The issue of Abortion in accordance to Christian beliefs

The abortion debate since the beginning has been when life begins. Those on one side say life begins at birth and the other says life begins at conception. Conceding that it is a life and arguing that it is ok to terminate that life on demand takes the debate somewhere it has not previously been on a large scale.

 

Does that leave babies who nurse endangered even after birth?

Is the issue just use of the womb or do mammary glands count?

 

Who in the hell has suggested a ban on contraceptives? How convenient to just throw that in there even though it isn't on the table.

If overpopulation and crime are your concerns, then I am sure that you would support forced sterilization procedures to ensure that it does not become a problem.

Just...wow.

 

How close-minded of people to be against the harvesting of fetuses.

 

Maybe we should just get government out of all of it and let the market takeover. If there's no market for harvested fetuses, then the practice will die out.

 

...well, yes, because by definition embryonic stem cells come from embryos, not fetuses.

It lends one to think that those "against the harvesting of fetuses" haven't exactly read up on the latest scientific literature---including procedures involving fetal or adult and even embryonic stem cells that don't invovle the destruction of the host. This critical lack of distinction between prenatal stages of development also seems to indicate a certain closed-mindedness to scientific concepts.

Science fact; in the transition between the embryonic stage and the fetal stage, about 25% of embryos spontaneously abort. Right-wingers might just take this as Akin proof of concept, but it's also a reminder that the "greatest baby killer" out there is nature herself (or for those of the believing type, God, spaghetti monster etc.) Maybe that will get your moralizing hats off on an issue that quite simply is about whether government management of abortion is more effective than hands-off, govt out. People love to cite post-Roe v Wade stats, without bothering to check how unsafe abortions were before or even the fact that abortion rates have ticked down dramatically.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18183734

Those people who love to moralize about government intervention in the economy, healthcare, and drug issues, can't seem to get their heads bent around the fact that the same argument is on display here. It's not "is abortion good or bad?" If it was that maybe you could trifling moral arguments. The question is really "is government intervention in abortions worth the trade-off of violation of individual rights?". That's the question the Supreme Court ruled on, and it's the one they have put a decisive no to each and every time it has been asked.

 

Maybe you should look up the difference between embryos and fetuses. Regardless, most embryos have already been harvested and are left over from in vitro fertilization, where they will eventually be destroyed.

 

This is clearly false. The concept of viability presupposes that there is some life that may or may not be viable outside the womb. Your characterization of the debate excludes consideration of women's rights to bodily autonomy by reducing it to a matter of metaphysics. Many women recognize a life is ending when they choose to have an abortion. Are they all just shameless hypocrites to you?

 

What's more interesting is that you would give the state the power to force a woman to use her body for reproduction.

No, they count. Women shouldn't be forced to breastfeed, either.

 

I don't follow Judeo-Christian religion and I think abortion should be legal but would be willing to accept some restrictions.

The I don't know when human life begins and I have a hard time accepting that it does at conception. At the same time I recognize how controversial this situation is and I think as a society we need some sort of compromise. So personally I would be willing to accept restrictions after the first trimester, as Roe allows, with exceptions for life and welfare of the mother and rape and incest.

I also recognize that leaving aside the question of whether it is taking a human life or not abortion is a traumatic experience and the goal should be reducing the root cause of abortion, unwanted pregnancy. I think that should be something that people on both sides of the issue should be working on providing sex education, access to contraception, and also the support structure to help women through pregnancy and with child rearing.

 

So a breast-feeding baby is subject to termination by the mother due to dependent status? Is that your position? I don't think so and I certainly hope not.

 

Let me guess... you follow Judo-Christian religion.

 

If you stick your finger in a power socket, there is a big chance that you might get electrocuted.

If you have sex, especially unprotected sex, there is a big chance that if you're a female, you will get pregnant...

If you don't want to get electrocuted, don't stick your finger in a power socket, if you don't want to get pregnant...

It is time that people started taking responsibilities for their actions, and before some left wing pro women's choice activist starts using the the Rape scenario as an excuse or justification to take an innocent life, a child shouldnt lose its right to life simply because its mother was a victim of crime. Two wrong very rarely, if ever, make a right.

here is an article that I googled that seems to deal directly with the Question posed by the OP.

Spoiler

I mean a child in the womb isn't really alive until they are born, right....



...and that's not a real smile, is it?


BTW:
Still nobody has answered my question of when abortion would be considered murder or terminating a life... 3 months, 6 months or 9 months?

 

The first part of that at least. :grin:

 

I actually had you pegged as a Judo-Buddhist, but I could be wrong.

 

Did I say or imply anything remotely close to that?

 

I'm SHOCKED that a Christian such as yourself would resort so reflexively to judgment from a position of complete ignorance.