Another Abortion Question

[mulimulix]

Similar to Oshulten's question about abortion, but different:

I recognise that many of you are against abortion for whatever reason (obviously, mainly religious reasons) but if you accept that it is a religious reason that you are against it, then how could you make it illegal? What I mean to say is that if you are against abortion because your religion tells you that (not that there's anything wrong with it), then why not keep it legal and the people who want to abort a baby can use it and the people who are against it don't have to.

The way I see a law like this which doesn't hurt people if you never need to be involved in it, is to make/keep it legal, simple as that. People shouldn't complain if it's legal, because they aren't the ones using it! I think the same goes for gay marriage.

Thoughts?

 

[MattRose]

If you're christian you have to do as much as you can to help others not to sin. While not a strict requirement in christianity, God does give brownie points for helping non-christians.

 

[mulimulix]

If you're christian you have to do as much as you can to help others not to sin. While not a strict requirement in christianity, God does give brownie points for helping non-christians.

I understand this, but I don't see this rule being applied in everyday life. If a Christian going to church sees someone walking their dog in the park, they don't pull over and tell them to stop and go to church.

Christians need to understand people aren't going to just change their mind and say "Hmm, I'll become a Christian" just because someone tells them they should go to church or stopping them from aborting a child. If they don't believe in god, they are going to hell anyway (apparently) so why stop them from sinning if it doesn't affect Christian WHATSOEVER?

 

[laconicstudent]

I don't think abortion should be made illegal. I think it is wrong, but I don't see why I should be shoving that down others' throats. There is a great deal of complaining about Sharia, after all, so its hardly fair to hold a double standard.

 

[supersoldier71]

I think most people agree that murder is wrong, regardless of religion or ideology, reasonable people can agree on that.

What we cannot agree on is the definition of murder. Actually, most of the time we can even agree on that.

But on this subject, we cannot.

And we who feel it's murder do NOT feel like we have any room to compromise, because how do you compromise on the unjust taking of a human life?

 

[mulimulix]

I think most people agree that murder is wrong, regardless of religion or ideology, reasonable people can agree on that.

What we cannot agree on this the definition of murder. Actually, most of the time we can even agree on that.

But on this subject, we cannot.

And we who feel it's murder do NOT feel like we have any room to compromise, because how do you compromise on the unjust taking of a human life?

I have to say that this is probably a good response. The only thing I can think to say to it are reasons why abortion isn't murder but I'm sure you've heard it all before.

 

[Spirko]

Similar to Oshulten's question about abortion, but different:

I recognise that many of you are against abortion for whatever reason (obviously, mainly religious reasons) but if you accept that it is a religious reason that you are against it, then how could you make it illegal? What I mean to say is that if you are against abortion because your religion tells you that (not that there's anything wrong with it), then why not keep it legal and the people who want to abort a baby can use it and the people who are against it don't have to.

The way I see a law like this which doesn't hurt people if you never need to be involved in it, is to make/keep it legal, simple as that. People shouldn't complain if it's legal, because they aren't the ones using it! I think the same goes for gay marriage.

Thoughts?

OK. Let's apply your logic to another circumstance. Let's say that it's 1900 and we're having this conversation:

I recognise that many of you are against lynching black people for whatever reason (obviously, mainly religious reasons) but if you accept that it is a religious reason that you are against it, then how could you make it illegal? What I mean to say is that if you are against lynching black people because your religion tells you that (not that there's anything wrong with it), then why not keep it legal and the people who want to lynch black people can use it and the people who are against it don't have to.

The way I see a law like this which doesn't hurt people if you never need to be involved in it, is to make/keep it legal, simple as that. People shouldn't complain if it's legal, because they aren't the ones using it.

How does your logic hold up when applied to other circumstances?

 

[drich0150]

Similar to Oshulten's question about abortion, but different:

I recognize that many of you are against abortion for whatever reason (obviously, mainly religious reasons) but if you accept that it is a religious reason that you are against it, then how could you make it illegal? What I mean to say is that if you are against abortion because your religion tells you that (not that there's anything wrong with it), then why not keep it legal and the people who want to abort a baby can use it and the people who are against it don't have to.

