Just Abortion theory

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.

Those are your beliefs, not mine.

OP again

That was not me. However, I also do not share those beliefs.

I never claimed they are exactly equivalent but I doubt that you have read Saint Augustine’s argument for Just War theory that was later refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

For me the fundamental assumption in Just War theory is that war is not a collective good to be pursued and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However, there are circumstances when war is justified such as self defense. There are criteria that need to be followed to ensure that wars are just such as protection of innocent civilian life.

Just Abortion theory (which is just a proposed theory by me and not anywhere close to accepted theory) would probably hold that abortion is not inherently good or right and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However there are many circumstances when abortion is justified either medically and/ or morally.

There is a great deal of harm being done to many women and children in the name of simplistic extremist moralism that assumes life begins at conception . It is further incredibly irresponsible to ban contraception while outlawing abortion rights.

I don't know who you are responding to, but abortion, in the vast majority of cases, is not analogous to self defense. And in the minority of cases where health of mother is at risk, no mainstream religion is arguing that the mother must die. You are trying to justify a conclusion you've already reached (that outlawing abortion is wrong), instead of using reasoning to see where it takes you.

The defense of the mother’s mental health—which is at issue in many abortions—is absolutely a form of self-defense.

LOL, so I can now kill people and claim mental health as my defense? Ok, go try that in any courtroom. "He triggered me so I had to shoot him!!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.

Those are your beliefs, not mine.

OP again

That was not me. However, I also do not share those beliefs.

I never claimed they are exactly equivalent but I doubt that you have read Saint Augustine’s argument for Just War theory that was later refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

For me the fundamental assumption in Just War theory is that war is not a collective good to be pursued and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However, there are circumstances when war is justified such as self defense. There are criteria that need to be followed to ensure that wars are just such as protection of innocent civilian life.

Just Abortion theory (which is just a proposed theory by me and not anywhere close to accepted theory) would probably hold that abortion is not inherently good or right and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However there are many circumstances when abortion is justified either medically and/ or morally.

There is a great deal of harm being done to many women and children in the name of simplistic extremist moralism that assumes life begins at conception . It is further incredibly irresponsible to ban contraception while outlawing abortion rights.

I don't know who you are responding to, but abortion, in the vast majority of cases, is not analogous to self defense. And in the minority of cases where health of mother is at risk, no mainstream religion is arguing that the mother must die. You are trying to justify a conclusion you've already reached (that outlawing abortion is wrong), instead of using reasoning to see where it takes you.

The defense of the mother’s mental health—which is at issue in many abortions—is absolutely a form of self-defense.

An unborn baby isn’t a criminal. An unborn baby isn’t attacking mom. An unborn baby is in a location, mom’s uterus, because of mom’s actions.

Many states allow their citizens to use deadly force against an intruder/attacker that forcibly and unlawfully enters their home or vehicle, and they believe their lives are in imminent danger. Some states require their citizens to retreat: In jurisdictions that implement a duty to retreat, even a person who is unlawfully attacked (or who is defending someone who is unlawfully attacked) may not use deadly force if it is possible to instead avoid the danger with complete safety by retreating.

You are not making any sense whatsoever with your post. It’s amazing how far some people will go to make themselves feel justified in killing an unborn baby.

I think the OP is about whether it's a good idea for religion to communicate to adherents whether there are some circumstances where it IS OK to have an abortion. Are there any circumstances under which you feel it IS OK to have an abortion? 13 year olds? Miscarriage occurring? Threat to mom's health? Rape? If so, wasn't the OP about getting religion to articulate that. So we don't end up with some of the terrible situations we've seen going on since the overturn of RVW.

OP again

Correct - thank you .

And it is amazing how self righteous and oblivious to reality some Anti abortion Christians are. There are many harms being done in the name of self righteous morality that idoes not factor in both medical and moral reasons why women and girls often need abortions. Many mothers who want to have their babies safely are also being negatively impacted because hospitals and medical clinics are closing maternity units and services in red anti abortion states due to the political interference. Maternal deaths are already 67% higher in states with anti abortion laws. Women and girls of color are 3-4 more times more likely to die in child birth.

The Christian Taliban have a lot to answer for.


I don’t want my religion misused and exploited to harm women/ girls/ vulnerable others.

I suspect that some Christian posters here mainly like to stir things up and be nasty to anyone who expresses a viewpoint not in keeping with their beliefs.

Only when some rando tries to pretend their posts are “scholarship.” Get a life.

OP - I originally asked if there was work being done on this as it is rather obvious. Obviously, there are medical and moral reasons when abortion is justified.

It was an invitation for work to be done on such a (merely proposed) theory and I probably will propose it to the seminary where I studied in the past.

I threw the proposal out for a moderating theology out in this anonymous forum to test the waters. The harms being done in the name of Christian morality are actually perpetuating many terrible outcomes and injustices, as well as interfering in medical professionals abilities to carry out their duties to their patients.

You keep claiming how harmful Christianity stance on abortion has been. What evidence do you have? You keep ignoring the fact that no mainstream church is advocating for not saving the mother when her life is at risk from pregnancy. Can you understand that? So what are we talking about here? That it's hard to define when her life is in danger, etc? Well guess what, it's always hard to define things in law and to draw lines, but we still manage to do it. We don't say "because it's so hard and traumatic to prove self defense, let's just make all murder legal and call it a day."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.

Those are your beliefs, not mine.

OP again

That was not me. However, I also do not share those beliefs.

I never claimed they are exactly equivalent but I doubt that you have read Saint Augustine’s argument for Just War theory that was later refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

For me the fundamental assumption in Just War theory is that war is not a collective good to be pursued and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However, there are circumstances when war is justified such as self defense. There are criteria that need to be followed to ensure that wars are just such as protection of innocent civilian life.

