Is abortion a religious issue? Is abortion a state issue? Is abortion a personal issue?

[volitleaire]

Why?

There are two reasons I can think of to limit abortion in the 3rd trimester. One is that there is a legitimate argument that at some point during pregnancy, the fetus becomes aware. The second is that compromise is the lifeblood of democracy, and limiting third trimester abortions is better than a flat out ban.

 

[Gordy327]

There are two reasons I can think of to limit abortion in the 3rd trimester. One is that there is a legitimate argument that at some point during pregnancy, the fetus becomes aware. The second is that compromise is the lifeblood of democracy, and limiting third trimester abortions is better than a flat out ban.

At what point in gestation is a fetus "aware?" At "some point" is too vague. Why should a woman's bodily autonomy and rights be compromised? The fetus has neither.

 

[volitleaire]

At what point in gestation is a fetus "aware?" At "some point" is too vague. Why should a woman's bodily autonomy and rights be compromised? The fetus has neither.

The question at hand is at what point a fetus becomes an infant. Everyone agrees that once a baby is born, it has rights. What about an hour before birth? There is no discernible difference between the two, so why should one have rights and the other shouldn’t? The abortion argument is a no-brainer for pre-viability fetuses. They lack the ability to live, and thus are part of the mother. Once a fetus becomes viable, why wouldn’t we consider it protected under the law?

You say the fetus has neither bodily autonomy nor rights. Bodily autonomy is simple, as fetuses are in a state of sedation. Does a sleeping person have bodily autonomy? As there is no way for an unconscious person to communicate their desires, they effectively do not have bodily autonomy until the wake up. Rights are more complicated. Rights are abstract concepts we apply somewhat arbitrarily. The only reason I have rights is because the government agrees that I do, and they agree to protect those rights. Whether or not a fetus has rights is ultimately the crux of this debate. I would argue that a fetus’ right to life is dependent on their ability to live separate from their mother.

Imagine you are in a room, and there is a body laying on a bed. It is unconscious, it has never been conscious before. There are two buttons, one that wakes it up and one that stops its heart. The decision, to me, is clear. Waking the body up and allowing it to be a person is the right choice. This example removes the issue of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, so let’s add that.

This time, the body is connected to a conscious person. If you choose to wake the body, the conscious person will be electrocuted. Not enough to kill, but enough to cause serious pain and perhaps bodily harm. Additionally, the body would become the conscious person’s responsibility. They would be responsible for either providing for the body, or finding someone else who will. The conscious person does not want to take the risk of bodily harm, or the responsibility of looking after the body.

In this case, what is the correct decision? If you wake the body up, you are harming someone as well as saddling them with a responsibility they didn’t want. On the other hand, is stopping a body’s heart— a body that is perfectly capable of living, breathing, and thinking— is that murder? The only difference between the body and yourself is that the body has never woken up.


There’s no good answer. I believe that while women have a right to choose, there should be ample time to choose before the third trimester. Additionally, sex education and access to birth control could prevent situations where women are forced to make such a hard decision.

 

[Gordy327]

The question at hand is at what point a fetus becomes an infant. Everyone agrees that once a baby is born, it has rights.

Both occur at birth. That is scientific and legal fact, respectively.

What about an hour before birth?

Still a fetus, still not yet a person with rights.

There is no discernible difference between the two, so why should one have rights and the other shouldn’t?

There is a difference. The fetus is still occupying and using the woman's body for its own benefit. Another difference is that it is not a person until it's born. How do you grant rights equally to both the born woman and the unborn? It is impossible.

The abortion argument is a no-brainer for pre-viability fetuses. They lack the ability to live, and thus are part of the mother. Once a fetus becomes viable, why wouldn’t we consider it protected under the law?

Why should we? Since it's not a legal person with rights, it has no legal protection. It makes no difference if it's pre or post viability. The fetus is using the woman's body and bodily resources. Legal precedent established that no one can have their body used to benefit another without consent. Neither does the Constitution or federal law recognize legal personhood and rights for the unborn.

You say the fetus has neither bodily autonomy nor rights. Bodily autonomy is simple, as fetuses are in a state of sedation.

See previous statement.

As there is no way for an unconscious person to communicate their desires, they effectively do not have bodily autonomy until the wake up.

