Why do pro-lifers use religion? (1 Viewer)

[LeftyHenry]

I used to be extremely pro-choice. Now I've slowly become an undecided on this issue. One of the things that bugs me however, is pro-lifers use of religion in their arguements. I think that it's not a good arguement and that pro-lifers should concentrate on other arguements because they are much stronger. Feel free to disagree.

 

[Stinger]

I used to be extremely pro-choice.

My pro-life position has nothing to do with religious faith, it has to do with morality and the right to life we are all guarantied under the constitution.

Hey there are those who profess religion and have no problem with abortion being legal.

 

[FallingPianos]

I used to be extremely pro-choice. Now I've slowly become an undecided on this issue. One of the things that bugs me however, is pro-lifers use of religion in their arguements. I think that it's not a good arguement and that pro-lifers should concentrate on other arguements because they are much stronger. Feel free to disagree.

talk to talloulou about that...

its not that pro-lifers use religion to back up their argument, its that fundamentalist christians use their religion to back up all of their arguments. they are giving everyone else a bad rep.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Religion is useless in a logical argument because there is no logic to it. There is no evidence for it; all a religious person can say by means of explanation is, "God said so." But if I don't believe in the god in question, then it is meaningless to me, and the only rebuttal of my disbelief is, "Well, you should believe in god." Not very convincing.
On the other hand, when a religious person is arguing with another religious person, they share a basic set of values, and the arguments can have merit; that's when it becomes a debate over, for instance, whether the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" should be phrased, "Thou shalt not murder." And the two sides can come to an agreement. In those cases, religious arguments are incredibly easy: there is usually only one book that must be read -- Bible or Koran or Torah -- and then all the facts and support are immediate. I think that's why religion comes up in pro-life arguments so often: it's such an easy thing to say. "God hates abortion!" How does one argue with that? What do I say? No, he doesn't? I don't even believe in god, so what do I know? All I know is it doesn't convince me.

Of course, there aren't any pro-life arguments that convince me . . .

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Faith based arguments in a logical debate have no value. What really grinds my gears about pro-lifers is when they insist that life begins at conception, when any physician will tell you pregnancy occurs when the ovum binds to the uterus wall.

 

[Stinger]

Faith based arguments in a logical debate have no value. What really grinds my gears about pro-lifers is when they insist that life begins at conception, when any physician will tell you pregnancy occurs when the ovum binds to the uterus wall.

Two different things. The life begins when the DNA combine to create that new and unique person and that person starts down the same path we have all gone down.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Two different things. The life begins when the DNA combine to create that new and unique person and that person starts down the same path we have all gone down.

Until pregnancy occurs, the supposed person (FETUS) has been just as much along that "same path we've all been down" as the wasted semen when men fool their bodies into thinking that they're entering the gene pool.

 

[Stinger]

Until pregnancy occurs, the supposed person

It is not supposed once the two strains of the DNA molecule combine to create that new and unique person.

(FETUS) has been just as much along that "same path we've all been down" as the wasted semen when men fool their bodies into thinking that they're entering the gene pool.

Go study some biology. Semen will never ever become a person. Once the two strains of DNA combine in the egg the new person is created. The life process starts and they are no different from you when you were at that stage of you life.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I know my biology, and Ill just assume you missed my point. Many eggs with combined DNA dont make it to the uterus wall and dont become a person. The female doesnt get pregnant. These "supposed" persons are the ones I compared to sperm that will not make it, because they are both at different points on the same path, to nothingness.

Life begins at pregnancy.

 

[ngdawg]

My pro-life position has nothing to do with religious faith, it has to do with morality and the right to life we are all guarantied under the constitution.

Hey there are those who profess religion and have no problem with abortion being legal.

The Constitution does NOT guarantee a right to life, nor does the DOC(which was never written as law anyway). How many times are y'all gonna use that ridiculous 'argument'?
The Constitution gives rights to the citizens of the US regarding personal freedoms, gives rights to the states regarding laws, but nowhere does it give 'right to life'.
Your moralities, when not based on biblical dogma, are your own, from upbringing, conscious decision-making, etc. Our country's laws have nothing to do with that.

 

[ModerateDem]

I used to be extremely pro-choice. Now I've slowly become an undecided on this issue. One of the things that bugs me however, is pro-lifers use of religion in their arguements. I think that it's not a good arguement and that pro-lifers should concentrate on other arguements because they are much stronger. Feel free to disagree.

Honestly, Religion affects people's decisions no matter where they are or what the circumstances that is of course assuming that the person is religious and not an Atheist. Yet one must remember that not all people are Christians and not all people are the Ultra conservative or extreme liberal. My religion affects my decisions also. I'm my religious belief system the fetus is considered potential life. Granted all life has value and this potential life has value and should be nurtured without thought of termination. However, this potential life does not override the Life already present and when morality and Ethics come into play and Abortion is the way out it must be done without compromise on issues of Rape, incest and the mother's health. The Problem with extremists on either side both pro-abortion and anti-abortionists all have moral ethical issues that they themselves cannot resolve. For anti-abortionists their issues include Rape, Incest, and Mother's health issues. for pro-abortionists it is the ethical standpoint of using abortion as a method of birth control and at what point abortions can take place such as the dilation and extraction procedure otherwise known as partial birth abortion.:soap

The religious Argument is a double swinging door. religion can be used to justify abortion equally as it can be used to make it an injustice.:boxer

 

[ModerateDem]

My pro-life position has nothing to do with religious faith, it has to do with morality and the right to life we are all guarantied under the constitution.