Just Abortion theory (which is just a proposed theory by me and not anywhere close to accepted theory) would probably hold that abortion is not inherently good or right and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However there are many circumstances when abortion is justified either medically and/ or morally.

There is a great deal of harm being done to many women and children in the name of simplistic extremist moralism that assumes life begins at conception . It is further incredibly irresponsible to ban contraception while outlawing abortion rights.

I don't know who you are responding to, but abortion, in the vast majority of cases, is not analogous to self defense. And in the minority of cases where health of mother is at risk, no mainstream religion is arguing that the mother must die. You are trying to justify a conclusion you've already reached (that outlawing abortion is wrong), instead of using reasoning to see where it takes you.

The defense of the mother’s mental health—which is at issue in many abortions—is absolutely a form of self-defense.

An unborn baby isn’t a criminal. An unborn baby isn’t attacking mom. An unborn baby is in a location, mom’s uterus, because of mom’s actions.

Many states allow their citizens to use deadly force against an intruder/attacker that forcibly and unlawfully enters their home or vehicle, and they believe their lives are in imminent danger. Some states require their citizens to retreat: In jurisdictions that implement a duty to retreat, even a person who is unlawfully attacked (or who is defending someone who is unlawfully attacked) may not use deadly force if it is possible to instead avoid the danger with complete safety by retreating.

You are not making any sense whatsoever with your post. It’s amazing how far some people will go to make themselves feel justified in killing an unborn baby.

There you go.

It's about punishing a woman for having sex.

Says the absolute nut job who thinks an unborn baby should be executed like a violent criminal.

The vast majority of abortions are carried out before 13 weeks when unborn babies are still embryos. A much smaller percentage are done by 21 weeks. A tiny fraction of abortions are late term and nearly always when the mothers life is at risk. Contrary to nonsense spouted earlier, medical professionals clearly know when mothers lives are at risk if they proceed with abortions.

No one is claiming the hysterical nonsense that unborn are criminals.

Abortions are not inherently good or right. But there are circumstances when abortions are justified by either moral or medical purposes that are accepted by a majority of mainstream people (incest/ rape especially of minors/ life of mother at risk/ certain death of fetus soon after birth).

Just because something is accepted by mainstream people doesn't make it morally right. If this post were talking about how most people feel, we can stop at what you said but since this is about morality and how to possibly draw a moral argument for abortion, majority rule is not going to cut it.

Why do you think abortions are not inherently good or right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire framework is already there.

For a government, the ability to put one individual's rights over another's requires both to have legal rights, which is why the idea of when human life beings is vital to this issue (and that fact that human cells are alive doesn't make it a living human being -- many combinations of human cells doe not develop into a person). It is what makes this issue different for all other religious-based legal controversies. Roe tried to avoid the religious ensoulment issue and use the best available scientific evidence to answer this, and decided that when the fetus could live on its own outside the womb it attains rights that the government can protect. Many disagree with this as either to restrictive or not restrictive enough. Beyond that, the government cannot know any more than theologians, who concede that they don't know, but they have religious based beliefs about the issue.

"Anti-abortion at any point" is based in theology on the concession that one cannot know when the soul enters the body and life begins, and that some religions decide that the morally safer -- not morally correct, but morally safer - choice is to assume (not know) that is happens at conception. That is the Catholic teaching. This can inform one's personal choice. Theologians also acknowledge that different religions believe the soul enters the body at different times (e.g. upon the first breath of life), and so their moral choice is different. Others do not believe in a soul at all, so there is no moral aspect to the decision. None of these positions can be proved objectively right or wrong, and all studied theologies acknowledge that we do not know, but we can form beliefs.

And to the "cells are alive so ensoulment doesn't matter" poster, yes, it does matter legally whether the cells are a separate human being from the host mother, otherwise any removal of human cells would be murder, as all cells are alive, but not all cells are human beings with separate legal rights. The concession about unknowable ensoulment is why this pivot is seen as necessary to the pro-life movement - they they can't prove ensoulment so they must argue it doesn't matter -- even though the whole premise of the theology of abortion is based on ensoulment.

As an American, one must accept that when different religions have different beliefs on a point, the government cannot adopt one religion's belief system over all others, nor can it force an individual to personally act against her religion (except when two peoples' rights come into conflict -- hence the soul question). So they can't force abortions on people, but they also cannot choose which religion has the correct moral view on when life begins and adopt a particular religion's moral belief and ban all abortions, thus denying the rights of others to hold and act on contrary religious and moral beliefs.

As for when it is justified after the point of viability, we already have jurisprudence that balances the rights of individuals against each other: self-defense, good-samaritan, suicide, etc. The most basic one is that a government cannot force a person to be a hero, specifically, to take an action that would result in personal harm even if by taking that heroic risk the person would save another (aka Bystander Laws or Good Samaritan Laws). Why would this not apply to the personal harm of pregnancy and childbirth? Similarly but opposite, our laws acknowledge that a killing is justified to save oneself from death or serious bodily harm (not that some states are saying just death when it domes to pregnancy and this is creating seriously tragic results); or when in an unenviable position of having to choose between two lives, you have not committed murder in making that terrible choice. Consider this: if suicide is unlawful, why can a mother decide to give birth knowing it will cause her own death? Why should the reverse decision be unlawful then?

Anyway, there is more, but I propose that the framework for you request, OP, already exists.