A sleeping person can be aroused. Someone unconscious, such as being in a vegetative state, hopefully has a living will or advanced directives in place to make their wishes known. Barring that, the legal next of kin makes the decisions. To you your flawed comparison, a fetus' legal next of kin is the woman gestating it.

Rights are more complicated.

Not really. Some just want to make it more comlpicated. But the unborn do not have rights while the pregnant woman does, it's just that simple.

Rights are abstract concepts we apply somewhat arbitrarily. The only reason I have rights is because the government agrees that I do, and they agree to protect those rights. Whether or not a fetus has rights is ultimately the crux of this debate. I would argue that a fetus’ right to life is dependent on their ability to live separate from their mother.

We have rights based on the Constitution and legal precedent.

Imagine you are in a room, and there is a body laying on a bed. It is unconscious, it has never been conscious before. There are two buttons, one that wakes it up and one that stops its heart. The decision, to me, is clear. Waking the body up and allowing it to be a person is the right choice. This example removes the issue of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, so let’s add that.This time, the body is connected to a conscious person. If you choose to wake the body, the conscious person will be electrocuted. Not enough to kill, but enough to cause serious pain and perhaps bodily harm. Additionally, the body would become the conscious person’s responsibility. They would be responsible for either providing for the body, or finding someone else who will. The conscious person does not want to take the risk of bodily harm, or the responsibility of looking after the body.

I'm not interested in playing 'what if.' It's just a smokescreen

 

[Gordy327]

In this case, what is the correct decision? If you wake the body up, you are harming someone as well as saddling them with a responsibility they didn’t want. On the other hand, is stopping a body’s heart— a body that is perfectly capable of living, breathing, and thinking— is that murder? The only difference between the body and yourself is that the body has never woken up.

There is no baby until birth and abortion is not murder.

There’s no good answer. I believe that while women have a right to choose, there should be ample time to choose before the third trimester. Additionally, sex education and access to birth control could prevent situations where women are forced to make such a hard decision.

Sure there is. The "good" answer is to let a woman decide for herself if she wishes to have her body used for gestation or not. Women generally do not seek elective late term abortions and neither are they generally performed. I'm all for comprehensive sex ed and birth control. But that's not really the issue.

 

[BabyAugustine]

Personally I think it's a religious issue pushed by the so-called christians in our government, the supposed pro life folks.

Well, then by your definition your view is religious and there you go
I mean if you were arguing reason you would make the argument but as it is this is your faith and it competes in the marketplace of faith ...but since you are the only member of this church, it isn't looking good

 

[BabyAugustine]

Both occur at birth. That is scientific and legal fact, respectively.

Still a fetus, still not yet a person with rights.

There is a difference. The fetus is still occupying and using the woman's body for its own benefit. Another difference is that it is not a person until it's born. How do you grant rights equally to both the born woman and the unborn? It is impossible.

Why should we? Since it's not a legal person with rights, it has no legal protection. It makes no difference if it's pre or post viability. The fetus is using the woman's body and bodily resources. Legal precedent established that no one can have their body used to benefit another without consent. Neither does the Constitution or federal law recognize legal personhood and rights for the unborn.

See previous statement.

A sleeping person can be aroused. Someone unconscious, such as being in a vegetative state, hopefully has a living will or advanced directives in place to make their wishes known. Barring that, the legal next of kin makes the decisions. To you your flawed comparison, a fetus' legal next of kin is the woman gestating it.

Not really. Some just want to make it more comlpicated. But the unborn do not have rights while the pregnant woman does, it's just that simple.

We have rights based on the Constitution and legal precedent.

I'm not interested in playing 'what if.' It's just a smokescreen

THen a baby born caesarian is not ever legallly human. The knife that goes in could be to dismember her or to save her. But we would have to know already whether we are saving a life or taking a life.
Ex-abortionists often say this
“Abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”
– 1963 pamphlet by Planned Parenthood

 

[Gordy327]

THen a baby born caesarian is not ever legallly human. The knife that goes in could be to dismember her or to save her. But we would have to know already whether we are saving a life or taking a life.
Ex-abortionists often say this
“Abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”
– 1963 pamphlet by Planned Parenthood

Delivery via C-section is a birth. Duh! It's odd i have to explain that. Or maybe you're just being wilfully obtuse and/or ignorant about it or how abortion is performed?

