack of compassion on me. If it's not allowed to kill them if they are living with the defect, then I don't think it should be allowed to abort them.

My body, my choice

I hear some people argue some version of this, or say that women's sense of identity, sexuality, or some other quality is tied to the right to abortion. This is the part I really do not understand and would like clarification on.

No abortion means danger to women
This is also something I'd like clarification on.

I get that some women will choose to have abortions by going to 'back-alley' doctors and get shoddy treatment and die. And I can be sympathetic. But if abortion is equivalent to murder, then it's hard to strongly think that action should be taken besides making other options than abortion available, such as contraceptives and easy adoption.

I do believe that, even if abortion is banned, people should be more supportive of women who are pregnant, regardless of the cause of the pregnancy.
If it is dangerous to women in some other way, please let me know what ways.

Click to expand...

No one can force you to risk your life for someone else. Pregnancy can kill you.

Can a living breathing person be forced to donate bone marrow, organs, or even blood to keep another person alive? No.

To remove organs from a corpse to use for another person you have to have consent from the person that dies or their next of kin. So why should a woman have less rights to her body, organs, and blood than a corpse does?

Look at it another way.
If someone moves into my house without permission I can evict them, I can even kill them. Why should I not be allowed to evict or kill someone that moves into my body without my permission?

vegas giants said:

No one can force you to risk your life for someone else. Pregnancy can kill you.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I hadn't considered just the innate risk of death from a normal pregnancy.

I plan to think on this more, but I think that we do have some sort of obligation to try to maintain someone's life if it's linked to ours once that linkage occurs, as long as there's reasonable/minimal risk. Which I would think a pregnancy without extra risks would be.

I feel like there's a good counter-argument in something like "you have the right to not get pregnant, but once you are (whether intentional or not), you're responsible for the child just like you'd be responsible for a newborn. Whether the child is born or not doesn't change it being alive and in your care."
But I see you're not debating that. You're debating the risk to one's own life. I guess it'd be more akin to if one's house if on fire and it's not clear if it's safe to get to the nursery and grab the baby out of the crib. Is a mother guilty of neglect if they flee the house without attempting to grab the child? (I reckon there's a better analogy, but I think that fits a little bit in the 'life-threatening situation with unknown risk, but minimal risk as far as one knows'.)

I also feel like there's some counter-argument in that, while we might not have a legal responsibility to risk our life for someone else's, there is a moral one. If I could save someone's life by simply risking my own, then I think I'd feel obligated to do so. (It'd be different if I knew for sure, or pretty sure, I'd die as well.) But I agree that an extra religious reason. Maybe I'd need to add that as another axiomatic belief.

Again, thank you. This gave me something very thought-provoking to ponder and I appreciate it.

EDIT: wolfsgirl posted while I was drafting this response.
I think the home-invasion analogy fails because we're allowed to kill if there's risk (or perceived risk.) Just like I'd feel a moral obligation to try to risk my life to save another's, I'd feel a moral obligation to not kill someone in order to get them out of my house. Putting a child up for foster care seems a good analogy for "have police take them out once they can be taken out without being killed".

Gotta think on the donation idea.

JeenLeen said:

Thank you. I hadn't considered just the innate risk of death from a normal pregnancy.

I plan to think on this more, but I think that we do have some sort of obligation to try to maintain someone's life if it's linked to ours once that linkage occurs, as long as there's reasonable/minimal risk. Which I would think a pregnancy without extra risks would be.

I feel like there's a good counter-argument in something like "you have the right to not get pregnant, but once you are (whether intentional or not), you're responsible for the child just like you'd be responsible for a newborn. Whether the child is born or not doesn't change it being alive and in your care."
But I see you're not debating that. You're debating the risk to one's own life. I guess it'd be more akin to if one's house if on fire and it's not clear if it's safe to get to the nursery and grab the baby out of the crib. Is a mother guilty of neglect if they flee the house without attempting to grab the child? (I reckon there's a better analogy, but I think that fits a little bit in the 'life-threatening situation with unknown risk, but minimal risk as far as one knows'.)

