Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

[LumberJackSker]

That's a great question, I don't have a complete answer, whats you're theory? I would honestly love for someone to put that world view into words for me.

Who's forcing beliefs in this general discussion? It's not as if religious groups haven't been tolerating abortion for quite some time - and acting far more than tolerant to this day. At this rate, seems to me, if abortion is ever made illegal, it will be through our elected political leaders peacefully, not forcefully.

Obviously religion hasn't removed bad behavior from society, nor is that the overall goal of all or even most religions.

Of course murder is far from being a topic tied only to religious morals or philosophy. You don't have to be religious to oppose murder (or any crime), that doesn't mean religious institutions and people should shy away from or be berated for sharing their religious convictions in the course of discussion.(that's not directed at you, just a general point)

I don't think being religious is a bad thing and I've seen it do great things for people. I guess the only problem i have is when it comes to issues like abortion or even gay marriage it seems like people try to force their views on people. 

 

[TheSker]

Is it through religious beliefs? 

I'm asking you.

If there is a law against something, who determines that law?  What is it based on?

 

[LumberJackSker]

I'm asking you.

If there is a law against something, who determines that law?  What is it based on?

I'm sure it varies from country to country but a bill has to pass through some sort of legislative branch of their government. And the law was probably proposed to address some problem that as a society they think needs fixing

 

[Big Red 40]

I see your point, but that's a pretty dull way of washing your hands of responsibility.

If not for your own religious or moral choices, why would/do you oppose any crime at all, and why is it ok to "force" those personal views on criminals? If not for your own morals and religious views, what part of you is it that causes you to oppose murder of a mature adult? Or theft, or bribery? Or are you simply against criminals being held accountable? 

If your unwilling to interject your own personal choices and religious morals "on anyone else", then what society are you helping to shape? Should we not teach 3rd graders that it's bad to steal?

If the kkk started hanging jews tomorrow, would you have any religious or moral objections that would require any forcible punishment?

Morality and religion aren't the same thing. Criminal laws/punishment on the things you listed are based largely on whether one persons actions directly hurt another, and to what extent. Some of them may resemble things that are said in the bible, but the founders were opposed to making laws based on it. 

As far as abortion, the belief that life begins at conception is based off peoples religious views , not science, and many of those people want to force that belief on others by banning all abortion. I don't think that's right.  

 

[TheSker]

I'm sure it varies from country to country but a bill has to pass through some sort of legislative branch of their government. And the law was probably proposed to address some problem that as a society they think needs fixing

So each country determines if an act is illegal, such as murder or theft?

 

[TheSker]

Criminal laws/punishment on the things you listed are based largely on whether one persons actions directly hurt another, and to what extent. Some of them may resemble things that are said in the bible, but the founders were opposed to making laws based on it. 

So why is a Bible used for a swearing in?

 

[LumberJackSker]

So each country determines if an act is illegal, such as murder or theft?

Could you just skip to the gotcha thing you have to say

 

[TheSker]

Could you just skip to the gotcha thing you have to say

There is no "gotcha thing".  I'm interested in where the morality baseline comes from....so I'm asking.

 

[Oade]

I don't think being religious is a bad thing and I've seen it do great things for people. I guess the only problem i have is when it comes to issues like abortion or even gay marriage it seems like people try to force their views on people. 

I get your point, and to that point, I don't like or intend to force anyone's beliefs. I certainly would hate for any of the gay folks I know to be killed or jailed simply for their life-styles like they are in other parts of the world. Personally, as far as anyone who has had or conducted an abortion (at least at the level that current laws require), I'm ready to forgive them for what I see as a crime against God and society. However, it'd be awesome if they all admitted that chopping up a baby in the womb is in fact ending a life, and then ended the practice.

I'm curious though since you mentioned forcing beliefs... What constitutes forcing a belief to you? When RoevWade/abortion is taught in elementary schools (at least going by the school books) as generally a "good" thing, would you constitute that as forcing beliefs? It's certainly not wanted by all parents.

 

[LumberJackSker]

I get your point, and to that point, I don't like or intend to force anyone's beliefs. I certainly would hate for any of the gay folks I know to be killed or jailed simply for their life-styles like they are in other parts of the world. Personally, as far as anyone who has had or conducted an abortion (at least at the level that current laws require), I'm ready to forgive them for what I see as a crime against God and society. However, it'd be awesome if they all admitted that chopping up a baby in the womb is in fact ending a life, and then ended the practice.

I'm curious though since you mentioned forcing beliefs... What constitutes forcing a belief to you? When RoevWade/abortion is taught in elementary schools (at least going by the school books) as generally a "good" thing, would you constitute that as forcing beliefs? It's certainly not wanted by all parents.

Thats a good question i don't remember it being framed like that when i was in school. If it was a public school i guess i would just want the curriculum to cover the facts like what the law covers and not for the teacher to paint it one way or the other. 