The way I see a law like this which doesn't hurt people if you never need to be involved in it, is to make/keep it legal, simple as that. People shouldn't complain if it's legal, because they aren't the ones using it! I think the same goes for gay marriage.

Thoughts?

Because We live in a democratic state. Where the majority rules. If the majority of the people want abortions for everyone then they will vote people in office to help them get what they want. Likewise if the majority do not want abortions to be legal they too will vote in the right people..

Whether or not we want abortions is not a crime. it is also not a crime to vote your conscience no matter what your reason.

Apparently there is no law for or against having a conscience (Or the lack there of) in either of our countries.

 

[MattRose]

OK. Let's apply your logic to another circumstance. Let's say that it's 1900 and we're having this conversation:

How does your logic hold up when applied to other circumstances?

Well first you have to have a strawman that isn't obviously ridiculous. Lynching blacks was never legal. It was not a religious issue, unless you point out that the ones doing it were always christians. Assuming the black fella was guilty (at least 5% probably were) of a crime where the penalty was capital punishment, it wasn't even morally wrong.

P.S. As I reread your post, it would appear that you were implying that religious people were against lynching. You may want to check your history facts on that.

 

[Spirko]

Well first you have to have a strawman that isn't obviously ridiculous. Lynching blacks was never legal. It was not a religious issue, unless you point out that the ones doing it were always christians. Assuming the black fella was guilty (at least 5% probably were) of a crime where the penalty was capital punishment, it wasn't even morally wrong.

P.S. As I reread your post, it would appear that you were implying that religious people were against lynching. You may want to check your history facts on that.

I'll betcha he's smart enough to respond for himself.

 

[mulimulix]

OK. Let's apply your logic to another circumstance. Let's say that it's 1900 and we're having this conversation:



How does your logic hold up when applied to other circumstances?

This logic makes no sense in this context. As pointed out by another poster, it was not only Christians who did this and it wasn't for religious reasons. Fetuses are not races, aren't even conscious.

Because We live in a democratic state. Where the majority rules. If the majority of the people want abortions for everyone then they will vote people in office to help them get what they want. Likewise if the majority do not want abortions to be legal they too will vote in the right people..

Whether or not we want abortions is not a crime. it is also not a crime to vote your conscience no matter what your reason.

Apparently there is no law for or against having a conscience (Or the lack there of) in either of our countries.

Abortion is different because, unlike almost every other law, it doesn't affect the people who would potentially use the law (or lack of). The point I am making is that the people who are against abortion don't have to use an abortion if they don't want to, but the people who do want to, can! What's the problem?

 

[drich0150]

Abortion is different because, unlike almost every other law, it doesn't affect the people who would potentially use the law (or lack of). The point I am making is that the people who are against abortion don't have to use an abortion if they don't want to, but the people who do want to, can! What's the problem?

Is abortion illegal in Australia? Is it illegal for me not to want other's to have the right to kill unborn babies?

Then may I ask you the same question: what's the problem?

 

[Spirko]

This logic makes no sense in this context. As pointed out by another poster, it was not only Christians who did this and it wasn't for religious reasons. Fetuses are not races, aren't even conscious.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but unborn children in the womb are conscious.

Abortion is different because, unlike almost every other law, it doesn't affect the people who would potentially use the law (or lack of). The point I am making is that the people who are against abortion don't have to use an abortion if they don't want to, but the people who do want to, can! What's the problem?

So then, by your own logic, people who want to lynch blacks should be allowed to, but people who don't want to just shouldn't engage in it.

 

[mulimulix]

Is abortion illegal in Australia? Is it illegal for me not to want other's to have the right to kill unborn babies?

Then may I ask you the same question: what's the problem?

It is a bit confusing in Australia. This link should help:
Abortion in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't quite know what you're getting at. Of course you can think what you want about abortion, but is that solely because of the fact you are Christian?

 

[razeontherock]

The way I see a law like this which doesn't hurt people

1) This KILLS people - and it hurts!

2) I wish pro-lifers would stop talking about legality. That's simply not on the table. (Or is it just the pro choice side that brings up this absurdity?)

3) The battle ground is (public) funding, and parental consent, or at least notification.

