Skip to comments.Abortion isn't a religious issue (And it should not be a political issue says the author)
Posted on 11/04/2007 4:58:54 AM PST by shrinkermd
Evangelicals are adamant, but religion really has nothing to say about the issue
What makes opposition to abortion the issue it is for each of the GOP presidential candidates is the fact that it is the ultimate "wedge issue" -- it is nonnegotiable. The right-to-life people hold that it is as strong a point of religion as any can be. It is religious because the Sixth Commandment (or the Fifth by Catholic count) says, "Thou shalt not kill." For evangelical Christians, in general, abortion is murder. That is why what others think, what polls say, what looks practical does not matter for them. One must oppose murder, however much rancor or controversy may ensue.
But is abortion murder? Most people think not. Evangelicals may argue that most people in Germany thought it was all right to kill Jews. But the parallel is not valid. Killing Jews was killing persons. It is not demonstrable that killing fetuses is killing persons. Not even evangelicals act as if it were. If so, a woman seeking an abortion would be the most culpable person. She is killing her own child. But the evangelical community does not call for her execution.
About 10% of evangelicals, according to polls, allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest. But the circumstances of conception should not change the nature of the thing conceived. If it is a human person, killing it is punishing it for something it had nothing to do with. We do not kill people because they had a criminal parent.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Preaching mostly to the choir I assume, but here is my 2 cents anyway......
Anybody that votes or suggest they will vote for Rudy G, is simply not pro life!!! Case closed the fat lady has sung
“About 10% of evangelicals, according to polls, allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest. But the circumstances of conception should not change the nature of the thing conceived.”
How true this is, the position that ‘in case of rape or incest’ ignores the humanity of the unborn..
Gary Wills bent so far backwards in his “reasoning”, he stuck his head up his butt. This is beyond twisted logic. It’s deliberate self-delusion.
The author is correct that this is an inconsistency in pro-lifers.
Are you equally anxious to see Jeffrey Daumer made “restored and whole?” Or do you preach vengeance for him, but not for her? If so, on what logical basis?
Willful suspension of disbelief anyone? Talk about having no faith in modern science.
Without the right to life, there are no other rights.
Actually, personhood is an absolute and totally independent from what a law defines it as. But your over all point is well made, that laws are crafted to discriminate against personhood, be it non-person slaves, illegal and non-person Jews, or non-person unborn children.
esp considering that the word ‘fetuses’ means nothing more than *unborn child*
Try putting an “Abort Hillary” bumper sticker on your car and see the reaction you get from the pro-choice types.
I heard someone suggest that Rudy was a good argument for abortion....I guess Hillary also.
Dahmer knew what he was doing. In many cases women who get abortions are not fully aware of the magnitude of their decision and are usually counselled (preyed upon) to do so by those on the left with an agenda. They are talked into it. Then regret it the rest of their lives.
“Without the right to life, there are no other rights.”
That is such a profound statement that only liberals would not know what it means.
Then why do abortion supporters call themselves "pro-choice" and not pro-abortion?
Better yet, why do abortion supporters recoil with horror and outrage when photos or videos of abortions are shown? Why do they protest when laws are initiated requiring abortionists to show women considering abortion an ultrasound?
If Wills were correct, it would be the pro-abortion side that would be wanting to display clear photographic and medical imagery of what they are doing.
I practiced medicine for 13 years prior to Roe vs. Wade and women were never prosecuted in Minnesota. It was this kind of tautology that made harsh abortion penalties almost impossible to enforce.
Sure, but many women also know exactly what they are doing and just don’t care. Your automatic exclusion from responsibility for all women is not logical, and is frankly more than a little patronizing.
So if it isn’t a human child, what is it?
Abortion is a losing issue for the Dem’s and is one of the few “emotional” issues that rally’s Republicans. Dem’s usually vote because “the sky is falling” and so on this issue, along with Homosexuality and socialism, Republican’s hold their lines. Of course the Dem’s want to see this issue go away, because the Republicans wouldn’t have a rallying issue to get the voters to the polls.
My cup if half full and I’m grateful, yet my Democratic voting friends always see their glass half empty.
Interesting...never thought of it that way.
Are you suggesting that government's failure to prosecute is the evidence necessary to establish that abortion is not killing?
What government does or does not do establishes nothing.
The question, if there is one, is at what point does life begin. I think the answer is clear that life begins at conception. The organism is forming and growing from that point on.
Any other conclusion, I believe, is agenda driven. It is beyond me how "science" can throw up its hands in defeat and not admit that life begins when the organism begins to form and grow.
To suggest that life begins when a fetus is viable is simply absurd - that fetus began long before it became viable.
If we are unwilling to concede that a growing fetus hours or days or weeks old is a living organism, how can we possibly conclude that an amoeba is alive?
It may be a legal question whether or not this is killing we allow in our culture - such as hunting or stepping on ants ... but to suggest that it is not killing is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.