Just Abortion theory

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother.

[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.

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.

Each religion has their own morals and beliefs. Theological scholars do not post here.

This is a RELIGION forum

[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.

Disagree. The issue is forced pregnancy. Men are forced into parenthood all the time. Once the sperm leaves their body they have no say over what women do with their "genetic material". Do you want them to? Do you want them to decide what happens to the fetus inside you?

[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.

Disagree. The issue is forced pregnancy. Men are forced into parenthood all the time. Once the sperm leaves their body they have no say over what women do with their "genetic material". Do you want them to? Do you want them to decide what happens to the fetus inside you?

The main issue is that there are unfortunate circumstances when abortion is justified.

It is not ideal but there are times when it is medically or morally justified.

The Christian Taliban/ anti abortion zealots appear to have little common sense or capacity for reasonable middle ground.

[Anonymous]

If only the anti abortion extremists who have taken away female reproductive rights n half of America were equally as concerned about protecting existing human life by supporting (among other actual pro life measures):
- ending the death penalty which does not deter violent crime and is extremely Expensive to operate due to many years of appeals;
- better gun safety controls and banning military grade assault weapons in hands of civilians;
- universal health care;
- early childhood education programs and free school lunch programs;
- much better mental health care;
- addressing affordable housing crisis; and
- addressing climate change and increasing extreme weather as many poor people live in flimsy housing prone to flooding.

The Christian Taliban like to ramble on self righteously with extremist positions on when sentient human life begins as if this makes them highly principled BUT (usually) completely disregard the many other issues that undermine the sanctity and dignity of existing human life.

The double standards and inconsistencies are galling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If only the anti abortion extremists who have taken away female reproductive rights n half of America were equally as concerned about protecting existing human life by supporting (among other actual pro life measures):
- ending the death penalty which does not deter violent crime and is extremely Expensive to operate due to many years of appeals;
- better gun safety controls and banning military grade assault weapons in hands of civilians;
- universal health care;
- early childhood education programs and free school lunch programs;
- much better mental health care;
- addressing affordable housing crisis; and
- addressing climate change and increasing extreme weather as many poor people live in flimsy housing prone to flooding.

The Christian Taliban like to ramble on self righteously with extremist positions on when sentient human life begins as if this makes them highly principled BUT (usually) completely disregard the many other issues that undermine the sanctity and dignity of existing human life.

The double standards and inconsistencies are galling.

deflection

time to change the subject

fail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If only the anti abortion extremists who have taken away female reproductive rights n half of America were equally as concerned about protecting existing human life by supporting (among other actual pro life measures):
- ending the death penalty which does not deter violent crime and is extremely Expensive to operate due to many years of appeals;
- better gun safety controls and banning military grade assault weapons in hands of civilians;
- universal health care;
- early childhood education programs and free school lunch programs;
- much better mental health care;
- addressing affordable housing crisis; and
- addressing climate change and increasing extreme weather as many poor people live in flimsy housing prone to flooding.

The Christian Taliban like to ramble on self righteously with extremist positions on when sentient human life begins as if this makes them highly principled BUT (usually) completely disregard the many other issues that undermine the sanctity and dignity of existing human life.

The double standards and inconsistencies are galling.

deflection

time to change the subject

fail

It is relevant in that it demonstrates inability to be consistent in underlying claims to be pro life.

What is failing is anti abortion zealots ability to be consistent or credible in pro life arguments …

[Anonymous]

The human race would go extinct real quick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Disagree. The issue is forced pregnancy. Men are forced into parenthood all the time. Once the sperm leaves their body they have no say over what women do with their "genetic material". Do you want them to? Do you want them to decide what happens to the fetus inside you?

The main issue is that there are unfortunate circumstances when abortion is justified.

It is not ideal but there are times when it is medically or morally justified.

The Christian Taliban/ anti abortion zealots appear to have little common sense or capacity for reasonable middle ground.

Yes, I suppose they should just learn to split the baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If only the anti abortion extremists who have taken away female reproductive rights n half of America were equally as concerned about protecting existing human life by supporting (among other actual pro life measures):
- ending the death penalty which does not deter violent crime and is extremely Expensive to operate due to many years of appeals;
- better gun safety controls and banning military grade assault weapons in hands of civilians;
- universal health care;
- early childhood education programs and free school lunch programs;
- much better mental health care;
- addressing affordable housing crisis; and
- addressing climate change and increasing extreme weather as many poor people live in flimsy housing prone to flooding.

The Christian Taliban like to ramble on self righteously with extremist positions on when sentient human life begins as if this makes them highly principled BUT (usually) completely disregard the many other issues that undermine the sanctity and dignity of existing human life.

The double standards and inconsistencies are galling.

Most pro lifers believe life begins at conception, not sentience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If only the anti abortion extremists who have taken away female reproductive rights n half of America were equally as concerned about protecting existing human life by supporting (among other actual pro life measures):
- ending the death penalty which does not deter violent crime and is extremely Expensive to operate due to many years of appeals;
- better gun safety controls and banning military grade assault weapons in hands of civilians;
- universal health care;
- early childhood education programs and free school lunch programs;
- much better mental health care;
- addressing affordable housing crisis; and
- addressing climate change and increasing extreme weather as many poor people live in flimsy housing prone to flooding.

The Christian Taliban like to ramble on self righteously with extremist positions on when sentient human life begins as if this makes them highly principled BUT (usually) completely disregard the many other issues that undermine the sanctity and dignity of existing human life.

The double standards and inconsistencies are galling.

Most pro lifers believe life begins at conception, not sentience.

Precisely - hence the extreme, radical and inhumane results.

Also they tend to show casual disregard for existing sentient human life …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If only the anti abortion extremists who have taken away female reproductive rights n half of America were equally as concerned about protecting existing human life by supporting (among other actual pro life measures):
- ending the death penalty which does not deter violent crime and is extremely Expensive to operate due to many years of appeals;
- better gun safety controls and banning military grade assault weapons in hands of civilians;
- universal health care;
- early childhood education programs and free school lunch programs;
- much better mental health care;
- addressing affordable housing crisis; and
- addressing climate change and increasing extreme weather as many poor people live in flimsy housing prone to flooding.

The Christian Taliban like to ramble on self righteously with extremist positions on when sentient human life begins as if this makes them highly principled BUT (usually) completely disregard the many other issues that undermine the sanctity and dignity of existing human life.

The double standards and inconsistencies are galling.

So you would euthanize anyone in a coma? Alzheimer patients?

Most pro lifers believe life begins at conception, not sentience.

Precisely - hence the extreme, radical and inhumane results.

Also they tend to show casual disregard for existing sentient human life …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother.

If I am the genetic parent of an embryo and did not specifically give someone else the right to my embryos or child—this is standing law around the products of IVF, for instance—the embryo belongs to me, in or out of my body, and you cannot take it.

[Anonymous]

A pregnant woman’s body is her own. Period.

She is a fully-formed person living and breathing on our planet. She gets to decide what to do with her body. You could potentially argue some guidelines after viability, but ultimately it’s still her body for her to control.

This need to control women’s bodies stems from men’s insecurities around women’s rights. Those men utilized religion to regain strength and control over women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A pregnant woman’s body is her own. Period.

She is a fully-formed person living and breathing on our planet. She gets to decide what to do with her body. You could potentially argue some guidelines after viability, but ultimately it’s still her body for her to control.

This need to control women’s bodies stems from men’s insecurities around women’s rights. Those men utilized religion to regain strength and control over women.

I have no desire to control anyone and the pro choice argument is completely understandable. However, it does not change the fact that you are killing a baby or fetus or whatever helps you think it is not a human being.