Does the Abrahamic God Condone the Abortion of Human Children?

[Alter2Ego]

During the Roe v. Wade era, the arguments in support of abortion that resulted in the practice becoming legal were as follows:

1. Abortion is to protect the life of the pregnant person or at least preserve the health of the pregnant person.

2. Abortion is okay in cases of rape or incest.

3. Abortion is okay if the fetus has abnomalities.


Keep in mind the following facts about abortions in the United States of America:

1. Most untended pregnancies have nothing to do with rape or incest. In fact, in the United States, only about 5% of unwanted pregnancies are the result of rape.

2. An estimated 60% of all pregnancies are unintended. This estimate is higher than in other Western democracies. Why? Because consenting persons choose not to use birth control.


In the United Kingdom (England aka "the UK"), it’s no different where consenting adults are concerned. A study found that in the UK, four in 10 pregnancies ending in abortion were planned pregnancies.

In effect, more often than not, abortion has nothing to do with (1) rape or incest or (2) the mother’s health or (3) the baby’s abnormalities. Instead, more often than not, abortion is simply a method of birth control. To justify this reality, rabid pro-abortionists, realizing they cannot use excuses 1 through 3 above, came up with a new rallying cry, noted below as excuse #4:

4. It’s the woman’s body, and so she has the right to decide.



QUESTION: Can a person claiming to worship the Abrahamic God expect to be excused by the Almighty when such a person supports or engages in abortion for any reason?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Since the Abrahamic God is bullshit it doesn't really matter. How many kids go hungry and starve even today. God blows.

 

[Gozaburo]

The abortion conversation isn't going to be won by the Christian most convinced in their transcendent God or the atheist most convinced in their secular moral ethics.

It'll be won by whoever has the wit and political will to legislate their authority on the opposition. It's not really an issue democracy is equipped to handle.

 

[redbeer]

During the Roe v. Wade era, the arguments in support of abortion that resulted in the practice becoming legal were as follows:

1. Abortion is to protect the life of the pregnant person or at least preserve the health of the pregnant person.

2. Abortion is okay in cases of rape or incest.

3. Abortion is okay if the fetus has abnomalities.


Keep in mind the following facts about abortions in the United States of America:

1. Most untended pregnancies have nothing to do with rape or incest. In fact, in the United States, only about 5% of unwanted pregnancies are the result of rape.

2. An estimated 60% of all pregnancies are unintended. This estimate is higher than in other Western democracies. Why? Because consenting persons choose not to use birth control.


In the United Kingdom (England aka "the UK"), it’s no different where consenting adults are concerned. A study found that in the UK, four in 10 pregnancies ending in abortion were planned pregnancies.

In effect, more often than not, abortion has nothing to do with (1) rape or incest or (2) the mother’s health or (3) the baby’s abnormalities. Instead, more often than not, abortion is simply a method of birth control. To justify this reality, rabid pro-abortionists, realizing they cannot use excuses 1 through 3 above, came up with a new rallying cry, noted below as excuse #4:

4. It’s the woman’s body, and so she has the right to decide.



QUESTION: Can a person claiming to worship the Abrahamic God expect to be excused by the Almighty when such a person supports or engages in abortion for any reason?

From the onset abortion was used for birth control. It is a strange phenomenon how believers can freely accept abortion, perform abortions, and have abortions and claim to be believers.....it's nonsensical. An enigmatic problem especially considering their latest phrase, "my body, my choice" as if they give birth to themselves. Strange birds, strange times, yet still the same God.

 

[rjay]

Do the Hindu Gods condone the aborting of pregnancies?

 

[eman623]

The abortion conversation isn't going to be won by the Christian most convinced in their transcendent God or the atheist most convinced in their secular moral ethics.

It'll be won by whoever has the wit and political will to legislate their authority on the opposition. It's not really an issue democracy is equipped to handle.

I disagree and believe it's very much an issue that democracy can handle.

About 12% it should be banned in all cases. About 35% think is should be legal in all cases. The rest fall somewhere in between.

In practice, and this will vary from state to state, the median or "majority" position on abortion will be somewhere between about 15 and 25 weeks. It won't make everyone happy but it will make the most people happy.

 

[Gozaburo]

In practice, and this will vary from state to state, the median or "majority" position on abortion will be somewhere between about 15 and 25 weeks. It won't make everyone happy but it will make the most people happy.

Yeah except this middle ground kind of totally undermines the moral argument from either perspective. Abortion is absolutely a binary moral issue on both sides. Setting some arbitrary week standard because a bunch of room temperature IQ voters said "seems okay" doesn't really resolve the issue.

Crude Majoritarianism on important moral issues is absolutely the worst part of democracy - almost objectively. The Greeks understood this like 2,000 years ago so this shouldn't be a novel concept.