I also feel like there's some counter-argument in that, while we might not have a legal responsibility to risk our life for someone else's, there is a moral one. If I could save someone's life by simply risking my own, then I think I'd feel obligated to do so. (It'd be different if I knew for sure, or pretty sure, I'd die as well.) But I agree that an extra religious reason. Maybe I'd need to add that as another axiomatic belief.

Again, thank you. This gave me something very thought-provoking to ponder and I appreciate it.

Click to expand...

Let's say that house is on fire. There is a baby inside and 100 fertilized embryos. You can save one or the other. Who do you save?

Your entire premise hinges upon axiom 1.

Unfortunately, where life begins is the bigger debate - always has been. Most people disagree that a tiny cluster of cells, irrespective of their great potential, can be called a human being. The genetics are human, of course, but that does mean it is a person yet. <- this being the other side of the argument, of course. Rights protect people. Not parts...

Until you get consensus on that (good luck), your entire argument may or may not be relevant.

That all being said, though...you said you want to understand the pro choice position...but your entire post seems to be about debunking before anyone gets a word out. Were you sincerely looking for understanding, or did you just feel the need to lecture? Legit question, trying to decide how much time to spend in this thread...

vegas giants said:

Let's say that house is on fire. There is a baby inside and 100 fertilized embryos. You can save one or the other. Who do you save?

Click to expand...

Ermagherd, Vegas Giants is back. Missed you, man...looking forward to fun times ahead.

JeenLeen said:

I'm new to this forum

Click to expand...

From a strictly legal perspective, do you believe abortion should be a option for a woman? Why?



Please - read this when you have time.

The abortion debate - Carl Sagan

JeenLeen said:

Thank you. I hadn't considered just the innate risk of death from a normal pregnancy.

I plan to think on this more, but I think that we do have some sort of obligation to try to maintain someone's life if it's linked to ours once that linkage occurs, as long as there's reasonable/minimal risk. Which I would think a pregnancy without extra risks would be.

I feel like there's a good counter-argument in something like "you have the right to not get pregnant, but once you are (whether intentional or not), you're responsible for the child just like you'd be responsible for a newborn. Whether the child is born or not doesn't change it being alive and in your care."
But I see you're not debating that. You're debating the risk to one's own life. I guess it'd be more akin to if one's house if on fire and it's not clear if it's safe to get to the nursery and grab the baby out of the crib. Is a mother guilty of neglect if they flee the house without attempting to grab the child? (I reckon there's a better analogy, but I think that fits a little bit in the 'life-threatening situation with unknown risk, but minimal risk as far as one knows'.)

I also feel like there's some counter-argument in that, while we might not have a legal responsibility to risk our life for someone else's, there is a moral one. If I could save someone's life by simply risking my own, then I think I'd feel obligated to do so. (It'd be different if I knew for sure, or pretty sure, I'd die as well.) But I agree that an extra religious reason. Maybe I'd need to add that as another axiomatic belief.

Again, thank you. This gave me something very thought-provoking to ponder and I appreciate it.

EDIT: wolfsgirl posted while I was drafting this response.
I think the home-invasion analogy fails because we're allowed to kill if there's risk (or perceived risk.) Just like I'd feel a moral obligation to try to risk my life to save another's, I'd feel a moral obligation to not kill someone in order to get them out of my house. Putting a child up for foster care seems a good analogy for "have police take them out once they can be taken out without being killed".

Gotta think on the donation idea.

Click to expand...

IF I perceive a risk from pregnancy, then it is the same thing. The US has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world, there is a risk for any pregnancy.

And no you are not required to house and feed someone living in your house for 9 months if you did not consent to them being there in the first place. I can evict them during a blizzard even if it means that they will die. I can shoot someone who breaks into my house, I don't have to wait until the police arrive to take them away. Just being in my house is a risk to me and my family. Pregnancy is a risk to me and my family, it can cause loss of wages, it costs money I need for my other children, I can cost me my health or even my life.

