• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Notes From The Didache On The Early Christian View Of Abortion

Ganondagan said:
It most certainly has a life, a human life. And a baby still depends on it's mother for life long after it's born.
Click to expand...

See? Once again you completely disregard the mother. It's not about "who" cares for it. Anyone can care for a baby. But no one else can care for the unborn...and the govt cannot protect or act on that unborn without violating that woman's rights to life, liberty, bodily autonomy, due process, etc.

So "outside" of the woman anyone can care for it, unborn...no one can without her consent. Do you completely dismiss women's rights to decide their own lives? Health? Risks? Self-determination?

But it never even occurred to you to consider the woman at all in that question. Admit it. Again, it should be clear why anti-abortites dont hold the moral High Ground here.
 
Last edited:
VySky said:
Actually, what constitutes as "personhood" took a big hit with the overturn of Roe.
Click to expand...
No, it didn't. Dobbs very carefully avoided asserting that an embryo is a person. In Roe, even though the majority opinion was 7 to 2, there was unjanimous agreement that an embryo is not a person in the meaning of the 14th A because nowhere in the Constitution or its applications in SC decisions is that view supported.

That is why the Dobbs SC left the abortion issue to the states - it did not have the Constitutional warrant to declare fetuses persons with rights to life, liberty, and property before they are born alive.

That's also why this SC refused to take the appeal case of the RI women who wanted the SC to declare that their fetuses were persons. Even the conservatives knew that they weren't constitutional persons.
VySky said:
And as the states become more in control look for the definition to continue its track back towards reality.
Click to expand...
Every time the issue of fetal personhood has come up for a referendum vote, even in the most extreme states where the majority votes against abortion in almost all case, fetal personhood loses. The only state that has essentially attempted to make fetuses persons did so by legislature and governor, not a popular vote.

The Catholic definition of zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as persons is a religious sectarian definition, and the US Constitution was made by founders who were three quarters Protestant and did not accede to Catholics. That's also the reason we have freedom of religion, which the Catholic church would not have accepted.
 
VySky said:
Again, the states are out in front and have implemented "fetal personhood" laws to protect the unborn. Laws which are constitutional.
Click to expand...
No, they haven't. And that's the point. When pressed to vote on the issue in a state, the majority, even if anti-abortion, has refused to declare that fetuses are persons.
 
Lursa said:
See? Once again you completely disregard the mother. It's not about "who" cares for it. Anyone can care for a baby. But no one else can care for the unborn...and the govt cannot protect or act on that unborn without violating that woman's rights to life, liberty, bodily autonomy, due process, etc.

So "outside" of the woman anyone can care for it, unborn...no one can without her consent. Do you completely dismiss women's rights to decide their own lives? Health? Risks? Self-determination?

But it never even occurred to you to consider the woman at all in that question. Admit it. Again, it should be clear why anti-abortionists dont hold the moral High Ground here.
Click to expand...

Nope, I question their morality. Abortion when neither the mother's nor the unborn child's life is in danger is the most selfish and immoral act I can imagine.
 
choiceone said:
No, they haven't. And that's the point. When pressed to vote on the issue in a state, the majority, even if anti-abortion, has refused to declare that fetuses are persons.
Click to expand...

Laws may depend on personhood but morality doesn't. Human life is human life at every stage development.
 
VySky said:
But not ungodly. ;)
Click to expand...
In the view of Judaism, it is ungodly. In the view of all those religious organizations that belong to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, it is ungodly. In the view of various Christian sects and, indeed, even Islam, it is ungodly. You worship not a universal God, but a sectarian one.
 
VySky said:
Actually, what constitutes as "personhood" took a big hit with the overturn of Roe.
Click to expand...

LOL is that what you think? Dobbs specifically enabled states to allow women/their doctors to kill the unborn with no due process. That should make it very clear to you that the unborn is not considered a person, nor has any rights recognized. Yes? Right, you understand that?

VySky said:
And as the states become more in control look for the definition to continue its track back towards reality.
Click to expand...

There's a federal definition for "person", based on the 14th Amendment...the Const. The federal govt does not recognize personhood for the unborn and Dobbs is proof of that. The states can create their own definitions but they cannot supersede federal law. That's why no state has made having an abortion a crime...only providing them.
 
Ganondagan said:
Millions agree that abortion is immoral, the deliberate killing of a human life. Morality is an appropriate concern for every American, white, black, male, or female. If someone feels a behavior is immoral he is free to speak loudly about it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But it is immoral to try to prevent someone else from speaking loudly about it when they disagree with your view, and it is immoral to prevent a pregnant woman from leaving an anti-abortion state to go to a pro-choice state, or to prevent a woman from leaving the country to go to a pro-choice country. And it's also immoral to try to prosecute doctors in a pro-choice state or country for not following the laws in an anti-abortion state.
 