 

[Individual]

How many pregnant Women lost their lives during Noah's flood?

 

[Dans La Lune]

During the Roe v. Wade era, the arguments in support of abortion that resulted in the practice becoming legal were as follows:

1. Abortion is to protect the life of the pregnant person or at least preserve the health of the pregnant person.

2. Abortion is okay in cases of rape or incest.

3. Abortion is okay if the fetus has abnomalities.


Keep in mind the following facts about abortions in the United States of America:

1. Most untended pregnancies have nothing to do with rape or incest. In fact, in the United States, only about 5% of unwanted pregnancies are the result of rape.

2. An estimated 60% of all pregnancies are unintended. This estimate is higher than in other Western democracies. Why? Because consenting persons choose not to use birth control.


In the United Kingdom (England aka "the UK"), it’s no different where consenting adults are concerned. A study found that in the UK, four in 10 pregnancies ending in abortion were planned pregnancies.

In effect, more often than not, abortion has nothing to do with (1) rape or incest or (2) the mother’s health or (3) the baby’s abnormalities. Instead, more often than not, abortion is simply a method of birth control. To justify this reality, rabid pro-abortionists, realizing they cannot use excuses 1 through 3 above, came up with a new rallying cry, noted below as excuse #4:

4. It’s the woman’s body, and so she has the right to decide.



QUESTION: Can a person claiming to worship the Abrahamic God expect to be excused by the Almighty when such a person supports or engages in abortion for any reason?

I don't see why religion should even play a part in the discussion. But for what it's worth, the Bible is largely indifferent on the issue. It's more a modern political wedge issue, with Christians in mid-1950s+ being indifferent. It wasn't until hucksters like Falwell and Robertson started revving up the culture wars that it became a political issue. Initially, religious leaders and mainstream religious opinion were indifferent because the Bible was indifferent.

 

[Dans La Lune]

The abortion conversation isn't going to be won by the Christian most convinced in their transcendent God or the atheist most convinced in their secular moral ethics.

It'll be won by whoever has the wit and political will to legislate their authority on the opposition. It's not really an issue democracy is equipped to handle.

Again, Christians were until recently (mere decades ago) indifferent on the issue. Some applauded Roe, others criticized it, but most believed that the unborn weren't really viable moral issues to opine on because there was nothing to even opine on. Like all right-wing issues, it was a farce stroked by right-wing conmen and made into more of an issue than it originally was. It is an issue created by entities like the Heritage Foundation, along with people like Falwell, and the origins are more racial than spiritual. And the revival of the 'Great Replacement Theory' is a symptom of this.

 

[BirdinHand]

QUESTION: Can a person claiming to worship the Abrahamic God expect to be excused by the Almighty when such a person supports or engages in abortion for any reason

Yep. Why not?

Even for the religious zealots that would consider abortion murder or a sin…

According to the Christian Bible, all have sinned. All are sinners. And all sins are equal in the eyes of the Christian God.

So someone that has an abortion is no different than anyone else.

 

[Slartibartfast]

There are no direct quotes from the Bible that deal with abortion. Most stances are best effort interpretations from passages that are meant for another message.

 

[Daisy]

How many pregnant Women lost their lives during Noah's flood?

How long did Noah sound the warning yet all ignored it?

 

[nota bene]

Yep. Why not?

Even for the religious zealots that would consider abortion murder or a sin…

According to the Christian Bible, all have sinned. All are sinners. And all sins are equal in the eyes of the Christian God.

So someone that has an abortion is no different than anyone else.

I hope you aren't considering those who are people of faith "zealots" if they believe in the sanctity of all human life. This would be a bigoted mischaracterization.

 

[eman623]

Yeah except this middle ground kind of totally undermines the moral argument from either perspective. Abortion is absolutely a binary moral issue on both sides.

Again, I disagree 100%. Abortion is nuanced and many - actually most - are not on the extremes, but believe early abortions are okay but late ones are not.

Personally, I think the moral - and legal - line should be drawn somewhere down the middle of the pregnancy. Exactly where I don't much care. A newly fertilized clump of cells is not a person yet, but a fetus at nine months minus one day is much more than a clump of cells. At some point, personhood has attached and aborting a person is murder.

We can debate where to draw the line, but a line does need to be drawn.

Setting some arbitrary week standard because a bunch of room temperature IQ voters said "seems okay" doesn't really resolve the issue.

Doesn't it? Seem like that's exactly what's been happening in state after state since Dobbs. And since neither extreme has enough numbers to change that, "arbitrary week" standards are going to be staying in place for the expected future.

Crude Majoritarianism on important moral issues is absolutely the worst part of democracy - almost objectively. The Greeks understood this like 2,000 years ago so this shouldn't be a novel concept.

Majoritarianism, crude or refined, is not the worst part of democracy. It is the very definition of it. People get to decide, and they get to decide on what basis they get to decide.