OlNate said:

Ermagherd, Vegas Giants is back. Missed you, man...looking forward to fun times ahead.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you are

I hope to think on and respond to the other posts later when I have more time, but wanted to respond to this crucial one.

OlNate said:

Your entire premise hinges upon axiom 1.

Unfortunately, where life begins is the bigger debate - always has been. Most people disagree that a tiny cluster of cells, irrespective of their great potential, can be called a human being. The genetics are human, of course, but that does mean it is a person yet. <- this being the other side of the argument, of course. Rights protect people. Not parts...

Until you get consensus on that (good luck), your entire argument may or may not be relevant.

That all being said, though...you said you want to understand the pro choice position...but your entire post seems to be about debunking before anyone gets a word out. Were you sincerely looking for understanding, or did you just feel the need to lecture? Legit question, trying to decide how much time to spend in this thread...

Click to expand...

I completely agree it all hinges on axiom 1. I think a lot part of differing perspectives is different fundamental worldviews. (Axiom 1 itself might not be a fundamental thing, but I derive it from theological conclusions during the ecumenical councils from the first few centuries of Christianity, which it related to my fundamental worldview.) Part of this thread is that I'm wondering if anyone who agrees with #1 would disagree about abortion and, if so, why. (And so far a couple folk have posited pro-choice views that work even if life begins at conception.)

And your question is indeed legit. I am looking for understanding, but in a 'logical discussion/debate' fashion. I wanted to put forth my responses to what I've seen of pro-choice views to get that out of the way, so that I could go ahead and hear the opposing side's perspective and responses. It seemed more efficient to go on and put this down so that I could hear the responses more directly. I figure it will be back-and-forth as we aren't convinced by each other, but that still helps understanding of the other perspective grow.

On an emotional level, I want to be more sympathetic to pro-choice people. I can be very sympathetic to those in a rough situation who are considering abortion, but it's hard for me not to feel ill emotions when I see things in the news that (to me) boil down to advocating murder. If I understand better where they're coming from and why it doesn't seem like murder... well, that seems helpful.

vegas giants said:

I'm sure you are

Click to expand...

I sure am!

JeenLeen said:

I hope to think on and respond to the other posts later when I have more time, but wanted to respond to this crucial one.



I completely agree it all hinges on axiom 1. I think a lot part of differing perspectives is different fundamental worldviews. (Axiom 1 itself might not be a fundamental thing, but I derive it from theological conclusions during the ecumenical councils from the first few centuries of Christianity, which it related to my fundamental worldview.) Part of this thread is that I'm wondering if anyone who agrees with #1 would disagree about abortion and, if so, why. (And so far a couple folk have posited pro-choice views that work even if life begins at conception.)

And your question is indeed legit. I am looking for understanding, but in a 'logical discussion/debate' fashion. I wanted to put forth my responses to what I've seen of pro-choice views to get that out of the way, so that I could go ahead and hear the opposing side's perspective and responses. It seemed more efficient to go on and put this down so that I could hear the responses more directly. I figure it will be back-and-forth as we aren't convinced by each other, but that still helps understanding of the other perspective grow.

On an emotional level, I want to be more sympathetic to pro-choice people. I can be very sympathetic to those in a rough situation who are considering abortion, but it's hard for me not to feel ill emotions when I see things in the news that (to me) boil down to advocating murder. If I understand better where they're coming from and why it doesn't seem like murder... well, that seems helpful.

Click to expand...

Ok, I'm interested, seems like you're legitimately working through this one.

I'm also interested to know what theological conclusions during the ecumenical councils from the first few centuries of Christianity say about abortion, and why you feel confident in the scientific findings (since this would have to be a scientific conversation) done by a religious group 1700 years ago. Legit question, not making a point with it, I'm interested to understand where you're coming from, for the purposes of further conversation.

Whether or not we see women as having a moral or legal right to abort their pregnancies is irrelevant. The fetus is dependent on the mother in order to survive its time in the womb, and if she desires to abort it, in practical terms there is very little that anyone can do to stop her. It is not human laws or the state that grants her this power to end her pregnancy, but nature itself, or God if you will. Women are the arbiters of human reproduction and so far no power exists that can take this away. Women do not abort for legal or moral reasons, they do it for their own reasons, whatever they may be, and nature gives them the authority to do so. I will not fight the laws of nature.

