American bombshell? Roe vs. Wade....

[Unkraut]

abortion became a hot issue for the religious right in the USA in the 1990s

You didn't really hear of Roe v Wade being challenged until Trump took power.

American evangelicals amongst others have always been opposed to abortion, this didn't start with the liberalisation of abortion laws.

The evangelical Christian right were/are vote-fodder for populist Republicans....

There is an uncomfortable amount of truth in this, but I wouldn't make the mistake of applying this to all, nor that many pastors are more thoughtful about this than you might think. They are somtimes the last port of call for those who have messed up, including but not confined to this particular issue.

Do we have to drag what some (patriachal) religion, said yay or nay in their book however so long ago, into this..

Morality doesn't change with time - at least not if there are absolutes. The Old Testament doesn't refer to abortion because it was completed before abortion was mentioned in history (500BC). Abortion was current in the Roman Empire, but the New Testament doesn't directly mention it either.

If abortion were analagous to having your appendix out there would be no debate about it. The question at issue is when does human life begin. At conception or later, and if so, when? Is the unborn child a human being, even if literally embryonic in form.

Biblically the answer is life begins at conception, and the obvious implications of this are why American evangelicals feel so strongly about it. The need to speak for those who have no voice. There is no change in the child's status at birth, and a right to life exists before and after. Arguing for the sanctity of life is not bigotry.

You can argue this scientifically as well - from the get go the unborn is another human being. Ultra scans make this only too visible. Independent heart and circulation, if you grafted skin from the baby onto the mother she would reject it.

This means that arguments about whether a woman has a right to bodily autonomy are irrelevant. That's not the issue. It's another person inside her body.

Sex is designed to create new life, and engaging in it implicitly means consent has been given for this to happen, there is a responsibility involved for both mother and father if conception occurs. The choice has already been made. There is no right to end that new life.

Now there are circumstances that despite the above where an abortion may be necessary. Incest or rape, genuine medical needs of the mother. Abortion is never good, but sometimes necessary. I don't agree with those who make it absolutely morally wrong, but I'm not sure there are many who do.

 

[mudsticks]

American evangelicals amongst others have always been opposed to abortion, this didn't start with the liberalisation of abortion laws.

There is an uncomfortable amount of truth in this, but I wouldn't make the mistake of applying this to all, nor that many pastors are more thoughtful about this than you might think. They are somtimes the last port of call for those who have messed up, including but not confined to this particular issue.

Morality doesn't change with time - at least not if there are absolutes. The Old Testament doesn't refer to abortion because it was completed before abortion was mentioned in history (500BC). Abortion was current in the Roman Empire, but the New Testament doesn't directly mention it either.

If abortion were analagous to having your appendix out there would be no debate about it. The question at issue is when does human life begin. At conception or later, and if so, when? Is the unborn child a human being, even if literally embryonic in form.

Biblically the answer is life begins at conception, and the obvious implications of this are why American evangelicals feel so strongly about it. The need to speak for those who have no voice. There is no change in the child's status at birth, and a right to life exists before and after. Arguing for the sanctity of life is not bigotry.

You can argue this scientifically as well - from the get go the unborn is another human being. Ultra scans make this only too visible. Independent heart and circulation, if you grafted skin from the baby onto the mother she would reject it.

This means that arguments about whether a woman has a right to bodily autonomy are irrelevant. That's not the issue. It's another person inside her body.

Sex is designed to create new life, and engaging in it implicitly means consent has been given for this to happen, there is a responsibility involved for both mother and father if conception occurs. The choice has already been made. There is no right to end that new life.

Now there are circumstances that despite the above where an abortion may be necessary. Incest or rape, genuine medical needs of the mother. Abortion is never good, but sometimes necessary. I don't agree with those who make it absolutely morally wrong, but I'm not sure there are many who do.

Nope an embryo is not a 'person'

It's a potential person, it doesn't have the 'right' to inhabit the body of another already living person.
Otherwise you're saying that the embryo has more rights than the already living woman.

No one , nor their religion has the right to force, or coerce a woman to continue, (nor terminate) a pregnancy.

My body belongs to me only, if I choose to create a new human through it, that's my choice.
No one has the right to force me to do that.

Sex is only 'designed' to create new life..??

By whom is it 'designed' ??

All the other purposes of sex are invalid in your view??
Or in the view of your religion?

Should infertile, or older people not be having sex in your religions view then??


Why do you want to force people to continue unwanted pregnancy.??
With all the associated problems this entails.
What is the purpose, or even 'good' in that .

Sometimes a termination is a 'good' choice , both for the woman, and as it happens for the people, and society around her.

Ultimately it's her body, not anyone elses, and an embryo doesn't trump her right to her own bodily autonomy.

Practically speaking you don't stop abortion by outlawing it, you just make it more dangerous, and thereby increase the risk to life, risk to the life and wellbeing of the already living.

Peoples religious beliefs can of course affect their own choices, those choices shouldn't be imposed on others..

 

[BoldonLad]

Thank you for your contribution.

As someone who is very fond of asking questions of others what is your view on abortion or the rights of fathers/sperm donors?

Since you ask:

Abortion: I am a man, so, I accept my view is secondary, but, I don't have a problem with Women choosing to terminate a pregnancy, if it their wish.

Rights of the Father: Although I actually said Rights/Responsibilities, I note, you have not included responsibilities in your question me. IMHO, it is unreasonable to expect rights, if you are not willing to also accept responsibilities.