Your argument rests on a flaw: that we should consider "soul" when discussion whether life is worth protecting. Scientifically, human life absolutely begins at conception. I don't see how anyone can argue against this with a straight face. Go look at any biology book, or go look at all those sources another poster listed. For a multicultural/multi-religious society like ours where some people don't believe in souls and others do, we shouldn't consider souls at all. Let's just stay at the biological level. Human life beings at conception. Now, I think a natural conclusion from that is all human life deserve protection. The burden is on you, the folks who want to give license to freely kill off a portion of human population, to justify yourself. Whatever appeal you make to poverty, burden to parents, stress, medical conditions, etc, just remember that those characteristics may just as easily apply to you one day.

Correct, which is why I got an abortion. I have zero regrets about it.

No, I mean you might be poor or a burden on society or have some accident and no longer have full mental capacity. And someone will argue for your extermination out of a bogus "just killing theory." Maybe you are ok with that, but let's all be clear that is what we are talking about.

That is not remotely what we are talking about.

To make your analogy work, I would have to become so ill that I need daily tranfusions of something from you -- and only you. Every day or I die. Let's say every day for 9 months or I die.

Do you feel you should have no choice about that? That your life should have to become all about ensuring that I continue to live, just because you are the only human who can support my continued existence?

Same question to you. If I can remove that embryo safely with less or similar harm to your body as an abortion, can we all agree to outlaw abortion?

Sure. What are you going to do with all those embryos? Especially the ones that were removed because they have chromosomal abnormalities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire framework is already there.

For a government, the ability to put one individual's rights over another's requires both to have legal rights, which is why the idea of when human life beings is vital to this issue (and that fact that human cells are alive doesn't make it a living human being -- many combinations of human cells doe not develop into a person). It is what makes this issue different for all other religious-based legal controversies. Roe tried to avoid the religious ensoulment issue and use the best available scientific evidence to answer this, and decided that when the fetus could live on its own outside the womb it attains rights that the government can protect. Many disagree with this as either to restrictive or not restrictive enough. Beyond that, the government cannot know any more than theologians, who concede that they don't know, but they have religious based beliefs about the issue.

"Anti-abortion at any point" is based in theology on the concession that one cannot know when the soul enters the body and life begins, and that some religions decide that the morally safer -- not morally correct, but morally safer - choice is to assume (not know) that is happens at conception. That is the Catholic teaching. This can inform one's personal choice. Theologians also acknowledge that different religions believe the soul enters the body at different times (e.g. upon the first breath of life), and so their moral choice is different. Others do not believe in a soul at all, so there is no moral aspect to the decision. None of these positions can be proved objectively right or wrong, and all studied theologies acknowledge that we do not know, but we can form beliefs.

And to the "cells are alive so ensoulment doesn't matter" poster, yes, it does matter legally whether the cells are a separate human being from the host mother, otherwise any removal of human cells would be murder, as all cells are alive, but not all cells are human beings with separate legal rights. The concession about unknowable ensoulment is why this pivot is seen as necessary to the pro-life movement - they they can't prove ensoulment so they must argue it doesn't matter -- even though the whole premise of the theology of abortion is based on ensoulment.

As an American, one must accept that when different religions have different beliefs on a point, the government cannot adopt one religion's belief system over all others, nor can it force an individual to personally act against her religion (except when two peoples' rights come into conflict -- hence the soul question). So they can't force abortions on people, but they also cannot choose which religion has the correct moral view on when life begins and adopt a particular religion's moral belief and ban all abortions, thus denying the rights of others to hold and act on contrary religious and moral beliefs.

As for when it is justified after the point of viability, we already have jurisprudence that balances the rights of individuals against each other: self-defense, good-samaritan, suicide, etc. The most basic one is that a government cannot force a person to be a hero, specifically, to take an action that would result in personal harm even if by taking that heroic risk the person would save another (aka Bystander Laws or Good Samaritan Laws). Why would this not apply to the personal harm of pregnancy and childbirth? Similarly but opposite, our laws acknowledge that a killing is justified to save oneself from death or serious bodily harm (not that some states are saying just death when it domes to pregnancy and this is creating seriously tragic results); or when in an unenviable position of having to choose between two lives, you have not committed murder in making that terrible choice. Consider this: if suicide is unlawful, why can a mother decide to give birth knowing it will cause her own death? Why should the reverse decision be unlawful then?

Anyway, there is more, but I propose that the framework for you request, OP, already exists.

Your argument rests on a flaw: that we should consider "soul" when discussion whether life is worth protecting. Scientifically, human life absolutely begins at conception. I don't see how anyone can argue against this with a straight face. Go look at any biology book, or go look at all those sources another poster listed. For a multicultural/multi-religious society like ours where some people don't believe in souls and others do, we shouldn't consider souls at all. Let's just stay at the biological level. Human life beings at conception. Now, I think a natural conclusion from that is all human life deserve protection. The burden is on you, the folks who want to give license to freely kill off a portion of human population, to justify yourself. Whatever appeal you make to poverty, burden to parents, stress, medical conditions, etc, just remember that those characteristics may just as easily apply to you one day.

Correct, which is why I got an abortion. I have zero regrets about it.

No, I mean you might be poor or a burden on society or have some accident and no longer have full mental capacity. And someone will argue for your extermination out of a bogus "just killing theory." Maybe you are ok with that, but let's all be clear that is what we are talking about.

That is not remotely what we are talking about.

To make your analogy work, I would have to become so ill that I need daily tranfusions of something from you -- and only you. Every day or I die. Let's say every day for 9 months or I die.

Do you feel you should have no choice about that? That your life should have to become all about ensuring that I continue to live, just because you are the only human who can support my continued existence?

Same question to you. If I can remove that embryo safely with less or similar harm to your body as an abortion, can we all agree to outlaw abortion?

Sure. What are you going to do with all those embryos? Especially the ones that were removed because they have chromosomal abnormalities?

Maybe give them back to you when they are newborns. Or garnish mom and dad's wages if state or another family will have to raise them. Point is, you can't claim bodily harm/"self defense" anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.