Hey there are those who profess religion and have no problem with abortion being legal.

The constitution does not give us the right to life. However the Declaration of independence does say that we are endowed by our creator with cerain inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[ngdawg]

The constitution does not give us the right to life. However the Declaration of independence does say that we are endowed by our creator with cerain inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That is a declaration of principle, not law, though. There is no 'right to life' in federal law.

 

[Navy Pride]

I used to be extremely pro-choice. Now I've slowly become an undecided on this issue. One of the things that bugs me however, is pro-lifers use of religion in their arguements. I think that it's not a good arguement and that pro-lifers should concentrate on other arguements because they are much stronger. Feel free to disagree.

I am a pro life and my beliefs have nothing to do with religion........I have a friend who is pro life and he is and atheist....................

Your premise is flawed my friend........You don't have to be religeous to want to save the innocent...........

 

[TPG]

The constitution does give the right to life in a way... it gives the right to not have your life taken away (without due process).

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Or more to the point:
No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law.

 

[LeftyHenry]

I am a pro life and my beliefs have nothing to do with religion........I have a friend who is pro life and he is and atheist....................

Your premise is flawed my friend........You don't have to be religeous to want to save the innocent...........

Whoops sorry I made a little error. It should have been "Many pro-lifers use religion". I didn't mean all.

 

[Loki]

I'm an athiest and I oppose abortion. I think it's just plain crazy for a population to kill itself off for no reason other than the convience of some of it's members.

 

[ModerateDem]

That is a declaration of principle, not law, though. There is no 'right to life' in federal law.

it is a declaration of a principle i agree. However the founding Father's carefully worded this passage to include the word "rights."

One however could imply that the Law is there simply because of the fact that Murder is Illegal. By making the main component of causing death illegal you advance a persons right to live.

 

[Navy Pride]

I'm an athiest and I oppose abortion. I think it's just plain crazy for a population to kill itself off for no reason other than the convience of some of it's members.

I will never understand how people can justify and abortion for convenience......

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I will never understand how people can justify and abortion for convenience......

First, because abortions don't happen for "convenience." There may be women who use abortion as birth control, but they are few and far between, despite the hysterics of some pro-life people. But regardless, pregnancy is a very serious and life-changing circumstance; it is not merely an "inconvenience," and so an abortion is not merely for the sake of "convenience."

I think the very fact that you can't really fathom pregnancy is why you belittle it so much. The fact that I cannot understand the feeling of being a father is why I don't think much of having children, and why the concept of an "innocent child" means so little to me. But at least I admit my ignorance; you use yours as an argument, as if your inability to understand why a woman would have an abortion proves that women don't have a valid reason.

It doesn't.

 

[ngdawg]

it is a declaration of a principle i agree. However the founding Father's carefully worded this passage to include the word "rights."

One however could imply that the Law is there simply because of the fact that Murder is Illegal. By making the main component of causing death illegal you advance a persons right to live.

'Person'. Yes.
And let's not forget that although the declaration was a principle, it did NOT include black men or any women. The writers and signers all owned slaves.
It states 'all MEN are created equal', not 'all humans regardless of lifestage or DNA'. It can't be challenged either because it is not law.
Regardless, since it was a principle and the Declaration was to sever ties to England and establish the colonies, it is not and never will be a federal guarantee of 'right to life' and extremely unlikely that any amendment to the Constitution would give one. It's way too arbitrary and infringes on many personal rights, not just abortion ones.

 

[FallingPianos]

First, because abortions don't happen for "convenience." There may be women who use abortion as birth control, but they are few and far between, despite the hysterics of some pro-life people. But regardless, pregnancy is a very serious and life-changing circumstance; it is not merely an "inconvenience," and so an abortion is not merely for the sake of "convenience."

I think the very fact that you can't really fathom pregnancy is why you belittle it so much. The fact that I cannot understand the feeling of being a father is why I don't think much of having children, and why the concept of an "innocent child" means so little to me. But at least I admit my ignorance; you use yours as an argument, as if your inability to understand why a woman would have an abortion proves that women don't have a valid reason.

It doesn't.

I find it odd that you say this after just reading another post of yours...

Back Alley Abortions post 3
people don't get abortions because they don't want to put their child up for adoption; they get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant any more.

 

[Loki]

I will never understand how people can justify and abortion for convenience......

hedonism.

 

[FallingPianos]

I will never understand how people can justify and abortion for convenience......

I will never understand how some people can justify forcing a woman to keep a non-sentient being alive.

 

[Stinger]

The constitution does not give us the right to life. However the Declaration of independence does say that we are endowed by our creator with cerain inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

5th Amendment, supported by our Declaration of Independence.