I'm honestly not sure how its covered at a Catholic school or any school with a religious affiliation.

 

[Oade]

Morality and religion aren't the same thing. Criminal laws/punishment on the things you listed are based largely on whether one persons actions directly hurt another, and to what extent. Some of them may resemble things that are said in the bible, but the founders were opposed to making laws based on it. 

As far as abortion, the belief that life begins at conception is based off peoples religious views , not science, and many of those people want to force that belief on others by banning all abortion. I don't think that's right.  

The idea that life doesn't begin at conception is also not based on science. So the idea that life does not start at conception is based on what? Morality?

That's the real challenge of the argument is being able to prove it one way or another scientifically undeniably, and I'm looking forward to that day!.... But in the mean time, I'd simply be glad for a few concessions from abortionists. Because right now we're trending in the direction of abortion up to the moment of birth like in NY, the moment of conception is barely in the conversation anymore.

 

[Oade]

Thats a good question i don't remember it being framed like that when i was in school. If it was a public school i guess i would just want the curriculum to cover the facts like what the law covers and not for the teacher to paint it one way or the other. 

I'm honestly not sure how its covered at a Catholic school or any school with a religious affiliation.

Just to clarify, "Good" is probably the wrong way to say what I mean entirely. It wasn't presented as "good" when I learned it (not that I can remember anyway), but it was presented in the name of "progress, women's rights, civil rights, and ending back alley abortions" - all of which I hope we can all agree are "good" things in spirit and intentions.

 

[Big Red 40]

The idea that life doesn't begin at conception is also not based on science. So the idea that life does not start at conception is based on what? Morality?

That's the real challenge of the argument is being able to prove it one way or another scientifically undeniably, and I'm looking forward to that day!.... But in the mean time, I'd simply be glad for a few concessions from abortionists. Because right now we're trending in the direction of abortion up to the moment of birth like in NY, the moment of conception is barely in the conversation anymore.

"life" is the word that the whole argument hangs on . At some point in the pregnancy a microscopic sperm and egg combination becomes a separate, self sustaining entity we call a human being, and killing it should be considered murder. I don't think that point is in the early amoeba stages, and neither do most scientists, but i damn sure wouldn't support abortion up til birth. Fighting for either extreme is not a good solution to me , that's why i said i think setting a federal fetus viability date and make laws according to that.  

 

[RedDenver]

Riiight. Not being charged for abortion (or murder, or assault, or anything) after killing an unborn child, is appropriate here. You make a good point, lol.

If this man had killed two adults, he'd be charged with two murders.... This man killed one adult, and one unborn child (at an age children can live outside of the womb no less, not that it really matters), but is then only charged for the crimes against the adult. This is good, justified, and the charges fit the crime, how?

You're moving the goal posts. You were originally upset that NY changed it's laws such that the guy who killed a pregnant woman had the abortion charge dropped. If NY laws were not changed, the guy still wouldn't have been charged with two murders.

The idea that life doesn't begin at conception is also not based on science. So the idea that life does not start at conception is based on what? Morality?

That's the real challenge of the argument is being able to prove it one way or another scientifically undeniably, and I'm looking forward to that day!.... But in the mean time, I'd simply be glad for a few concessions from abortionists. Because right now we're trending in the direction of abortion up to the moment of birth like in NY, the moment of conception is barely in the conversation anymore.

Nobody is arguing life doesn't begin at conception. In fact both the sperm and the egg are living cells prior to conception, and the embryo is also alive after conception. Science has long ago proven that.

And the abortion law in NY has late-term restrictions, here's what it actually says:

"According to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."

 

[Oade]

You're moving the goal posts. You were originally upset that NY changed it's laws such that the guy who killed a pregnant woman had the abortion charge dropped. If NY laws were not changed, the guy still wouldn't have been charged with two murders.

Nobody is arguing life doesn't begin at conception. In fact both the sperm and the egg are living cells prior to conception, and the embryo is also alive after conception. Science has long ago proven that.

And the abortion law in NY has late-term restrictions, here's what it actually says:

"According to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."

No, I haven't moved any goal posts, but there are certainly multiple issues at play here.... My original post that you responded to was pointing out that a father had killed his pregnant GF and (wanted)unborn child, but will only be charged for the murder of one of those two humans. The only thing I said in regards to that murder are that the man should be held accountable for his crimes, that is a flaw in the system that has resulted from not respecting and acknowledging that child as a human life before birth.

So at what point do these lives deserve constitutional protections? Or do they at all?

At what point is the second bolded part not true or just to you (because that is why its being debated)? What health condition would require an abortion for sake of saving the mother's life or health (esp in the third trimester)? Do you understand how an abortion is preformed logistically (esp late-term abortions)? You should go watch an abortion being preformed.