Abortion, Legal Or Illegal

[Sternhauser]

Musturde,

You speak truth.

In the United State in the 1800's, there were laws against abortion. The law is not what made abortion so rare. A strong moral sense among the majority of the individuals in society made abortion rare. A lack of State subsidization of unwed mothers made abortion rare.

Extant racist laws could not stop the civil rights movement. The laws were simply not taken seriously by the majority of individuals. How does one expect a law to be enforced in a society in which the majority of individuals simply ignore it? Or don't care about it? Or violently oppose it?

A society in which life is respected by the vast majority is a society in which a even a law against murder will be quite unnecessary. A society in which life is not respected is a society in which a law against murder would be nearly useless.

~Sternhauser

[traichuoi]

Sorry to jump in the middle of this but here are some thoughts:

- With regards to voting: Voting for a pro-life politician isn't necessarily voting for life. Although McCain wouldn't pursue pro-choice bills, his record doesn't show that he took very active roles is supporting life either. Also, a person could come to a valid and sound reason for voting in a politician who is pro-choice while believing that his actions would decrease abortion. Here are some of the arguments I've heard: During the Clinton Administration, economic strength helped to decrease the number of abortions. Financial strength, security, etc. helped families thrive. Regardless of whether you agree with this argument, a person could really believe this and vote according to their conscience. Obama represented the same for some of these very devout Catholics. I'm sure there are others, but this is one I thought was not bad. Had a person voted for a pro-choice politician in order to further the pro-choice agenda, that's a different story and a questionable if not outright immoral choice.

I don't think we can just dismiss the vote as being so clear cut. The Church doesn't.

- With regards to the law and defining life, I believe it is absurd. The law should not be defining life at any point because we simply don't know. There's no scientific anything that says a human person becomes a person at X point. Scientifically, we know that a zygote is of human form (it's not going to grow into a frog). But the very fact that we don't know is the very reason why we should err on the side that life begins at conception. If we were wrong, we will not have lost anything. However, if life begins at conception and we chose some later ambiguous date, then our being wrong has the most gravest consequences. I find this argument to be the strongest. Thoughts?

[Winchester]

Actually, it is utterly unscientific to claim any point other than that of conception as the beginning of a human life. Science is clear on the matter--you are you at the moment of conception. You are human. The question of ensoulment is another matter and only religion could possibly deny humanity after conception. But it doesn't.

[traichuoi]

But I don't think the debate is whether it's human life, because you're right there is no debate there. The debate is whether it's (and I hate using the word "it") is a person.

Which now that I am thinking about this while I write, it's a good point Winchester because we define personhood as not being an animal because of the rational soul. So, why would the law seek to not only establish its own authority on defining personhood, but why would it rely on science? The soul is not something that the law has authority to define.

Interesting point.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm learning in my philosophy class that there is a very serious, absolutely disgusting, but certainly not uncommon line of thought that even accepts that the fetus is a person and has rights, but argues that the mother's various rights are more important.
Before I had figured that this was a fringe argument and that most people wouldn't go near it.... but I was shocked to learn that it's a very significant portion of the pro abort group.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 October 2009 - 12:42 AM' timestamp='1256100127' post='1988857']
I'm learning in my philosophy class that there is a very serious, absolutely disgusting, but certainly not uncommon line of thought that even accepts that the fetus is a person and has rights, but argues that the mother's various rights are more important.
Before I had figured that this was a fringe argument and that most people wouldn't go near it.... but I was shocked to learn that it's a very significant portion of the pro abort group.
[/quote]
See, I can respect that argument. It's far more honest than the other one, which is a blatant cop-out and indefensible. Of course, the vast majority of adherents aren't defenders of rights, but of conveniences. We're not talking about Karl Marx, but about people whose endless outraged twaddle about human rights can be summed up in the words: Me first!