Those are your beliefs, not mine.

OP again

That was not me. However, I also do not share those beliefs.

I never claimed they are exactly equivalent but I doubt that you have read Saint Augustine’s argument for Just War theory that was later refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

For me the fundamental assumption in Just War theory is that war is not a collective good to be pursued and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However, there are circumstances when war is justified such as self defense. There are criteria that need to be followed to ensure that wars are just such as protection of innocent civilian life.

Just Abortion theory (which is just a proposed theory by me and not anywhere close to accepted theory) would probably hold that abortion is not inherently good or right and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However there are many circumstances when abortion is justified either medically and/ or morally.

There is a great deal of harm being done to many women and children in the name of simplistic extremist moralism that assumes life begins at conception . It is further incredibly irresponsible to ban contraception while outlawing abortion rights.

I don't know who you are responding to, but abortion, in the vast majority of cases, is not analogous to self defense. And in the minority of cases where health of mother is at risk, no mainstream religion is arguing that the mother must die. You are trying to justify a conclusion you've already reached (that outlawing abortion is wrong), instead of using reasoning to see where it takes you.

The defense of the mother’s mental health—which is at issue in many abortions—is absolutely a form of self-defense.

LOL, so I can now kill people and claim mental health as my defense? Ok, go try that in any courtroom. "He triggered me so I had to shoot him!!"

If the person lives in your body, yes, you may. Not until then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire framework is already there.

For a government, the ability to put one individual's rights over another's requires both to have legal rights, which is why the idea of when human life beings is vital to this issue (and that fact that human cells are alive doesn't make it a living human being -- many combinations of human cells doe not develop into a person). It is what makes this issue different for all other religious-based legal controversies. Roe tried to avoid the religious ensoulment issue and use the best available scientific evidence to answer this, and decided that when the fetus could live on its own outside the womb it attains rights that the government can protect. Many disagree with this as either to restrictive or not restrictive enough. Beyond that, the government cannot know any more than theologians, who concede that they don't know, but they have religious based beliefs about the issue.

"Anti-abortion at any point" is based in theology on the concession that one cannot know when the soul enters the body and life begins, and that some religions decide that the morally safer -- not morally correct, but morally safer - choice is to assume (not know) that is happens at conception. That is the Catholic teaching. This can inform one's personal choice. Theologians also acknowledge that different religions believe the soul enters the body at different times (e.g. upon the first breath of life), and so their moral choice is different. Others do not believe in a soul at all, so there is no moral aspect to the decision. None of these positions can be proved objectively right or wrong, and all studied theologies acknowledge that we do not know, but we can form beliefs.

And to the "cells are alive so ensoulment doesn't matter" poster, yes, it does matter legally whether the cells are a separate human being from the host mother, otherwise any removal of human cells would be murder, as all cells are alive, but not all cells are human beings with separate legal rights. The concession about unknowable ensoulment is why this pivot is seen as necessary to the pro-life movement - they they can't prove ensoulment so they must argue it doesn't matter -- even though the whole premise of the theology of abortion is based on ensoulment.

As an American, one must accept that when different religions have different beliefs on a point, the government cannot adopt one religion's belief system over all others, nor can it force an individual to personally act against her religion (except when two peoples' rights come into conflict -- hence the soul question). So they can't force abortions on people, but they also cannot choose which religion has the correct moral view on when life begins and adopt a particular religion's moral belief and ban all abortions, thus denying the rights of others to hold and act on contrary religious and moral beliefs.

As for when it is justified after the point of viability, we already have jurisprudence that balances the rights of individuals against each other: self-defense, good-samaritan, suicide, etc. The most basic one is that a government cannot force a person to be a hero, specifically, to take an action that would result in personal harm even if by taking that heroic risk the person would save another (aka Bystander Laws or Good Samaritan Laws). Why would this not apply to the personal harm of pregnancy and childbirth? Similarly but opposite, our laws acknowledge that a killing is justified to save oneself from death or serious bodily harm (not that some states are saying just death when it domes to pregnancy and this is creating seriously tragic results); or when in an unenviable position of having to choose between two lives, you have not committed murder in making that terrible choice. Consider this: if suicide is unlawful, why can a mother decide to give birth knowing it will cause her own death? Why should the reverse decision be unlawful then?

Anyway, there is more, but I propose that the framework for you request, OP, already exists.

Your argument rests on a flaw: that we should consider "soul" when discussion whether life is worth protecting. Scientifically, human life absolutely begins at conception. I don't see how anyone can argue against this with a straight face. Go look at any biology book, or go look at all those sources another poster listed. For a multicultural/multi-religious society like ours where some people don't believe in souls and others do, we shouldn't consider souls at all. Let's just stay at the biological level. Human life beings at conception. Now, I think a natural conclusion from that is all human life deserve protection. The burden is on you, the folks who want to give license to freely kill off a portion of human population, to justify yourself. Whatever appeal you make to poverty, burden to parents, stress, medical conditions, etc, just remember that those characteristics may just as easily apply to you one day.

Correct, which is why I got an abortion. I have zero regrets about it.

No, I mean you might be poor or a burden on society or have some accident and no longer have full mental capacity. And someone will argue for your extermination out of a bogus "just killing theory." Maybe you are ok with that, but let's all be clear that is what we are talking about.

That is not remotely what we are talking about.

To make your analogy work, I would have to become so ill that I need daily tranfusions of something from you -- and only you. Every day or I die. Let's say every day for 9 months or I die.

Do you feel you should have no choice about that? That your life should have to become all about ensuring that I continue to live, just because you are the only human who can support my continued existence?

Same question to you. If I can remove that embryo safely with less or similar harm to your body as an abortion, can we all agree to outlaw abortion?