JeenLeen said:

There is one controversial thing I assume are true for religious reasons. And another that I don't think is really up for debate, but folk can contest it if they wish. I'll call them axioms in my discussion since, for the purposes of this conversation, I consider them axiomatically true.

1) Life begins at conception. That is, upon conception, it is a living human being.
2) In general, we do not have a right to cause someone to die. E.g., murder is bad.

If axiom 1 is true, then abortion is equivalent to killing a living person. If done without a good cause, that is murder. If axiom 2 is true, then abortion (as murder) is bad.

Click to expand...

Frist of all, Thank you for your willingness to be open minded.

However, I do not accept your axiom 1 to be completely true.

For example, your part "A" of your axiom #1. While life "could" be thought to begin at contraception, I don't look at "just contraception" to dictate life. I look at viable life. For instance a fertilized egg doesn't necessarily implant itself correctly and you can have a miscarriage or a situation where the fertilized egg implants into the actual tube and must be medically removed. Miscarriages happen, so if life began does that mean the woman's body caused murder?

For your part "B" of axiom #1 I also disagree. I look at the woman (and frankly men as well) to have 100% control over their own body. If they choose to end their own life, that is up to them and I fully support their own (maybe misguided IMO) decision to do so. I do not believe in the war on drugs either. I think the age of adulthood should be ONE age for everything and not just a few things, like 18 to enter into a contract, 21 to drink, etc. It should be one age. So in rough terms, I do not consider a woman having control over her body murder.

So with those two things in disagreement, I simply cannot follow or agree to your logic. And do not get me wrong, you can be 100% against abortion and I don't really care. What you choose to do with your own body is your choice IMO. Where I have issues is when you tell others what to do or force laws for them to follow what you agree with.

Hope that helps.

JeenLeen said:

I hope to think on and respond to the other posts later when I have more time, but wanted to respond to this crucial one.



I completely agree it all hinges on axiom 1. I think a lot part of differing perspectives is different fundamental worldviews. (Axiom 1 itself might not be a fundamental thing, but I derive it from theological conclusions during the ecumenical councils from the first few centuries of Christianity, which it related to my fundamental worldview.) Part of this thread is that I'm wondering if anyone who agrees with #1 would disagree about abortion and, if so, why. (And so far a couple folk have posited pro-choice views that work even if life begins at conception.)

And your question is indeed legit. I am looking for understanding, but in a 'logical discussion/debate' fashion. I wanted to put forth my responses to what I've seen of pro-choice views to get that out of the way, so that I could go ahead and hear the opposing side's perspective and responses. It seemed more efficient to go on and put this down so that I could hear the responses more directly. I figure it will be back-and-forth as we aren't convinced by each other, but that still helps understanding of the other perspective grow.

On an emotional level, I want to be more sympathetic to pro-choice people. I can be very sympathetic to those in a rough situation who are considering abortion, but it's hard for me not to feel ill emotions when I see things in the news that (to me) boil down to advocating murder. If I understand better where they're coming from and why it doesn't seem like murder... well, that seems helpful.

Click to expand...

So here we are: you object to abortion for religious reasons. Why should we who reject your religion - and everyone else's - pay any attention to you or your presumptuous 'world view'?

JeenLeen said:

I hope to think on and respond to the other posts later when I have more time, but wanted to respond to this crucial one.



I completely agree it all hinges on axiom 1. I think a lot part of differing perspectives is different fundamental worldviews. (Axiom 1 itself might not be a fundamental thing, but I derive it from theological conclusions during the ecumenical councils from the first few centuries of Christianity, which it related to my fundamental worldview.) Part of this thread is that I'm wondering if anyone who agrees with #1 would disagree about abortion and, if so, why. (And so far a couple folk have posited pro-choice views that work even if life begins at conception.)