[Didymus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 October 2009 - 12:42 AM' timestamp='1256100127' post='1988857']
I'm learning in my philosophy class that there is a very serious, absolutely disgusting, but certainly not uncommon line of thought that even accepts that the fetus is a person and has rights, but argues that the mother's various rights are more important.
Before I had figured that this was a fringe argument and that most people wouldn't go near it.... but I was shocked to learn that it's a very significant portion of the pro abort group.
[/quote]

Yeah I respect this stance more as well. They're the crowd who actually does see abortion more as a necessary evil. At least they're not delusional with regards to personhood. But they're argument is pretty much what we have in the courts today, minus the actual acknowledgement of personhood. That's why I have some reservation as to the effectiveness of the personhood initiatives going on right now in the movement. I'm not certain they would actually make abortion illegal, as the argument for abortion in the courts right now stem from a warped interpretation of the reproductive rights of the woman. It's not like abortion is illegal because 'the fetus isn't human.'

[dominicansoul]

Most of the pro-abortion women I speak to have told me they "weren't alive" in their mother's womb; that making abortion illegal would cause death to mothers everywhere with "back-alley" abortions; that abortion is some how an "empowering" privilege that has taken women out of the "suppression" placed upon them by society, religion and men.

[dominicansoul]

oh, yeah, and "abortion saves lives of women." Is another shocking belief I have heard from my pro-abort friends. This isn't just mere propaganda they are spewing out...it's what they truly believe...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Winchester' date='21 October 2009 - 05:02 AM' timestamp='1256119322' post='1988944']
See, I can respect that argument. It's far more honest than the other one, which is a blatant cop-out and indefensible. Of course, the vast majority of adherents aren't defenders of rights, but of conveniences. We're not talking about Karl Marx, but about people whose endless outraged twaddle about human rights can be summed up in the words: Me first!
[/quote]


[quote name='Didymus' date='21 October 2009 - 08:18 AM' timestamp='1256131109' post='1988955']
Yeah I respect this stance more as well. They're the crowd who actually does see abortion more as a necessary evil. At least they're not delusional with regards to personhood. But they're argument is pretty much what we have in the courts today, minus the actual acknowledgement of personhood. That's why I have some reservation as to the effectiveness of the personhood initiatives going on right now in the movement. I'm not certain they would actually make abortion illegal, as the argument for abortion in the courts right now stem from a warped interpretation of the reproductive rights of the woman. It's not like abortion is illegal because 'the fetus isn't human.'
[/quote]
I guess I was just fond of the saying "if the fetus is not a person, then no justification is necessary. If the fetus is a person, no justification is possible."
Makes things simple.

I suppose it's similar to how we only respect the atheists that also say that morals are fake.

[KnightofChrist]

I am dismayed by so many pro-choicers using fetus like racist use the word n****r. But the two hate groups have so much in common of the group they hate. Both deny personhood to humans based on cognitive abilities, and their version of human form. Yet this is the basis that every hate group has used to deny personhood to other groups of humans.

It is very sad that Satan has so easily tempted the hearts of men to hate their fellow man using the same reasoning over and over and over again. No matter how many times man has been shown the truth.

Edited October 21, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[elizabeth09]

illegal, and Abortion stops a heart beat.

[Ziggamafu]

I think abortion should be illegal. However, I do wonder, given the separation between Church and State, how a 100% illegal status could be justified on the grounds of secular logic / ethics. In other words, how much of the 100% pro-life stance depends on a Christian perspective on the soul, human dignity, etc.? To be honest, although I personally find abortion abhorrent and barbaric murder (keeping in mind that I have been known to defend the *concept* of destroying an unoccupied death-mill), I have sometimes felt that I am voting in a theocratic way, as if America were a religious state whose government should be indistinguishable from Catholic policy. Although that kind of government sounds pleasant to my Catholic ears, I cannot say that it is "American".

[elizabeth09]

I believe that everyone should have the change to live. But a 1/3 of us are gone becuase of abortion. Both women and men say that the baby is not living until the baby is born. I believe that the baby starts living at conception.