No. Separate from my right not to gestate, it is my right to decide whether my genetic material creates another person. I have moral obligations on this area that no outside party can be relied upon to discharge in my stead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.

Those are your beliefs, not mine.

OP again

That was not me. However, I also do not share those beliefs.

I never claimed they are exactly equivalent but I doubt that you have read Saint Augustine’s argument for Just War theory that was later refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

For me the fundamental assumption in Just War theory is that war is not a collective good to be pursued and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However, there are circumstances when war is justified such as self defense. There are criteria that need to be followed to ensure that wars are just such as protection of innocent civilian life.

Just Abortion theory (which is just a proposed theory by me and not anywhere close to accepted theory) would probably hold that abortion is not inherently good or right and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However there are many circumstances when abortion is justified either medically and/ or morally.

There is a great deal of harm being done to many women and children in the name of simplistic extremist moralism that assumes life begins at conception . It is further incredibly irresponsible to ban contraception while outlawing abortion rights.

I don't know who you are responding to, but abortion, in the vast majority of cases, is not analogous to self defense. And in the minority of cases where health of mother is at risk, no mainstream religion is arguing that the mother must die. You are trying to justify a conclusion you've already reached (that outlawing abortion is wrong), instead of using reasoning to see where it takes you.

The defense of the mother’s mental health—which is at issue in many abortions—is absolutely a form of self-defense.

An unborn baby isn’t a criminal. An unborn baby isn’t attacking mom. An unborn baby is in a location, mom’s uterus, because of mom’s actions.

Many states allow their citizens to use deadly force against an intruder/attacker that forcibly and unlawfully enters their home or vehicle, and they believe their lives are in imminent danger. Some states require their citizens to retreat: In jurisdictions that implement a duty to retreat, even a person who is unlawfully attacked (or who is defending someone who is unlawfully attacked) may not use deadly force if it is possible to instead avoid the danger with complete safety by retreating.

You are not making any sense whatsoever with your post. It’s amazing how far some people will go to make themselves feel justified in killing an unborn baby.

There you go.

It's about punishing a woman for having sex.

It is not about punishment. It is about cause and effect. How is this controversial?? You are giving it a moral judgment, but many women are glad to get pregnant as a result of sex. Is that also punishment for their actions?

Yes minors who are menstruating and are raped may and do fall Pregnant. Your seriously believe they and victims of incest should be forced to give birth to their rapists’ children?

Another cause and effect is that maternity death rates have already risen in red states with anti abortion laws due to political interference in medical decisions.

-

[Anonymous]

I was so happy and *relieved* after my abortion. My boyfriend and I celebrated by going out to lunch afterward -- the first food I could keep down in 6 weeks. 15 years later we are child-free and shake our heads at these "fetuses are people" whackos. He is a recovering Catholic and i am agnostic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire framework is already there.

For a government, the ability to put one individual's rights over another's requires both to have legal rights, which is why the idea of when human life beings is vital to this issue (and that fact that human cells are alive doesn't make it a living human being -- many combinations of human cells doe not develop into a person). It is what makes this issue different for all other religious-based legal controversies. Roe tried to avoid the religious ensoulment issue and use the best available scientific evidence to answer this, and decided that when the fetus could live on its own outside the womb it attains rights that the government can protect. Many disagree with this as either to restrictive or not restrictive enough. Beyond that, the government cannot know any more than theologians, who concede that they don't know, but they have religious based beliefs about the issue.

"Anti-abortion at any point" is based in theology on the concession that one cannot know when the soul enters the body and life begins, and that some religions decide that the morally safer -- not morally correct, but morally safer - choice is to assume (not know) that is happens at conception. That is the Catholic teaching. This can inform one's personal choice. Theologians also acknowledge that different religions believe the soul enters the body at different times (e.g. upon the first breath of life), and so their moral choice is different. Others do not believe in a soul at all, so there is no moral aspect to the decision. None of these positions can be proved objectively right or wrong, and all studied theologies acknowledge that we do not know, but we can form beliefs.

And to the "cells are alive so ensoulment doesn't matter" poster, yes, it does matter legally whether the cells are a separate human being from the host mother, otherwise any removal of human cells would be murder, as all cells are alive, but not all cells are human beings with separate legal rights. The concession about unknowable ensoulment is why this pivot is seen as necessary to the pro-life movement - they they can't prove ensoulment so they must argue it doesn't matter -- even though the whole premise of the theology of abortion is based on ensoulment.

As an American, one must accept that when different religions have different beliefs on a point, the government cannot adopt one religion's belief system over all others, nor can it force an individual to personally act against her religion (except when two peoples' rights come into conflict -- hence the soul question). So they can't force abortions on people, but they also cannot choose which religion has the correct moral view on when life begins and adopt a particular religion's moral belief and ban all abortions, thus denying the rights of others to hold and act on contrary religious and moral beliefs.

As for when it is justified after the point of viability, we already have jurisprudence that balances the rights of individuals against each other: self-defense, good-samaritan, suicide, etc. The most basic one is that a government cannot force a person to be a hero, specifically, to take an action that would result in personal harm even if by taking that heroic risk the person would save another (aka Bystander Laws or Good Samaritan Laws). Why would this not apply to the personal harm of pregnancy and childbirth? Similarly but opposite, our laws acknowledge that a killing is justified to save oneself from death or serious bodily harm (not that some states are saying just death when it domes to pregnancy and this is creating seriously tragic results); or when in an unenviable position of having to choose between two lives, you have not committed murder in making that terrible choice. Consider this: if suicide is unlawful, why can a mother decide to give birth knowing it will cause her own death? Why should the reverse decision be unlawful then?

Anyway, there is more, but I propose that the framework for you request, OP, already exists.

Your argument rests on a flaw: that we should consider "soul" when discussion whether life is worth protecting. Scientifically, human life absolutely begins at conception. I don't see how anyone can argue against this with a straight face. Go look at any biology book, or go look at all those sources another poster listed. For a multicultural/multi-religious society like ours where some people don't believe in souls and others do, we shouldn't consider souls at all. Let's just stay at the biological level. Human life beings at conception. Now, I think a natural conclusion from that is all human life deserve protection. The burden is on you, the folks who want to give license to freely kill off a portion of human population, to justify yourself. Whatever appeal you make to poverty, burden to parents, stress, medical conditions, etc, just remember that those characteristics may just as easily apply to you one day.

Correct, which is why I got an abortion. I have zero regrets about it.

No, I mean you might be poor or a burden on society or have some accident and no longer have full mental capacity. And someone will argue for your extermination out of a bogus "just killing theory." Maybe you are ok with that, but let's all be clear that is what we are talking about.

That is not remotely what we are talking about.

To make your analogy work, I would have to become so ill that I need daily tranfusions of something from you -- and only you. Every day or I die. Let's say every day for 9 months or I die.

Do you feel you should have no choice about that? That your life should have to become all about ensuring that I continue to live, just because you are the only human who can support my continued existence?

Same question to you. If I can remove that embryo safely with less or similar harm to your body as an abortion, can we all agree to outlaw abortion?

No. Separate from my right not to gestate, it is my right to decide whether my genetic material creates another person. I have moral obligations on this area that no outside party can be relied upon to discharge in my stead.

Ah i see, so now it is about genetic material. But it's not your genetic material. It is someone else's genetic material, do you understand that? You have fused your genes with someone else's to create a whole new being with his/her own genetic material. That fact has already taken place. Or do you believe that your parents should own you because you are their genetic material?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.

Those are your beliefs, not mine.

OP again

That was not me. However, I also do not share those beliefs.

I never claimed they are exactly equivalent but I doubt that you have read Saint Augustine’s argument for Just War theory that was later refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

For me the fundamental assumption in Just War theory is that war is not a collective good to be pursued and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However, there are circumstances when war is justified such as self defense. There are criteria that need to be followed to ensure that wars are just such as protection of innocent civilian life.

Just Abortion theory (which is just a proposed theory by me and not anywhere close to accepted theory) would probably hold that abortion is not inherently good or right and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However there are many circumstances when abortion is justified either medically and/ or morally.

There is a great deal of harm being done to many women and children in the name of simplistic extremist moralism that assumes life begins at conception . It is further incredibly irresponsible to ban contraception while outlawing abortion rights.

I don't know who you are responding to, but abortion, in the vast majority of cases, is not analogous to self defense. And in the minority of cases where health of mother is at risk, no mainstream religion is arguing that the mother must die. You are trying to justify a conclusion you've already reached (that outlawing abortion is wrong), instead of using reasoning to see where it takes you.

The defense of the mother’s mental health—which is at issue in many abortions—is absolutely a form of self-defense.

An unborn baby isn’t a criminal. An unborn baby isn’t attacking mom. An unborn baby is in a location, mom’s uterus, because of mom’s actions.

Many states allow their citizens to use deadly force against an intruder/attacker that forcibly and unlawfully enters their home or vehicle, and they believe their lives are in imminent danger. Some states require their citizens to retreat: In jurisdictions that implement a duty to retreat, even a person who is unlawfully attacked (or who is defending someone who is unlawfully attacked) may not use deadly force if it is possible to instead avoid the danger with complete safety by retreating.

You are not making any sense whatsoever with your post. It’s amazing how far some people will go to make themselves feel justified in killing an unborn baby.

There you go.

It's about punishing a woman for having sex.

It is not about punishment. It is about cause and effect. How is this controversial?? You are giving it a moral judgment, but many women are glad to get pregnant as a result of sex. Is that also punishment for their actions?

Yes minors who are menstruating and are raped may and do fall Pregnant. Your seriously believe they and victims of incest should be forced to give birth to their rapists’ children?

Another cause and effect is that maternity death rates have already risen in red states with anti abortion laws due to political interference in medical decisions.

-

"minors who are menstruating"? LOL. I can't reason with someone who doesn't even recognize biological sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.

Those are your beliefs, not mine.

OP again

That was not me. However, I also do not share those beliefs.

I never claimed they are exactly equivalent but I doubt that you have read Saint Augustine’s argument for Just War theory that was later refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

For me the fundamental assumption in Just War theory is that war is not a collective good to be pursued and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However, there are circumstances when war is justified such as self defense. There are criteria that need to be followed to ensure that wars are just such as protection of innocent civilian life.

Just Abortion theory (which is just a proposed theory by me and not anywhere close to accepted theory) would probably hold that abortion is not inherently good or right and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However there are many circumstances when abortion is justified either medically and/ or morally.

There is a great deal of harm being done to many women and children in the name of simplistic extremist moralism that assumes life begins at conception . It is further incredibly irresponsible to ban contraception while outlawing abortion rights.

I don't know who you are responding to, but abortion, in the vast majority of cases, is not analogous to self defense. And in the minority of cases where health of mother is at risk, no mainstream religion is arguing that the mother must die. You are trying to justify a conclusion you've already reached (that outlawing abortion is wrong), instead of using reasoning to see where it takes you.

The defense of the mother’s mental health—which is at issue in many abortions—is absolutely a form of self-defense.

LOL, so I can now kill people and claim mental health as my defense? Ok, go try that in any courtroom. "He triggered me so I had to shoot him!!"

If the person lives in your body, yes, you may. Not until then.

Tell me, how does the physical position of the person affect the validity of your mental health claim? You are claiming mental health, not physical health here...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire framework is already there.

For a government, the ability to put one individual's rights over another's requires both to have legal rights, which is why the idea of when human life beings is vital to this issue (and that fact that human cells are alive doesn't make it a living human being -- many combinations of human cells doe not develop into a person). It is what makes this issue different for all other religious-based legal controversies. Roe tried to avoid the religious ensoulment issue and use the best available scientific evidence to answer this, and decided that when the fetus could live on its own outside the womb it attains rights that the government can protect. Many disagree with this as either to restrictive or not restrictive enough. Beyond that, the government cannot know any more than theologians, who concede that they don't know, but they have religious based beliefs about the issue.

"Anti-abortion at any point" is based in theology on the concession that one cannot know when the soul enters the body and life begins, and that some religions decide that the morally safer -- not morally correct, but morally safer - choice is to assume (not know) that is happens at conception. That is the Catholic teaching. This can inform one's personal choice. Theologians also acknowledge that different religions believe the soul enters the body at different times (e.g. upon the first breath of life), and so their moral choice is different. Others do not believe in a soul at all, so there is no moral aspect to the decision. None of these positions can be proved objectively right or wrong, and all studied theologies acknowledge that we do not know, but we can form beliefs.

And to the "cells are alive so ensoulment doesn't matter" poster, yes, it does matter legally whether the cells are a separate human being from the host mother, otherwise any removal of human cells would be murder, as all cells are alive, but not all cells are human beings with separate legal rights. The concession about unknowable ensoulment is why this pivot is seen as necessary to the pro-life movement - they they can't prove ensoulment so they must argue it doesn't matter -- even though the whole premise of the theology of abortion is based on ensoulment.

As an American, one must accept that when different religions have different beliefs on a point, the government cannot adopt one religion's belief system over all others, nor can it force an individual to personally act against her religion (except when two peoples' rights come into conflict -- hence the soul question). So they can't force abortions on people, but they also cannot choose which religion has the correct moral view on when life begins and adopt a particular religion's moral belief and ban all abortions, thus denying the rights of others to hold and act on contrary religious and moral beliefs.

As for when it is justified after the point of viability, we already have jurisprudence that balances the rights of individuals against each other: self-defense, good-samaritan, suicide, etc. The most basic one is that a government cannot force a person to be a hero, specifically, to take an action that would result in personal harm even if by taking that heroic risk the person would save another (aka Bystander Laws or Good Samaritan Laws). Why would this not apply to the personal harm of pregnancy and childbirth? Similarly but opposite, our laws acknowledge that a killing is justified to save oneself from death or serious bodily harm (not that some states are saying just death when it domes to pregnancy and this is creating seriously tragic results); or when in an unenviable position of having to choose between two lives, you have not committed murder in making that terrible choice. Consider this: if suicide is unlawful, why can a mother decide to give birth knowing it will cause her own death? Why should the reverse decision be unlawful then?

Anyway, there is more, but I propose that the framework for you request, OP, already exists.

Your argument rests on a flaw: that we should consider "soul" when discussion whether life is worth protecting. Scientifically, human life absolutely begins at conception. I don't see how anyone can argue against this with a straight face. Go look at any biology book, or go look at all those sources another poster listed. For a multicultural/multi-religious society like ours where some people don't believe in souls and others do, we shouldn't consider souls at all. Let's just stay at the biological level. Human life beings at conception. Now, I think a natural conclusion from that is all human life deserve protection. The burden is on you, the folks who want to give license to freely kill off a portion of human population, to justify yourself. Whatever appeal you make to poverty, burden to parents, stress, medical conditions, etc, just remember that those characteristics may just as easily apply to you one day.

Correct, which is why I got an abortion. I have zero regrets about it.

No, I mean you might be poor or a burden on society or have some accident and no longer have full mental capacity. And someone will argue for your extermination out of a bogus "just killing theory." Maybe you are ok with that, but let's all be clear that is what we are talking about.

That is not remotely what we are talking about.

To make your analogy work, I would have to become so ill that I need daily tranfusions of something from you -- and only you. Every day or I die. Let's say every day for 9 months or I die.

Do you feel you should have no choice about that? That your life should have to become all about ensuring that I continue to live, just because you are the only human who can support my continued existence?

Same question to you. If I can remove that embryo safely with less or similar harm to your body as an abortion, can we all agree to outlaw abortion?

No. Separate from my right not to gestate, it is my right to decide whether my genetic material creates another person. I have moral obligations on this area that no outside party can be relied upon to discharge in my stead.

Ah i see, so now it is about genetic material. But it's not your genetic material. It is someone else's genetic material, do you understand that? You have fused your genes with someone else's to create a whole new being with his/her own genetic material. That fact has already taken place. Or do you believe that your parents should own you because you are their genetic material?

You’re really missing the point. For the same reasons that you can’t currently come to my house and take my eggs, you cannot take an embryo out of me and give it to someone else. As one of the biological parents of that embryo, even if it were removed from my body, my right to make decisions for it supercedes your interest in what happens to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.

Those are your beliefs, not mine.

OP again

That was not me. However, I also do not share those beliefs.

I never claimed they are exactly equivalent but I doubt that you have read Saint Augustine’s argument for Just War theory that was later refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

For me the fundamental assumption in Just War theory is that war is not a collective good to be pursued and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However, there are circumstances when war is justified such as self defense. There are criteria that need to be followed to ensure that wars are just such as protection of innocent civilian life.

Just Abortion theory (which is just a proposed theory by me and not anywhere close to accepted theory) would probably hold that abortion is not inherently good or right and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However there are many circumstances when abortion is justified either medically and/ or morally.

There is a great deal of harm being done to many women and children in the name of simplistic extremist moralism that assumes life begins at conception . It is further incredibly irresponsible to ban contraception while outlawing abortion rights.

I don't know who you are responding to, but abortion, in the vast majority of cases, is not analogous to self defense. And in the minority of cases where health of mother is at risk, no mainstream religion is arguing that the mother must die. You are trying to justify a conclusion you've already reached (that outlawing abortion is wrong), instead of using reasoning to see where it takes you.

The defense of the mother’s mental health—which is at issue in many abortions—is absolutely a form of self-defense.

LOL, so I can now kill people and claim mental health as my defense? Ok, go try that in any courtroom. "He triggered me so I had to shoot him!!"

If the person lives in your body, yes, you may. Not until then.

Tell me, how does the physical position of the person affect the validity of your mental health claim? You are claiming mental health, not physical health here...

A person being fully contained within the body of another person os a sui generis case—not a matter of “position.”

Honestly your arguments are terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire framework is already there.

For a government, the ability to put one individual's rights over another's requires both to have legal rights, which is why the idea of when human life beings is vital to this issue (and that fact that human cells are alive doesn't make it a living human being -- many combinations of human cells doe not develop into a person). It is what makes this issue different for all other religious-based legal controversies. Roe tried to avoid the religious ensoulment issue and use the best available scientific evidence to answer this, and decided that when the fetus could live on its own outside the womb it attains rights that the government can protect. Many disagree with this as either to restrictive or not restrictive enough. Beyond that, the government cannot know any more than theologians, who concede that they don't know, but they have religious based beliefs about the issue.

"Anti-abortion at any point" is based in theology on the concession that one cannot know when the soul enters the body and life begins, and that some religions decide that the morally safer -- not morally correct, but morally safer - choice is to assume (not know) that is happens at conception. That is the Catholic teaching. This can inform one's personal choice. Theologians also acknowledge that different religions believe the soul enters the body at different times (e.g. upon the first breath of life), and so their moral choice is different. Others do not believe in a soul at all, so there is no moral aspect to the decision. None of these positions can be proved objectively right or wrong, and all studied theologies acknowledge that we do not know, but we can form beliefs.

And to the "cells are alive so ensoulment doesn't matter" poster, yes, it does matter legally whether the cells are a separate human being from the host mother, otherwise any removal of human cells would be murder, as all cells are alive, but not all cells are human beings with separate legal rights. The concession about unknowable ensoulment is why this pivot is seen as necessary to the pro-life movement - they they can't prove ensoulment so they must argue it doesn't matter -- even though the whole premise of the theology of abortion is based on ensoulment.

As an American, one must accept that when different religions have different beliefs on a point, the government cannot adopt one religion's belief system over all others, nor can it force an individual to personally act against her religion (except when two peoples' rights come into conflict -- hence the soul question). So they can't force abortions on people, but they also cannot choose which religion has the correct moral view on when life begins and adopt a particular religion's moral belief and ban all abortions, thus denying the rights of others to hold and act on contrary religious and moral beliefs.

As for when it is justified after the point of viability, we already have jurisprudence that balances the rights of individuals against each other: self-defense, good-samaritan, suicide, etc. The most basic one is that a government cannot force a person to be a hero, specifically, to take an action that would result in personal harm even if by taking that heroic risk the person would save another (aka Bystander Laws or Good Samaritan Laws). Why would this not apply to the personal harm of pregnancy and childbirth? Similarly but opposite, our laws acknowledge that a killing is justified to save oneself from death or serious bodily harm (not that some states are saying just death when it domes to pregnancy and this is creating seriously tragic results); or when in an unenviable position of having to choose between two lives, you have not committed murder in making that terrible choice. Consider this: if suicide is unlawful, why can a mother decide to give birth knowing it will cause her own death? Why should the reverse decision be unlawful then?

Anyway, there is more, but I propose that the framework for you request, OP, already exists.

Your argument rests on a flaw: that we should consider "soul" when discussion whether life is worth protecting. Scientifically, human life absolutely begins at conception. I don't see how anyone can argue against this with a straight face. Go look at any biology book, or go look at all those sources another poster listed. For a multicultural/multi-religious society like ours where some people don't believe in souls and others do, we shouldn't consider souls at all. Let's just stay at the biological level. Human life beings at conception. Now, I think a natural conclusion from that is all human life deserve protection. The burden is on you, the folks who want to give license to freely kill off a portion of human population, to justify yourself. Whatever appeal you make to poverty, burden to parents, stress, medical conditions, etc, just remember that those characteristics may just as easily apply to you one day.

Correct, which is why I got an abortion. I have zero regrets about it.

No, I mean you might be poor or a burden on society or have some accident and no longer have full mental capacity. And someone will argue for your extermination out of a bogus "just killing theory." Maybe you are ok with that, but let's all be clear that is what we are talking about.

If I am plugged into some woman, she has the right to pull that plug.

So if I can take that embryo out of you and raise it without your body, you would be ok with banning abortion? I didn't think so.

Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. As of now, abortion needs to remain safe and legal.

Ah right, as I suspected, the answer is always no. We already crossed that bridge with IVF. And for the rest, the theoretical question is important because it shows how most pro abortion supports are liars. They always fall back on the "OMG my body my decision, it's so taxing/burdensome on my body, so I get to decide." That sob story falls apart if we can remove the fetus/embryo. Now how do you justify abortion? If you still can, then your real issue isn't women's bodies, so stop lying. It is about fundamental control and not seeing in-utero life as worth protecting. Just admit it and we can all move on to real arguments.

You will get no argument from me. It is definitely about control. You are not entitled to my embryo any more than you are entitled to my kidney. And you are correct that I don't believe an embryo is worth protecting unless the woman who embodies it thinks it is.

What real arguments would you like to have now?