Stance on abortion based on belief?

It seems most people (until recently, mine too) stance on abortion is motivated by belief or religion, not on fact and reason.

Pro-choice is under the belief that it is a woman's body, thus her choice, but this is not true, nor found in the law. If someone tries to commit suicide, they can have their rights taken away, as well as other self-destructive behaviors.

Prolife is under the false notion that taking life, is murder. This is not true because if a person is brain-dead, you can take that person off of life support.

So what does constitute murder in normal circumstances? It is the killing a sentient human life. In all other circumstance, we know this, but we seem to lose our mind with abortion and take absurd stances, that cannot be applied to the rest of humanity.

So my view on abortion has changed to:

Abortion should be permissible up until the point of the fetus becoming sentient life (probably around 5-6 months, but doctors can determine this). At this point it should only be allowed in cases of saving the mother's life.

We need to be determining this based upon our laws and science, NOT beliefs.

You can point at the Bible or Koran, but there is no passage in the entirety of the Bible or Koran that discusses abortion. The one used for contraception is OT and seriously reading into the passage as it actually deals with disobeying God.

You can point at rights, but the rights of people stop at interferring with the rights of sentient human life. Plus a newborn is reliant, yet killing a newborn is murder.

I realize this is a stance that will likely anger both sides (which is a sign it is right), but if we are forcing our beliefs on others, instead of law, logic and reason, how can we protest when they want to force their beliefs on us?

Update:

Morbo,

So you believe you are always wrong? Its a generality, and this is an example. When you split a piece of cake between two kids, you know you are right when both thinks they didn't get enough. As I said, it is a sign, but not the only sign.

Update 2:

Everad, In your ridiculous rant, you forgot to mention that choice is still allowed up to ~5-6 months. Further you forgot to notice that my entire view is based upon SCIENCE, NOT RELIGION. You also apparently did not notice some atheists agree. Are they pawns of the religious right as well?

Update 3:

Grandbabies,

My fist is my body, but if I make the decision to hit another person, it is assault. If you want to make the "my body" argument then make a real argument, not some catch-phrase. There may be things I have not thought of, that would change my opinion or the opinion of others, but everyone has heard that catch phrase.

Update 4:

Morbo,

As a parent I rarely have time to got to those lengths for every decision. I've acknowledged it is a generality and not always true.

Narathzul,

I agree it is fuzzy. For the unclear cases (which currently make up <1.4%) there is likely some general cognition test a doctor could perform. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_p...

Update 5:

Morbo,

"I'm right all the time" That is what you said. I said "So you believe you are always wrong?" Clearly you think you are right when you say something and likely you think you are usually right, otherwise you would not say it. My logical point is that unless you think you are usually wrong, you actually agree with me, based upon your logic.

Update 6:

7 of 9,

Every time I masturbate, every sperm could become life. So is masturbation murder?

Txgrrl,

I have seen the serious suffering of the terminally ill, so I respectfully disagree with your rabbi, while still respecting his view on the value of life. I understand your view on the issue being colored by your religion, but should your view on the rights of others be colored by religion?

Update 7:

Narathzul,

Good point and I agree.

Update 8:

Morbo,

Celebratory yeahh

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    It's great to find something on which we agree. I completely agree that abortion should be legal up to something like 20th-24th week after which it should be illegal.

    The issue isn't hard. It's true that people should be able to control their own bodies but they shouldn't be able to control the bodies of others. A fetus starts off as just a non-sentient small bundle of cells and during the course of the pregnancy slowly and gradually develops into a person because everyone agrees live born babies are people. There's therefore some fuzzy boundary between a single non-sentient cell and a person and it's at that boundary at which it should become illegal to kill the fetus because at that point the fetus is a person and that would be killing a person.

    The boundary is fuzzy but real, just like the boundary between a child and an adult is fuzzy but real.

    Edit: Averages tell you nothing about a specific case before you, they only tell you about in general. They're great at informing guesses but that's the extent of their use. For example, atheists on average have higher IQ than believers. Does that mean that if you meet an atheist you're justified in applying what's true in the general to be true in the specific? Would it be justified for you to say that a random atheist you happen to meet has higher than average IQ because he's an atheist? It wouldn't of course. Even if in general it was true that the correct position lies between two extremes, that doesn't justify applying it into specific cases and saying that therefore in those cases the correct position lies between two extremes.

    Edit 2: I don't think it's possible to completely eliminate the fuzziness of the boundary. Its fuzziness is inherent to our way of thinking. People emerge gradually but with our policies we have to draw a single line of permissible/impermissible across this gradual landscape. So I think it makes sense to just pick a number, any number, between 20th and 24th week and just decide on a legal boundary. It's the same thing as laws against having sex with minors. There's no exact scientifically determinable boundary at which point a scientific test could establish a teen is cognitively ready for sex at which point it would be legal to have consensual sex with him/her. But the difference between a truly unready teen and a ready one is real. Fuzzy boundary once again, and one whose fuzziness can't be eliminated but we have to decide on some age in our legal code before which it's forbidden to have sex with him/her.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • "So my view on abortion has changed to:

    Abortion should be permissible up until the point of the fetus becoming sentient life (probably around 5-6 months, but doctors can determine this). At this point it should only be allowed in cases of saving the mother's life. "

    I agree.

    "I realize this is a stance that will likely anger both sides (which is a sign it is right),"

    lol what? If pissing people off means I'm right, I'm right all the time. Not even I believe that. Terrible argument, even if I agree with your main point.