 

[razeontherock]

This logic makes no sense in this context. As pointed out by another poster, it was not only Christians who did this and it wasn't for religious reasons.

Cop out. You just don't want to look at how heinous the act of abortion is. The same logic applies to both it and lynching: murder is either acceptable, or it isn't. (Except in AU where it gets complicated)

 

[mulimulix]

Cop out. You just don't want to look at how heinous the act of abortion is. The same logic applies to both it and lynching: murder is either acceptable, or it isn't. (Except in AU where it gets complicated)

I'm going to respond to both your posts here:

Regarding your statement that abortion is murder, do you know how many 'children' people murder every time someone simply has sex?! There are millions of potential children that you 'kill' every time you [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. But does anyone mention this MASS murder? No! If you have unprotected sex and the woman doesn't fall pregnant, why is this not murder?

Murder is illegal and abortion is legal in Victoria. The Christians there aren't vocally complaining about this because they accept that THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO ABORT A CHILD. They realise it doesn't affect them in any way.

If abortion is murder, then eating fruit is murder.

 

[razeontherock]

do you know how many 'children' people murder every time someone simply has sex?! There are millions of potential children that you 'kill' every time you [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

This is not responsive:

1) Every single cell is not a "potential child." I think quintuplets have been born, but not million-tuplets. There's a limit somewhere, and that includes an interval of 9 months plus.

2) A "potential child" can not be killed, except for "potentially." I know RC makes a big deal about this, but Scripture is silent on the matter.

3) Abortion, to be abortion, starts with a (at least) mostly formed human, and KILLS it. Painfully. This is not some theoretical, "potential child," but a child. Where the issue gets really sticky is when gestation has proceeded so far it could be viable outside the womb.

If you have unprotected sex and the woman doesn't fall pregnant, why is this not murder?

When Monty Python wrote "every sperm is sacred," at least they knew it was a joke.

Murder is illegal and abortion is legal in Victoria. The Christians there aren't vocally complaining about this because they accept that THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO ABORT A CHILD. They realise it doesn't affect them in any way.

This is an absolutely sick perspective. US has killed more unborn children than those that died in the holocaust ...

"It is a poverty that a child has to die, so that you may live as you please."

 

[mulimulix]

This is not responsive:

1) Every single cell is not a "potential child." I think quintuplets have been born, but not million-tuplets. There's a limit somewhere, and that includes an interval of 9 months plus.

3) Abortion, to be abortion, starts with a (at least) mostly formed human, and KILLS it. Painfully. This is not some theoretical, "potential child," but a child. Where the issue gets really sticky is when gestation has proceeded so far it could be viable outside the womb.

This is an absolutely sick perspective. US has killed more unborn children than those that died in the holocaust ...
"

How is every single sperm not a potential child?! Every sperm has an (almost) equal chance at becoming a child.

It isn't painful! It can't be painful if it isn't alive yet!

And the majority of those unborn children were aborted for a reason, not simply because they don't feel comfortable in their swimsuit. Is it better for a child to be born into poverty and live on the streets all their life?

On a similar vein, if you found out your unborn child was going to be born with something like cerebral paulsy or severe autism, would you abort it or let it suffer?

 

[razeontherock]

It isn't painful! It can't be painful if it isn't alive yet!

Please educate yourself, as this is unspeakably naive. It does explain your position though.

And the majority of those unborn children were aborted for a reason, not simply because they don't feel comfortable in their swimsuit. Is it better for a child to be born into poverty and live on the streets all their life?

False dilemma. Do you know the stats on adoption in this Country? If all the perfectly capable couples wanting to adopt had all the kids they wanted, then we'd have a very different situation on our hands and your argument here might have some merit. As it is, it doesn't.

On a similar vein, if you found out your unborn child was going to be born with something like cerebral paulsy or severe autism, would you abort it or let it suffer?

1) Not a similar vein - AT ALL.

2) While I do not understand this personally, I do know parents of disabled children who find great love in the endeavor.

3) I'm not going to have any unborn children, and so I'm not going to entertain that hypothetical. My opinion on this doesn't mean squat anyway, nor does this obscure question deal with the real issue.