Gordy327 said:
I doubt they care.

Spare us the emotionalism. Nobody cares!
Click to expand...

I'm sure they don't. Yet there are millions of women who do value human life and will let their pregnancies develop until birth despite any inconveniences it may bring. Those women are truly the moral ones who show respect for human life.
 
Ganondagan said:
I'm sure they don't. Yet there are millions of women who do value human life and will let their pregnancies develop until birth despite any inconveniences it may bring.
Click to expand...
Ganondagan said:
Those women are truly the moral ones who show respect for human life.
Click to expand...
That is their choice, is it not?
 
choiceone said:
Agreed. But it is immoral to try to prevent someone else from speaking loudly about it when they disagree with your view, and it is immoral to prevent a pregnant woman from leaving an anti-abortion state to go to a pro-choice state, or to prevent a woman from leaving the country to go to a pro-choice country. And it's also immoral to try to prosecute doctors in a pro-choice state or country for not following the laws in an anti-abortion state.
Click to expand...

I've never advocated for any of those things.
 
Ganondagan said:
Nope, I question their morality. Abortion when neither the mother's nor the unborn child's life is in danger is the most selfish and immoral act I can imagine.
Click to expand...

Nothing more than your religious opinion. And as "belief" is only a statement, not an argument because it is based on faith.

You just completely dont even recognize a woman's rights to her own life, health, and future. THAT is also immoral.

You havent answered my question, when I politely answered yours on value and the DP: Why should women that dont agree with your religion have to conform to your belief? Do you think they should be forced to by law?

God enforces His Laws, not you, not man. That's usurping His Authority.
 
Ganondagan said:
I'm sure they don't. Yet there are millions of women who do value human life and will let their pregnancies develop until birth despite any inconveniences it may bring. Those women are truly the moral ones who show respect for human life.
Click to expand...

That's great. So what's the problem? You show great disrespect for women's lives...unless they meet specific conditions you approve of. So again...you dont hold any moral High Ground here.

Your respect isnt required. Nor is mine 🤷
 
CLAX1911 said:
It's 100% religious it came from religion I don't care that people know it they know it because it's from religion and religions been around for millennia

Yes there is how did they take care of themselves when they're 6 months old. I think you're splitting some hairs here.
Click to expand...
Nope. Any person can care for a six month old child, its mother can be dead and it makes no difference. Hence, it is a member of a society and the people who care for it are social others. But a fetus isn't a member of society. For one thing, the woman is not required to go to a doctor or even leave her house if she's pregnant. You do not get to know whether or not she is pregnant because that is private information about her private body.
CLAX1911 said:
So then it is in parasite and all this weird shit you're saying is just misanthropic nonsense.
Click to expand...
It is living a biologically parasitic life. In biological symbiosis, there are commensalism, mutualism, and parasitism. and the implanted embryo is parasitic, not commensal or mutual. Get over it.
 
Lursa said:
Nothing more than your religious opinion. And as "belief" is only a statement, not an argument because it is based on faith.

You just completely dont even recognize a woman's rights to her own life, health, and future. THAT is also immoral.

You havent answered my question, when I politely answered yours on value and the DP: Why should women that dont agree with your religion have to conform to your belief? Do you think they should be forced to by law?

God enforces His Laws, not you, not man. That's usurping His Authority.
Click to expand...

Of course it's an argument. I'm sorry you don't have faith but that doesn't stop anyone else arguing from faith
 
Ganondagan said:
Laws may depend on personhood but morality doesn't. Human life is human life at every stage development.
Click to expand...
That is your view of morality. In my view, human life isn't sacred and humans aren't sacred, either. That's the reason that one can defend oneself against rape, kidnapping, etc., and if the criminal dies, too bad. I don't really understand where anyone got the idea that human life is so sacred that you can't defend yourself against rape by lethal means if necessary, but I sure wouldn't want to live anywhere that wasn't allowed.
 
Ganondagan said:
Of course it's an argument. I'm sorry you don't have faith but that doesn't stop anyone else arguing from faith
Click to expand...

It's not an argument, it's "God said so." That's faith, not an argument. Do you need a dictionary definition because I dont want to keep having to correct you.

And I am a practicing Christian and do have faith. I know that God also values the unborn but values women, all born people, more.

And the scriptures supporting that have been posted before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom