When discussing abortion I sometimes run into someone who will accuse the Prolife advocate of trying to impose their religious view on women. It seems to me that when the Pro abortion choice defender offers this criticism because they believe that somehow invalidates any argument made in favor of limiting or prohibiting altogether elective abortion.
So I have two questions:
Is abortion solely a religious issue?
And, if it is, does that mean, therefore, that no anti abortion regulations could or should be imposed?
Sifting Reality 
I’d suggest that, for those who consider a fetus to be a human fully deserving of rights, it can reasonably be a human rights issue. This would be true whether a person had religious reasons for thinking this or secular reasons.
No, I don’t think the “it’s a matter of religious opinion” argument is in itself sufficient to say “NO regulations should be imposed.” As noted already, it is not solely a matter of religious opinion. There exists many folk who are not religious at all who rationally reach the conclusion that the fetus is a human fully deserving of human rights. For that reason, the argument breaks down.
I think there are other compelling reasons not to criminalize abortion, to keep it as a legal medical procedure that it is. But I don’t think that reason is one.
No, abortion is not solely a religious issue! It is a matter of supporting life or death, it does not matter whether you believe in any God, it matters whether you believe that innocent life deserves the right to live or whether someone else has the right to decide to end that life simply because they choose to do so. If you accept the argument that abortion is a religious matter solely, the same argument would apply to the death penalty, wars, and any other situation where people make the choice of life and death. While the soldier in a war, may have not had an opportunity to make that choice, or the civilians getting killed may not have been able to make a choice, the person or persons that started the conflict did have a choice. We can morally reject those choices as well, abortion is a moral choice, people who make that choice still have the blood of innocents on their hands.
Religious beliefs are not necessary to be against the killing of the unborn. And, contrary to typical liberal viewpoints, there is never a justification for the murder of a child in the womb, and it should always be criminalized.
Not even to save the life of the mother?
Under current law, abortion does not equal murder, which has a specific legal definition. That is inflammatory language that does not help resolve differences or make you seem especially reasonable.
I maintain that abortion IS just what it is: A medical procedure. From that starting point, reasonable adults could reasonably discuss whether there are legitimate and illegitimate uses for that legal medical procedure, and those who oppose it can do so for reasons other than religious ones.
Dan,
In the extremely rare event where either the child must die or the mother may die, allowing the child to die is not the same as abortion. And there are many cases I have read over the years where the mother was told she had a great risk of dying and delivered anyway and remained perfectly healthy.
Murder is defined as the unwarranted taking of a human life, especially pre-meditated. Since all abortion is the taking of human life, and all abortion is pre-meditated, it fits the definition of murder. If someone thinks the truth is inflammatory, that is their problem. We don’t sugar-coat the truth just because someone might be offended. Whether “Current law” defines it as such is irrelevant to what God’s law calls it. Just remember what “current law” said about slaves and slavery.
Your claim that it is simply a “medical procedure” desensitizes people to the truth and is a mockery of what really takes place.
Again, you make the “no true Scotsman” logic fallacy by deciding what is or is not reasonable in your opinion.
Factually speaking, abortion IS a medical procedure – a procedure performed by licensed physicans in a medical setting. By definition, it is a medical procedure.
You’re welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Dan,
Read my “lips” – I didn’t say it wan’t a medical procedure; I said, “Your claim that it is simply a ‘medical procedure’ desensitizes people to the truth and is a mockery of what really takes place.”
I stand firmly by that. And it isn’t my opinion – it is a fact. And a fact is everyone’s fact. It is either a fact or it is not. That which is true is true no matter what people may believe about it.
Murder can be sanctioned by a government but it is no less a murder!
? I maintain that abortion is a medical procedure. You agree, but maintain that it’s not “simply” a medical procedure. What is it, then?
It’s a particular type of medical procedure used to murder an unborn child for the convenience of the mother.
Whenever I get into a discussion with pro-abortionists, I always get the same, extremely predictable, responses. First, there’s the initial shock and anger that I – a female – dare speak out to disagree with them (especially since I usually drop in after they’ve ranted about how the anti-abortion issue is driven by religiously extreme old white men who hate women). Second, they immediately go on about how anti-abortionists are entitled to their opinion, but they have no right to force their religious views onto anyone else. The thing is, when I argue the pro-life position, I *never* bring up religion. Ever. There is no need to. In all the years I’ve had these discussions, I’ve only had one pro-abortion person (and even she is in favour of Canada bringing in some laws to restrict abortions, as Canada now has none at all) who, when I pointed out I did not bring up religion, backed down from the accusation and actually debated the issue. One.
And Dan, since when does having a medical license and using medical equipment make taking a life okay? Less then 2% of abortions are done for things like protecting the health of the mother, and for rape or incest. That means the remaining 98%+ are done because the pregnancy is somehow inconvenient to the mother (or those around her, considering how many women are coerced into aborting against their will). These are medically unnecessary abortions. Licenses and locations do not magically make abortions any less the taking of a life. That’s even if we don’t go into the high number of botched abortions that are damaging and killing women.
If abortion is solely a religious issue, then so is murder. “Thou shalt not murder”, right? Religious tenets make real world sense in many cases.
Abortion has to do with both the killed and the killers (society). Are we the kind of people who would rather kill innocent people instead of taking responsibility for them? Are we the kind of people who take a life because we can’t control our own bodies? These are the questions surrounding the abortion debate, as well as the unborn human being’s rights.
What’s sad is that we have become programmed not to expect people to take responsibility for their own actions. You’re poor? Not your fault. There’s an out. You took out a loan you couldn’t afford? We’ll take care of it. You can’t afford a baby but you got pregnant? Kill it!
I have also heard unborn babies referred to as “blastocysts,” an even further dehumanization of the unborn baby human.
The stunning irony of the Hollywood liberals and their “baby bumps” implies that they acknowledge there are indeed little humans in there. But only if they’re wanted. Convenient, eh?
The real war on women is 1) not expecting or supporting our ability to take responsibility for our own actions, 2) killing some 3300 babies every day in the U.S., and 3) not acknowledging the real and viable alternative of adoption.
There are abortion alternative organizations in every state, where volunteers help house, support, train/educate young women and provide them a secure environment in which to have their baby…either to keep or to give up for adoption.
I invite you to visit the web site of Fontebella Maternity Shelter in O’Fallon Illinois as an example. http://www.fontebella.org/
Sally, to the pro choice crowd apparently its only OK to call a baby a baby if its wanted, otherwise we need to use sterile medical terms because its not fair to sully the discussion with emotional rhetoric. If we convince someone to not abort because of emotional reasons, we have done something wrong.
John, in my Insomniac Saturday Night activity I have been reading some of your earlier entries and came upon the young man’s zombie/pig/C3PO argument. Very vivid images indeed.
He is most likely one of the more articulate examples of the current state of our education system.
Sally, you’re right. Given the political demographics of our education system, it’s not surprising to see these mental curiosities make their way to public viewing… and without embarrassment no less.
I just realized that the pro-abortion arguments are really based on a desire to oppose religion. They say our “religious beleifs” drive us. Then they say that we (religious people) want to punish women for having sex (premarital, I guess?) by forcing them to give birth.
I’ve always wondered why they keep coming up with new reasons to support abortion. They have a million of them. Some contradict others. But they keep saying them, even when they’ve been proven wrong. Because, let’s face it, they sound reasonable to those who only hear their side.
“Who gains?”, I’ve often asked. Is it that the real question is “What institution is harmed by the acceptance of abortion?”?
Is the abortion debate really just another battle in the war against religion? Are they willing to abandon this human rights issue simply to attack religion? Christanity, in specific?
They call us bigots when we speak out against Islam, even though Islam treats women and homosexuals (the pet “victims” of the left). Anything to oppose us. To make US look like fringe lunatics. To discredit us.
I’d say that most of the atheists we come up against on religious matters support abortion. Is this a coincidence? Where are the pro-life atheists?
Atheists support all manner of human rights (as they see them). And they’re right, in many cases. I’m reasonable enough to say that an atheist writer shouldn’t be jailed for expressing even the most hateful views against Christians. Why do they not listen to a reasonable non-religious argument for the rights of the unborn?
They always accuse us of letting our our religious fervor cloud our thinking. Is it not just as likely that their refusal to listen to some pretty reasonable arguments is the result of an anti-religious fervori nduced blindness? Isn’t it possible, if not likely that they fight so hard against the pro-life position simply because so many Christians would be their ideological bedfellows if they didn’t? Isn’t it possible that that possibility is less palatable to them than killing a few tens of millions of new human beings?
Am I being so unreasonable? We read their writings about us. They absolutely hate us. I wouldn’t put it past them to support something so barbaric, simply to be on the opposite side of an issue.