And your question is indeed legit. I am looking for understanding, but in a 'logical discussion/debate' fashion. I wanted to put forth my responses to what I've seen of pro-choice views to get that out of the way, so that I could go ahead and hear the opposing side's perspective and responses. It seemed more efficient to go on and put this down so that I could hear the responses more directly. I figure it will be back-and-forth as we aren't convinced by each other, but that still helps understanding of the other perspective grow.

On an emotional level, I want to be more sympathetic to pro-choice people. I can be very sympathetic to those in a rough situation who are considering abortion, but it's hard for me not to feel ill emotions when I see things in the news that (to me) boil down to advocating murder. If I understand better where they're coming from and why it doesn't seem like murder... well, that seems helpful.

Click to expand...

While there are some religions that believe life/enslulment begins at conception.

Others believe that life/ensoulment begins with live birth when the newborn takes his/her first breath also known as the breath of life.

The vast majority of those of the Jewish faith and large portion of the Protestant religions are Pro Choice and joined together to form the Religious Coailation of Reproductive Choice.

They sincerely believe that access to an early abortion is a part of our religious liberty in the United States.

From the RCRC:

Good policy allows people of all religions to follow their own faiths and consciences in their own lives. In reproductive health, rights and justice, we define religious liberty as the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family and her faith. The religious beliefs of others should not interfere.

Click to expand...

Read more:

The Moral Case – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

JeenLeen said:

(trimmed for brevity)

Click to expand...

Consider this hypothetical scenario:

1. I get into a car crash. My kidneys are severely damaged. My insurance will only cover dialysis for a week, and I cannot afford out-of-pocket expenses after that.
2. Therefore, I need an emergency kidney within a week.
3. Complicating the matter, I have a rare condition that will reject nearly any donor kidney.
4. You just so happen to have two of the only known kidneys out there that my body would accept. No other such kidney has even been located. Remember, I need a functioning kidney to survive and I need it no later than one week from today.

Should you be forced to give up one of your kidneys to me? I'm not asking you in this hypothetical scenario to donate a kidney out of the goodness of your heart. I'm asking if, given all of this, you should be legally forced to give up one of your kidneys.

JeenLeen said:

I consider them axiomatically true.
1) Life begins at conception. That is, upon conception, it is a living human being.
2) In general, we do not have a right to cause someone to die. E.g., murder is bad.

If axiom 1 is true, then abortion is equivalent to killing a living person. If done without a good cause, that is murder. If axiom 2 is true, then abortion (as murder) is bad.

Click to expand...

I don't accept your axioms, or the logic you employ to reach your conclusions.

1) Life does not begin at conception. A sperm and and egg are also "alive," so life begins before conception. Also, just because something is "alive" and comes from a human, doesn't mean it's a "human being." And even if it is, that's mere semantics, and only has meaning in this context if you justify giving it meaning.

2). In general, we don't have the right to kill a thing when the law says we don't have that right. Abortion is legal, so we have the right to do it.

Even if you assume that a human embryo is a "human being" for purely semantic purposes, that's not the same as it being a "person." And even if it is a person, killing it is not necessarily murder, for the reason I already stated.

In short, this set of arguments is basically all semantics and question-begging. If you want to perform a meaningful analysis of the issue, you should first establish all the reasons why it is ordinarily not okay to kill a "person" (however defined), and then establish whether or not those reasons apply to a human embryo in utero.

Phys251 said:

Consider this hypothetical scenario:

1. I get into a car crash. My kidneys are severely damaged. My insurance will only cover dialysis for a week, and I cannot afford out-of-pocket expenses after that.
2. Therefore, I need an emergency kidney within a week.
3. Complicating the matter, I have a rare condition that will reject nearly any donor kidney.
4. You just so happen to have two of the only known kidneys out there that my body would accept. No other such kidney has even been located. Remember, I need a functioning kidney to survive and I need it no later than one week from today.

Should you be forced to give up one of your kidneys to me? I'm not asking you in this hypothetical scenario to donate a kidney out of the goodness of your heart. I'm asking if, given all of this, you should be legally forced to give up one of your kidneys.

Click to expand...

I think you need to add one more premise:

5. He is either your father, or he was responsible for the crash.

Then it's a much better analogy.

Sweden said:

So here we are: you object to abortion for religious reasons. Why should we who reject your religion - and everyone else's - pay any attention to you or your presumptuous 'world view'?

Click to expand...

We can discuss our reasons without getting bogged down in the reason for those reasons. I’m trying to understand another’s worldview, as well as seeing if there’s anything lacking, hypocritical, or logically-inconsistent in my logic based on my worldview.

OlNate said:

I'm also interested to know what theological conclusions during the ecumenical councils from the first few centuries of Christianity say about abortion, and why you feel confident in the scientific findings (since this would have to be a scientific conversation) done by a religious group 1700 years ago.

Click to expand...

I’m procrastinating studying for an exam right now, so I won’t dig up the exact dates and names of the doctrines/heresies, but I can summarize.
I’ll spoiler this since it’s tangential to the overall thrust of this thread.

Irredentist said:

Women do not abort for legal or moral reasons, they do it for their own reasons, whatever they may be, and nature gives them the authority to do so. I will not fight the laws of nature.

Click to expand...

I don’t see a real difference between that and my having the natural right to kill anyone I can overpower. Just because we can do something, or nature puts us in a position to be the most likely to succeed at something, doesn’t mean we should/have a right to.

Tlrmln said:

snipping some of this for the character limit per post

1) Life does not begin at conception. A sperm and and egg are also "alive," so life begins before conception. Also, just because something is "alive" and comes from a human, doesn't mean it's a "human being."

2). In general, we don't have the right to kill a thing when the law says we don't have that right. Abortion is legal, so we have the right to do it.

In short, this set of arguments is basically all semantics and question-begging. If you want to perform a meaningful analysis of the issue, you should first establish all the reasons why it is ordinarily not okay to kill a "person" (however defined), and then establish whether or not those reasons apply to a human embryo in utero.

Click to expand...

I realize what I really mean is that Personhood begins at conception. And the act of killing a Person is what is generally wrong.
The reasons are the theological ones above.

I find it hard to really argue that it’s wrong to generally kill people. Yes, examples of self-defense or defense of others can justify it, and perhaps as punishment (not here to debate death penalty), but I think it’s hard to argue that purposefully causing the death of an innocent without good cause is bad. Legally-allowed maybe, but not okay.

Phys251 said:

<snip car crash example>

Click to expand...

Please keep in mind I’m not saying what should be law (though it’s tied to law, certainly, and recent laws is what got me wanting to start this conversation). I’m trying to understand pro-choice stances and responses to pro-life stances.

So, I think in that situation I should give my kidney.

I also think there’s some weakness in the analogy in that a pregnant woman is already providing life. To stop provision of life is more active than choosing not to give life.

@ analogy of something breaking into one’s house/eviction I think part of it is that a fetus didn’t choose to do so, so it’s not really an equivalent metaphor. If I shoot someone for entering my house, either as a robber or just some drunk guy who stumbled in the wrong door but I perceive him as a threat, that seems fair. If I shoot my someone who I know didn’t come there on purpose (say an elderly neighbor with dementia who wonders in but insists its their house—bad analogy but I’m grasping for something), that seems bad and like I’d get charged with some crime.

JeenLeen said:

I'm new to this forum and posting here because, where I generally post, topics related to religion and politics are forbidden. This place is advertised as a fairly friendly discussion spot, so I'm hoping to have a civil and 'in good faith' discussion about abortion.

---

There is one controversial thing I assume are true for religious reasons. And another that I don't think is really up for debate, but folk can contest it if they wish. I'll call them axioms in my discussion since, for the purposes of this conversation, I consider them axiomatically true.
1) Life begins at conception. That is, upon conception, it is a living human being.
2) In general, we do not have a right to cause someone to die. E.g., murder is bad.

If axiom 1 is true, then abortion is equivalent to killing a living person. If done without a good cause, that is murder. If axiom 2 is true, then abortion (as murder) is bad.