 

[newfhouse]

Sex is designed

If so, the designer must have been on drugs.

 

[mudsticks]

If so, the designer must have been on drugs.

Nah, if that's how you feel you've just got the wrong 'user manual'

 

[winjim]

American evangelicals amongst others have always been opposed to abortion, this didn't start with the liberalisation of abortion laws.

There is an uncomfortable amount of truth in this, but I wouldn't make the mistake of applying this to all, nor that many pastors are more thoughtful about this than you might think. They are somtimes the last port of call for those who have messed up, including but not confined to this particular issue.

Morality doesn't change with time - at least not if there are absolutes. The Old Testament doesn't refer to abortion because it was completed before abortion was mentioned in history (500BC). Abortion was current in the Roman Empire, but the New Testament doesn't directly mention it either.

If abortion were analagous to having your appendix out there would be no debate about it. The question at issue is when does human life begin. At conception or later, and if so, when? Is the unborn child a human being, even if literally embryonic in form.

Biblically the answer is life begins at conception, and the obvious implications of this are why American evangelicals feel so strongly about it. The need to speak for those who have no voice. There is no change in the child's status at birth, and a right to life exists before and after. Arguing for the sanctity of life is not bigotry.

You can argue this scientifically as well - from the get go the unborn is another human being. Ultra scans make this only too visible. Independent heart and circulation, if you grafted skin from the baby onto the mother she would reject it.

This means that arguments about whether a woman has a right to bodily autonomy are irrelevant. That's not the issue. It's another person inside her body.

Sex is designed to create new life, and engaging in it implicitly means consent has been given for this to happen, there is a responsibility involved for both mother and father if conception occurs. The choice has already been made. There is no right to end that new life.

Now there are circumstances that despite the above where an abortion may be necessary. Incest or rape, genuine medical needs of the mother. Abortion is never good, but sometimes necessary. I don't agree with those who make it absolutely morally wrong, but I'm not sure there are many who do.

The briefest of Wikipedia searches confirms that abortion predates the OT. Could you really believe that nobody ever tried to terminate a pregnancy before Roman times? And given that there are differences in interpretation both in terms of personhood and of abortifacients mentioned in the OT (amongst many other things), we can't use it as a basis for any kind of legal decision in our current society. If you want to use it as a basis for your own morality that's fine, but you mustn't push it onto others.

 

[mudsticks]

The briefest of Wikipedia searches confirms that abortion predates the OT. Could you really believe that nobody ever tried to terminate a pregnancy before Roman times? And given that there are differences in interpretation both in terms of personhood and of abortifacients mentioned in the OT (amongst many other things), we can't use it as a basis for any kind of legal decision in our current society. If you want to use it as a basis for your own morality that's fine, but you mustn't push it onto others.

There was some supposed justification for overturning of Roe Vs Wade because access to terminations wasn't written into the constitution.

Slightly forgetting that the concept of women as separate people with individual rights of their own wasn't even in the constitution as written at the time .

Women were the chattels of men, so how could they have their own bodily rights??

 

[theclaud]

I can see Craig's point on this.

Give over.

 

[winjim]

There was some supposed justification for overturning of Roe Vs Wade because access to terminations wasn't written into the constitution.

Slightly forgetting that the concept of women as separate people with individual rights of their own wasn't even in the constitution as written at the time .

Women were the chattels of men, so how could they have their own bodily rights??

You think the US constitution is out of date and open to interpretation? Wait until you find out about the Jewish bible.

 

[mudsticks]

You think the US constitution is out of date and open to interpretation? Wait until you find out about the Jewish bible.

It's almost as if it can be used to justify whatever the reader wishes it to justify??

No matter how abhorrent??

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Give over.

One day you will agree with me, it's bound to happen.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Give over.

I don't disagree with every post by certain members just because that person wrote it. I'd rather address each individual argument on its merits, regardless of who posted it. I can't be bothered with the endless bickering on here, so please don't quote me simply to provoke another member.

 

[AuroraSaab]

This means that arguments about whether a woman has a right to bodily autonomy are irrelevant. That's not the issue.

Now there are circumstances that despite the above where an abortion may be necessary. Incest or rape, genuine medical needs of the mother. Abortion is never good, but sometimes necessary. I don't agree with those who make it absolutely morally wrong, but I'm not sure there are many who do.

I think most people think bodily autonomy is a large part of the issue and I think even you acknowledge that when you agree that abortion is the best option in certain circumstances. 'Medical needs' doesn't always mean physical needs. Psychological welfare should also be taken into account, surely?

Whilst there are certainly issues around when a foetus becomes viable and whether there should be a time limit on abortion, I don't think anybody but very conservative religious people would give a week old foetus the same status as a 38 week old one. We all know there's a huge difference. One is potential life, the other is actual life.

To say 'life begins at conception' and give a foetus at any stage of development equal status (and status which exceeds that given to the mother) simply makes no sense. It overrides what we know about both biology and human experience.

 

[theclaud]

Abortion is never good

Yes it is. Women are people, and healthcare for people is good.

 

[theclaud]

I don't disagree with every post by certain members just because that person wrote it. I'd rather address each individual argument on its merits, regardless of who posted it. I can't be bothered with the endless bickering on here, so please don't quote me simply to provoke another member.

Maggot really does not have a point, unless you count repeatedly demonstrating oneself to be a tendentious w*nker as a point of some kind. He's quite deliberately misrepresenting what happens. I don't mind a bit of trolling, as it happens, but I like a more entertaining class of wind-up artist.