    "When you split a piece of cake between two kids, you know you are right when both thinks they didn't get enough"

    No, in this scenario, you would be "fair" if you split equally, or better yet by some other division that both parties can agree on.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_division

    (it's actually an interesting problem, although not really relevant to abortion)

    Right, in the abortion scenario, would be if you based your standpoint on the best knowledge available without resorting to straw man and other fallacious arguments, and set your policies according to that. Which you are doing. Which is why we're agreed on your current stance.

    "So you believe you are always wrong"

    If I don't believe I'm always right, I must believe I'm always wrong? Not the greatest logic.

    "If pissing people off means I'm right, I'm right all the time"

    is what I said. If X, then Y. Which was more of a joke than anything, so let's drop it, it's irrelevant to abortion and tiresome to argue about. Let's just bask in the fact that we've actually agreed on something, which is something of a minor miracle on R&S.

    Source(s): pro-choice by way of rational/scientific knowledge.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • txgrrl
    Lv 4
    7 years ago

    My rabbi made a statement about this just recently. He said only God has the power to take a life away. It's not our right to end a life-- even for terminally ill patients. Only God gives life and only he can take it away.

    I would also argue that a child conceived though rape should also be kept (rather than aborted.) It's not the child's fault that it was conceived in such a violent and horrible way. I think a woman (through therapy) could understand that the violence done to them should not be revisited on the child she's carrying. You may disagree with me on this, and I understand it's controversial.

    I think in an ideal world-- women would be taught about birth control so they wouldn't become mothers until they're ready to support these kids financially. If a woman is considering abortion, she should be given counseling and given the truth about both options. Personally-- I would not want to have an abortion hanging over my head on Judgment day. I would prefer to put a baby up for adoption and have a clear conscience when I meet God. I think many women aren't taught the facts about how the fetus develops. At 7 weeks the heart begins beating. What happens if a heart is prevented from beating? Is this murder or not?

    There are no easy answers to this controversial subject. I hope you'll at least consider my views. Of course, my view is colored by my faith and my belief that God punishes people if they engage in bad activities/actions on earth. If a woman doesn't believe in God, or doesn't believe in heaven or hell, she probably won't think there are any lasting consequences for abortion.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    @ Everard

    I am against abortion BUT

    1. I am a man; I should have NO say.

    2. I am NOT that girl; I should have NO say.

    Not true - Roe v Wade! That a man should have a say concerning the life of his child.

    Answer to the question: Pro-Life, That unborn child has to have a voice. It's a child not a choice. Don't want to get pregnant; use birth control.

    A baby's heart begins to beat 18 days from conception, and by 21 days the heart is pumping ... A baby's brainwaves can be detected at 6 weeks from conception.

    Source(s): prolifeaction.org/faq/unborn.php
    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 years ago

    The place and when no legislation, there and then no flaw: Romans four:15... Romans 5:13... Revelation 22:21. Feel from the top of the God shew already written: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen. So depart the principles to move ON unto perfection, for perfection has no dead to even resurrect, seeing that God is just not the God of the dead, however of the living: Matthew 22:32... Mark 12:27... Luke 20:38. Simplest what started out can end. Regulation (sorrows) started out. Eternal Grace has no beginning nor any end. Everlasting life isn't lifestyles after loss of life, but existence void of dying; And such is most effective plausible by having grace void of law, which is notably also by using having mercy void of sacrifice, which is simplest then Godly peace that is void of misunderstanding.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Just because evolutionists are too stupid to say whether the cell devision is a child or not does not mean you are still killing cells that could potentially become a human being and this is still murder to me... why we may have already killed the person that was destined to cure Cancer. Killing potential humans is Baal worship and arn;t you glad your mom did not abort you? Killing human who would have maybe cured Aides is like prolonging our own suffering and will eventually end in us killing ourselves with a painful death. You do not have to worry about overpopulation...which is a lie....because we have already killed the child that would have cured cancer or Aides and now we have condemed our own race to a painful, slow death.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • based on the things i've seen in my life and the different situations that i've encountered i would say that abortion is okay,IF,it is done for the right reasons and if the lady in question makes the choice herself(certain circumstances not excluded) but if the lady says that she wishes to have an abortion then let her have it

    Source(s): life experence and common sense
    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Standard answer to this one cos I'm sick of it...

    *******************Ignore what doesn’t pertain to you*******************

    EVERYONE is PRO-life... excepting maybe psychopaths.

    I am PRO choice and you are ANTI choice... let's call it what it is...

    Not some emotive term denigrating people who believe in freedom of choice.

    It sounds very much like you're another willing tool of the religious right, driven by misogynistic wrinkled old men.

    The modus operandi of ANTI choicers is to pick on the weak and vulnerable.

    The ANTI choicers' main tools of trade are FEAR, GUILT, lies and hypocrisy.

    I am against abortion BUT

    1. I am a man; I should have NO say.

    2. I am NOT that girl; I should have NO say.

    I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion…

    Religion needs to stay out of a woman's vagina; it has no business there.

    Only the terminally gullible believe that making abortion illegal makes it stop... it just drives it underground and kills more women.

    There is nothing I can think of more barbaric than forcing a girl-woman to gestate unwillingly.

    AND…

    IF men could become pregnant, abortion would NOT be an issue and you know it.

    Addendum: “Our tax dollars already go into welfare, child protection programs, and abuse counseling for underprivileged children.

    These are necessary programs, but wouldn't be great if they could be less necessary? If more children were wanted and were born to people who were emotionally prepared to be parents these and other programs would not be as flooded as they currently are by neglected, unloved children.

    I'd rather pay for someone's abortion, than pay for 18 years of child care.

    Giving women access to reproductive health choices, including birth control and elective abortion means healthier, happier families, and less strain on the tax payer.”

    ~

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    There is no stance. Abortion is and will remain a legal medical procedure in these United States.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Cool story, what was the question?

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.