 

[bongsaway]

Well, then by your definition your view is religious and there you go
I mean if you were arguing reason you would make the argument but as it is this is your faith and it competes in the marketplace of faith ...but since you are the only member of this church, it isn't looking good

My view is not religious, I don't subscribe to any.

 

[BabyAugustine]

My view is not religious, I don't subscribe to any.

That doesn't at all mean your view isn't religious

 

[Gordy327]

That doesn't at all mean your view isn't religious

View attachment 67502500

Most of those positions do not fit mine and I'm not religious. My positions are the exact opposite.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

If an abortion procedure is completed, but the fetus can survive on its own, and -then- it's killed, I would argue that we have a murder instead of an abortion. I think that's where my red line is. There's varying shades of grey before that line.

 

[bongsaway]

That doesn't at all mean your view isn't religious

View attachment 67502500

Stop trying to have your god rule my decisions. Women should decide, period.

 

[Gordy327]

If an abortion procedure is completed, but the fetus can survive on its own, and -then- it's killed, I would argue that we have a murder instead of an abortion. I think that's where my red line is. There's varying shades of grey before that line.

If a fetus is past viability but abortion is indicated, then it's either met its demise or has significant abnormalities incompatible with life. But abortion itself is not murder.

 

[Argent]

It is a personal decision infringed upon by those who, regardless of motivation, think they have the right to control women's uteri and thus making it an issue.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

If a fetus is past viability but abortion is indicated, then it's either met its demise or has significant abnormalities incompatible with life. But abortion itself is not murder.

But sometimes "Abortion" isn't actually abortion. From my understanding, things have changed for the better with the law, etc. To show where my line is, an infamous doctor named Kermit Gosnell called every procedure he did abortive. Ignoring the condition of his clinic (Which was absolutely filthy and no place to be offering abortions just from the germ/non-sterile) standpoint, some of his so-called "abortive procedures" actually involved delivering a baby and then breaking its spine. That right there is specifically where my red line is, where I believe it crosses from abortion to murder. Anything before that point is a shade of grey that I can debate one way or the other depending on the situation because it's an ethical/moral issue, but that red line is where it legally becomes murder.

EDIT: And I think that's really it, I think a lot of the abortion issue is about trying to codify one's morals and ethics. But it's not a one-size-fits-all solution since morals and ethics vary from place-to-place, and from person-to-person. The very fact that pro-life people dismiss the controlling women's bodies aspect of it, and the fact that even some women are pro-life, for example, tells me that there is not yet a way to define what abortion should be in such a way that we could all find understanding.

 

[Gordy327]

But sometimes "Abortion" isn't actually abortion. From my understanding, things have changed for the better with the law, etc. To show where my line is, an infamous doctor named Kermit Gosnell called every procedure he did abortive. Ignoring the condition of his clinic (Which was absolutely filthy and no place to be offering abortions just from the germ/non-sterile) standpoint, some of his so-called "abortive procedures" actually involved delivering a baby and then breaking its spine. That right there is specifically where my red line is, where I believe it crosses from abortion to murder. Anything before that point is a shade of grey that I can debate one way or the other depending on the situation because it's an ethical/moral issue, but that red line is where it legally becomes murder.

When is abortion not an abortion? Abortion is a medical procedure. As such, it remains an abortion adhering to standards of medical practice and ethics. If birth occurs, then abortion becomes a moot point.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

When is abortion not an abortion? Abortion is a medical procedure. As such, it remains an abortion adhering to standards of medical practice and ethics. If birth occurs, then abortion becomes a moot point.

So the argument is that him delivering those babies I mentioned would be an actual birth and not an abortion? Which renders him calling the "abortive" procedure moot since it was a birth, and therefore the death was murder? Am I following your logic correctly? If so, then we agree.

 

[Gordy327]

So the argument is that him delivering those babies I mentioned would be an actual birth and not an abortion? Which renders him calling the "abortive" procedure moot since it was a birth, and therefore the death was murder? Am I following your logic correctly? If so, then we agree.

Were proper standards of medical practice and ethics followed? Was there a medical diagnosis which required abortion as an intervention?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Personally I think it's a religious issue pushed by the so-called christians in our government, the supposed pro life folks.

"Is abortion a religious issue? Is abortion a state issue? Is abortion a personal issue?"