Click to expand...

1 seems true but as for 2 i think its generally bad to kill people because of ther thoughts and feelings but a fetus dosent seem to have those even as much as some of are livestock and pets so it seems ok for the mother to want it gone to me and as such should not be considered murder

Tlrmln said:

I think you need to add one more premise:

5. He is either your father, or he was responsible for the crash.

Then it's a much better analogy.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. Fault or no fault. It doesn't matter. There is not anywhere in America that forces you to donate an organ to another human, even to save their life. Bodily autonomy, it's the law.

From your spoiler in post #21

There’s also the part in the Bible about John the Baptist ‘leaping in the womb’ at Jesus being near, which seems to convey real personhood to both.

Click to expand...

I love the story of Elizabeth and Mary.

From women in the Bible. Net:

Elizabeth's Story

The two pregnant women met, and at that moment Elizabeth's unborn baby responded by suddenly moving and kicking in her womb.

Twenty-eight weeks, the end of a woman's second trimester, is the normal time to expect an unborn baby to kick in the womb, and this may well have been the first time Elizabeth's unborn baby moved - an exciting moment for any mother.

She took this sudden movement, at this particular meeting, as a sign.

Click to expand...

Read more:

ELIZABETH, John the Baptist's mother protected her cousin Mary




------------------

Normal, natural occurances and explanations happen in the Bible ...
It does not mean they are not miracles.

Was it not miraculous that at very moment Mary spoke to her cousin Elizabeth ( whom we presume have not spoken together for quite some time ) was the first time she felt her unborn kick?

You have to remember Elizabeth and her husband were old and she was past the usual childbearing age and yet by a miracle she was expecting.

She had to be very worried about her pregnancy and wondered if everything was going well.

When she felt the kicking she must of been overjoyed and relived that all was well with her pregnancy.

---------------

For those interested in the story of Mary and Joseph from their young years growing up , their love for each other , Mary's Holy conception and until just after the birth of Jesus there is a novel I would highly recommend.

It tells their story in a novel form as a love story and gives us a peek into what life must have been like in the times that Mary and Joseph were growing up. Since no one has all the details and the Bible does not tell us all the details it is a novel but it also gives a look into what it the norms and the customs were like in that era . It is wonderful story and so full of hope and love it gives us great hope for the future of mankind and womankind too.

The book is called:

Two From Galilee: The Story Of Mary And Joseph Paperback – February 1, 1982
by Marjorie Holmes (Author)

This book is a best selling novel that tells the story of Mary and Joseph as it has never been told before--
the greatest love story of all.

This is a particularly complicated subject with a lot of Variation.

I believe that since Brain Death is the best signatory of actual death, that brain activity might be a good place to consider the start of recognized life from a legal stand point. Even coma patients or people with no heard can survive as long as they have brain activity, but after it goes...

I believe that body autonomy and the right to privacy are important. You can't stop a woman from aborting a pregnancy if she is determined too do so. I think doctor patient confidentiality is important. I would rather have any such procedure be done as safe and clean as possible. I don't like the concept of forced servitude or the subordination of a life to a potential life, as there is no sure thing with a pregnancy.

I believe that termination of a pregnancy should always be acceptable in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.


I believe that if we can also approve of terminating pregnancies in the case of genetic conditions and defects that would cause a large drain on society. (Not mandate, just approve. Not everyone that wants a child can handle certain major genetic complications. It would be a burden on them and society. The conditions can be negotiated and subject to discussion... I'm just open to the concept.


I also think the best way to be pro-life, is to use our society to subsidize and encourage the birth, support, and raising of children. Basically, if we really want people to CHOOSE to have children, we need to encourage and support the choice we want, not just punish the choice we don't like... it's like any economic policy, you tax and fine what you want less of, and subsidize and encourage what you want more of.


Anyway... I'm still pretty flexible on many of the ideas... Just my perspective from someone that is not a major crusader in this area. My wife and I talked about a lot of this stuff since we're hoping for a successful birth of our first child that is due at the end of July.

-TTB