Religion and Moral Status of the Pre-born

[mark46]

So you would be ok with something like Sharia law in the U.S?

That is the issue.

My suspicion is that these folks only favor religion-based laws when it their religion.

Are they really saying that we should accept Sharia in say a suburb of Detroit because a majority in that town agree?

 

[durangodawood]

in 51, what do you mean by "we in the larger sense"?

Politically wound up Americans. Sorry Ive been vague about this.

But I could see other previously docile Americans, who are less theocratically inclined, getting politically riled up in light of recent events.

 

[BNR32FAN]

???

Are you saying if someone was raped abortion is no longer murder?

No I’m saying that excuse only accounts for 1% of the murders.

 

[Belk]

No I’m saying that excuse only accounts for 1% of the murders.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

The baby’s status is completely relevant to determine whether or not murder is being committed. Let’s just get the facts on the table here. Less than 1% of abortions occur as a result of rape or incest. 1-3% occur due to medical complications. So the other 96% occur because people are just being irresponsible and would rather kill an unwanted child rather than face the consequences for their actions. So no that option needs to be eliminated to protect the child’s right to live as opposed to the inconvenience the irresponsible mother has to endure as a consequence for her poor choices and judgment.

You're personal feelings and opinions about the issue, while completely valid, do not in any way rebut or invalidate the bodily autonomy of the woman, and that's the issue.

The State can not compel a person to donate or use any part of their body to keep another person alive without their consent even after they are dead. Personhood is irrelevant to that. Do you have a refutation for that?

 

[KCfromNC]

So many people, especially the left who are being emotionally manipulated into a freenzy by their leaders

Hey look, poisoning the well. When a post starts with personal attacks like that rather than a reasonable argument, it doesn't inspire much confidence.

 

[mark46]

Be prepared for doctors and women being charged with murder after an abortion.

A Texas woman was charged with murder over an abortion. Why? - Vox

In the past, this happened only in the case of doctors performing late term abortions.

 

[mark46]

For tens of thousands of years, our species has used the equivalent of a morning after pill. Now, we want these folks charged with murder. BTW, can you prove that a fetus was killed after the use of a morning after pill? Women don't automatically become pregnant.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So many people, especially the left who are being emotionally manipulated into a freenzy by their leaders...

Are you kidding? After January 6th you say this about "the left"?

 

[mark46]

Are you kidding? After January 6th you say this about "the left"?

Why are you surprised?

 

[renniks]

Issues can be both moral and religious. What distinguishes those that are not both?

What makes abortion a moral issue but not a religious issue?

What I mean it's it's not necessary to even have a religion to have moral issues with abortion.

 

[Halbhh]

The problem is that this is not a religion vs politics issue, nor straight white evangelical men vs women's freedom issue, but a religion vs philosophy issue; it's a clash of belief systems. And we the Church, are called to speak up and defend the weak. It's a very complex topic, but I think we can boil it down to this:

Can we agree on that murder is wrong? If yes, let's then consider this:

Is the unborn alive or not alive, scientifically speaking?
What species is the being in the womb?

If the answer to the above is "yes" and "human", then we must confess that we are dealing with a human life, and we should care for that child as we care for all life.

Beyond this, here's what I would like people to reflect on:

1. Any pro-abortion argument that can be applied to a 2 year old is not a good argument.
2. Who decides what qualifies as a human right?
3. It is possible to care for mothers and children alike.

A person I knew very well had a health directive that in the case of complete mental incapacitation or something like that, that no special mechanical life support would be continued after several doctors had concurred that the complete irreversible incapacitation of the brain had happened. In accord with their directive, in time, the mechanic ventilator was withdrawn, and so then the body perished.

But of course she didn't perish.

Her real fate will be decided by the Lord. She may live forever in Eternal Life.

Do you think that withdrawal of the ventilator after the brain had mostly died was the right thing? (it's not up to us, of course, and we aren't judging them, but rather talking in terms of what we ourselves think/believe)

The thing is, are we really who we are once consciousness is entirely gone through brain death, irreversibly? Some like me would think the death of the brain also means the soul has already left the body, so that what remains is only flesh without a soul any longer.

 

[Blade]

The status of life in the womb is scientific, and it is settled. There is life there and it is human.

As to your other question: the Aztec religion requires child sacrifice. Is it your view that if some Aztecs move to the United States we would be forced to strike down our laws against infanticide?

(For the sake of argument assume that New York isn't an option for the Aztecs)

Saw a picture woman just the other day "Heavily pregnant woman writes ‘not yet a human’ across her belly". She looked like she was ready to give birth. One would think this is open and shut but God help those that are against life. This age of grace is not forever.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You're personal feelings and opinions about the issue, while completely valid, do not in any way rebut or invalidate the bodily autonomy of the woman, and that's the issue.

The State can not compel a person to donate or use any part of their body to keep another person alive without their consent even after they are dead. Personhood is irrelevant to that. Do you have a refutation for that?

The state can prosecute parents for neglecting to take care of their child.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Saw a picture woman just the other day "Heavily pregnant woman writes ‘not yet a human’ across her belly". She looked like she was ready to give birth. One would think this is open and shut but God help those that are against life. This age of grace is not forever.

So you see it as a religious issue.

 

[jayem]

It's not a religious issue. It's a moral issue.

The Dodds v. Jackson decision was based on legality, not morality. The court didn’t declare that the unborn must be considered as persons, and that elective abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. The ruling was that the legality and regulation of abortion (which reflects the moral status of the unborn) is a matter for the states to decide. It’s crystal clear that nothing in the Constitution requires that the unborn must be recognized nationwide as persons in either a legal or ethical sense.

 

[zippy2006]

The Dodds v. Jackson decision was based on legality, not morality.

True, but renniks is correct that it is a moral issue rather than a religious issue. That abortion is a moral issue does not entail that court cases related to abortion are determined on moral grounds. The moral issue of abortion is addressed by the Constitution or by legislation, and the courts merely interpret such things. In theory, no American jurisprudence is moral in nature.

It’s crystal clear that nothing in the Constitution requires that the unborn must be recognized nationwide as persons in either a legal or ethical sense.

False.

Abortion is Unconstitutional | John Finnis

 

[jayem]

True, but renniks is correct that it is a moral issue rather than a religious issue. That abortion is a moral issue does not entail that court cases related to abortion are determined on moral grounds. The moral issue of abortion is addressed by the Constitution or by legislation, and the courts merely interpret such things. In theory, no American jurisprudence is moral in nature.

False.

Abortion is Unconstitutional | John Finnis

The link largely invokes Blackstone's Commentary. Which relates to English law, and is irrelevant to American jurisprudence. If the unborn are persons, with 14th Amendment rights, then why did SCOTUS not include this in their opinion? As of now, the personhood iquestion is left to the states.

And honestly, Dodds was a monumentally stupid decision. It has settled nothing, and will only lead to more conflict and division.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The problem is that this is not a religion vs politics issue, nor straight white evangelical men vs women's freedom issue, but a religion vs philosophy issue; it's a clash of belief systems. And we the Church, are called to speak up and defend the weak. It's a very complex topic, but I think we can boil it down to this:

Can we agree on that murder is wrong? If yes, let's then consider this:

Is the unborn alive or not alive, scientifically speaking?
What species is the being in the womb?

If the answer to the above is "yes" and "human", then we must confess that we are dealing with a human life, and we should care for that child as we care for all life.

How do we care for all life?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The bottom line to all this is simply that a number of women want to engage in free sex without having to bear the consequences of pregnancy and bringing an unwanted child into the world.