Might be risking oversimplification to say this is entirely a religious issue, even if the majority of the "pro-life" group has ties to religion in one way or another. We cannot exclude social conservatism from the conversation but cannot entirely credit religion either. It is also not a state issue, that was just a political strategy to remove Roe v. Wade. Too many Republicans are interested in making this a national issue using the same right leaning courts. And lastly I am not convinced it is a personal issue any longer, as politically speaking this is just a wedge issue.

In terms of just the concept of "pro-life," that has always been bullshit. Most that are anti-abortion are also anti-taking care of any life post birth.

If anything, and others have already mentioned, abortion is a medical and privacy issue in the face of an opposing ideology that would rather make this, without ever admitting it, a control over women issue.

 

[MSgt]

Personally I think it's a religious issue pushed by the so-called christians in our government, the supposed pro life folks.

To simplify, it is absolutely a right-wing religious issue today. But in the 1960s, when the Parties began to identify as either liberal or conservative, and as voters moved accordingly, the religious aspect was more denominational. The Catholics, who tended to vote Democrat, were more opposed to liberalizing abortion laws and they used scripture. The Protestants and evangelicals, who tended to vote Republican, more supported liberalizing abortion laws because they believed it to be a matter of religious freedom. It was also about a lack of Biblical condemnation and the belief in a non-intrusive government. Religion was absolutely at the political heart on both sides. My, my have things changed, right? Now, it is absolutely a left-wing [Democrat] argument for individual liberty against a right-wing Christian crusade [Republican].

But once again, we have proof that it is the States that oppress citizens, not the Federal government:

- Where once, States Rights was about maintaining the oppression of the slaves, now those same States racially gerrymander.
- And now, where once, the Federal government protected a woman's Right to choose her life's path, the same Red States that once preserved slavery have now stripped a woman's individuals Right away.

Always the minorities and the women. Must totally suck to be a minority woman.

 

[Jason Warfield]

The Bible directly talks about abortion in only one part of the Bible…without using the term. More on that in a moment.

Religious leaders use indirect examples like when saying that God knew us in the womb, etc. But it is never mentioned if the Bible directly talks about a woman choosing to end the life her womb.

And there may be a reason for that.

There is, in the Bible, an example of giving a woman poisoned water to drink and if she had been faithful to her husband, then nothing will happen, but she if she did cheat then the water is to “curse” her and cause her to miscarry the child intentionality because she was unfaithful.

Numbers 3:11-31

 

[bongsaway]

To simplify, it is absolutely a right-wing religious issue today. But in the 1960s, when the Parties began to identify as either liberal or conservative, and as voters moved accordingly, the religious aspect was more denominational. The Catholics, who tended to vote Democrat, were more opposed to liberalizing abortion laws and they used scripture. The Protestants and evangelicals, who tended to vote Republican, more supported liberalizing abortion laws because they believed it to be a matter of religious freedom. It was also about a lack of Biblical condemnation and the belief in a non-intrusive government. Religion was absolutely at the political heart on both sides. My, my have things changed, right? Now, it is absolutely a left-wing [Democrat] argument for individual liberty against a right-wing Christian crusade [Republican].

But once again, we have proof that it is the States that oppress citizens, not the Federal government:

- Where once, States Rights was about maintaining the oppression of the slaves, now those same States racially gerrymander.
- And now, where once, the Federal government protected a woman's Right to choose her life's path, the same Red States that once preserved slavery have now stripped a woman's individuals Right away.

Always the minorities and the women. Must totally suck to be a minority woman.

Well said.

 

[bongsaway]

The Bible directly talks about abortion in only one part of the Bible…without using the term. More on that in a moment.

Religious leaders use indirect examples like when saying that God knew us in the womb, etc. But it is never mentioned if the Bible directly talks about a woman choosing to end the life her womb.

And there may be a reason for that.

There is, in the Bible, an example of giving a woman poisoned water to drink and if she had been faithful to her husband, then nothing will happen, but she if she did cheat then the water is to “curse” her and cause her to miscarry the child intentionality because she was unfaithful.

Numbers 3:11-31

Hoodoo voodoo to decide a person's guilt or innocence but isn't that what religion actually is? Hoodoo voodoo, it can mean anything to anyone.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Personally I think it's a religious issue pushed by the so-called christians in our government, the supposed pro life folks.

Peoples opinions on abortion are shaped by moral principles, but restriction of abortion through the law is purely secular law and within state police power