I mentioned ‘violation’ again because you did in this statement:
I thought you were talking about your ethics and morality in general, not just with regards to abortion. If I was mistaken, I apologize.
My argument is absolutely about the mother’s body. It’s not a red herring just because you don’t like it, or disagree with it. I absolutely believe that an individual’s right to expel anyone or anything from inside them if they want it out trumps the rights of anyone inside their body, whether it’s a rapist, a parasite, a fetus, or a tiny violinist.
And I copied the words in that statement from yours.
Anti abortion people typically have strong religious beliefs. How then do they reconcile that with the fact that there is no consensus among religious organizations that abortion is bad? From this site, here are some pro-choice religious organizations:
One would think that if something were as heinous as the anti-abortion people claim that there would be near-unanimity among the religious.
Of course you believe that. We wouldn’t be having this discussion otherwise.
The key point is that you’re wrong.
Not just conservitives are pro life im as liberal as they come and im pro life because i believe life starts at fertilization if you dont want kids use birth control a condom or some other contraceptive or get sterilized if you get it done right and the right kind of sterilization done it wont be permanent so if you change your mind its all dandy
You do understand that just because an organization has the word “Jewish” in its name that doesn’t mean that it is a “religious organization”, right?
I would say that it is an acknowledgment that their members have the Jewish faith.
I’m glad you take back your silly ‘red herring’ accusation.
No u
No. You can be a Jew and an atheist.
Then I apologize for my misreading of your statement – I thought you were talking about your ethics and morality in general (as I was), not just with regards to abortion.
True enough, it can be used as an ethnic group as well as a religious group. Even putting aside the Jewish groups, one must admit that there is not anything approaching unanimity among Christians that abortion is evil.
You can also be a practicing Jew and pro-choice.
Don’t really care about Christian attitude toward abortion, since I am not one, and have never been.
There is not even agreement among Jews as to what is necessary to correctly practice Judaism. Nor is there agreement among Christians as to what is necessary to practice Christianity.
So, no, I don’t think that the failure to achieve unanimity on the issue of abortion is particularly meaningful. If Christians cannot agree on the relationship of faith and works to salvation, you cannot claim that Christians are unified in agreement on important concepts.
Perhaps not, but many and dare I say most of the anti-abortion movement are indeed religious and use their Christianity as their moral compass. Since there is no consensus either among the religious or the non-religious, what are the grounds for staking out your position as the more moral one?
It isn’t a red herring at all, and I haven’t taken it back. Pro-abortionists for decades have been indignantly asserting that no one has a right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. My assertion is that the baby has a right to its own autonomy, especially since it’s the innocent party in the situation.
You might note that more and more, women are getting grief for smoking, drinking, doing drugs, etc. while pregnant. This gives me hope that the day is dawning when people will finally grant unborn children the same rights and concerns it would enjoy if for some reason it suddenly found itself outside the woman’s body.
Ethics.
Whose ethics should control the law and why?
“Unquestionably”? To consider this to be a human being is nothing short of an Orwellian redefinition of language that insults the meaning of what it is to be human. Most of us define humanness in terms of consciousness, awareness, intelligence, and experience. But to consider the non-sentient pictured item to be a human being while depriving an actual unquestionable human being of all her rights and relegating her to the status of a fetus incubator is, in my view, a reprehensible affront to humanity and basic human rights.
“Unsavory company” being the Supreme Court and most of the industrialized world. Your implication would appear to be that “moral company”, judging from laws around the world, are most of the world’s underdeveloped primitive backwaters. Look at the map that was posted earlier. This is what I mean about “the wrong side of history”.
Yup. Plus what I just said. Yet the pro-life movement is highly correlated with a religious motivation, and when religious people start making laws without any rationally supportable substantiation simply because it reflects their faith, what you have is a theocracy.