It's been my experience that the extremes on both sides really don't like this. The pro-choicers decry "forcing your religion down our throats" and the pro-lifers decry the "crude majoritarianism" that also doesn't give them the result they want.

 

[BirdinHand]

I hope you aren't considering those who are people of faith "zealots" if they believe in the sanctity of all human life. This would be a bigoted mischaracterization.

I don’t care what they believe.

They have no right to force their belief on anyone else

 

[nota bene]

I don’t care what they believe.

They have no right to force their belief on anyone else

I've never forced my beliefs on anybody and very much resent being mischaracterized as a "zealot" because I am pro-life. But go ahead and call names if you think this is some sort of "argument."

 

[verrip1]

Again, Christians were until recently (mere decades ago) indifferent on the issue. Some applauded Roe, others criticized it, but most believed that the unborn weren't really viable moral issues to opine on because there was nothing to even opine on. Like all right-wing issues, it was a farce stroked by right-wing conmen and made into more of an issue than it originally was. It is an issue created by entities like the Heritage Foundation, along with people like Falwell, and the origins are more racial than spiritual. And the revival of the 'Great Replacement Theory' is a symptom of this.

Isn't America wonderful? It's a place where people with warped views on life can express their raging hatred of others without fear of repercussions.

 

[Pedestrian]

When it comes to inside the human body, it automatically becomes a matter of privacy.

When it comes to what are spiritual desires, the pregnant woman...IS GOD !! Your god...is not needed or sought.

As a matter of morality, favoring the unborn over the born...is immoral.

For ALL women, it's none of govt's business if anyone is pregnant and if so, it's none of govts'. business what [she] does about it.

 

[j brown's body]

I don't see why religion should even play a part in the discussion. But for what it's worth, the Bible is largely indifferent on the issue. It's more a modern political wedge issue, with Christians in mid-1950s+ being indifferent. It wasn't until hucksters like Falwell and Robertson started revving up the culture wars that it became a political issue. Initially, religious leaders and mainstream religious opinion were indifferent because the Bible was indifferent.

The Supreme Court used a religious argument in Dodds.

The attribution of metaphysical and legal status to a developing embryo from some particular point in time represents not a discovery of an empirical datum about reality but a choice, all but invariably grounded in one or another religious tradition or teaching, about what signals the creation of an individual human soul.

Link

 

[j brown's body]

I've never forced my beliefs on anybody and very much resent being mischaracterized as a "zealot" because I am pro-life. But go ahead and call names if you think this is some sort of "argument."

The right-wingers on the Court are forcing their religious beliefs on us.

 

[eman623]

The Supreme Court used a religious argument in Dodds.

The attribution of metaphysical and legal status to a developing embryo from some particular point in time represents not a discovery of an empirical datum about reality but a choice, all but invariably grounded in one or another religious tradition or teaching, about what signals the creation of an individual human soul.

Link

I can't find that excerpt, or even find the word "soul" in the Dobbs decision or any of the concurrences or dissents.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: Abortion presents a profound moral question, and the Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. This decision overrules Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey.

supreme.justia.com

 

[Gozaburo]

Majoritarianism, crude or refined, is not the worst part of democracy. It is the very definition of it. People get to decide, and they get to decide on what basis they get to decide.

It's been my experience that the extremes on both sides really don't like this. The pro-choicers decry "forcing your religion down our throats" and the pro-lifers decry the "crude majoritarianism" that also doesn't give them the result they want.

That's interesting. Do you apply this thinking to all majoritarian decisions in history? It's pretty obvious why that's stupid.

Like I said, morality isn't defined and sculpted by how many impulsive voters raise their hands.

 

[Gordy327]

Yeah except this middle ground kind of totally undermines the moral argument from either perspective. Abortion is absolutely a binary moral issue on both sides. Setting some arbitrary week standard because a bunch of room temperature IQ voters said "seems okay" doesn't really resolve the issue.

Crude Majoritarianism on important moral issues is absolutely the worst part of democracy - almost objectively. The Greeks understood this like 2,000 years ago so this shouldn't be a novel concept.

If one has a moral qualm about abortion, then they do not have to have one. They do not get to push their idea of morality onto others. Since abortion is a legal issue with respect to individual rights and autonomy, there is no real legal basis to restrict abortion at all.

 

[Gordy327]

QUESTION: Can a person claiming to worship the Abrahamic God expect to be excused by the Almighty when such a person supports or engages in abortion for any reason?

Since abortion is a legal issue under secular laws, religion has no place or say in it outside of the particular individual, especially where the law is concerned. If one's religious beliefs prohibit them from having an abortion, they can choose to not have an abortion. No one is forcing them to either. But one's religion cannot be used as an excuse or means to deny that choice to someone else!