Is Abortion A Religious Moral Issue Or A Universal Moral Issue?

[Kane]

I never really cared as much about the abortion and for a lot of my life I was pro-choice. However after hearing many pro-life arguments I did find a point for their arguments and decided that there needs to be a centrist solution. Abortion in my opinion should be legal to 4.5 months, the midway point between conception and birth.

It seems reasonable but this is only if this isn't because a religion said so. I am opposed laws being based on literal doctrine being decided in a centrist fashion. With that said if you notice most the people that oppose abortion are for religious reasons and if this is true I don't see why it should be regarded.

HOWEVER, I have met a few people who are not religious (at least I think they are not) that are oppose to abortion but I do not see this that often.

Anyways, as the thread is titled do you think abortion is more of a religious moral issue or a universal moral issue? What do you think? Are there any non-religious people oppose to abortion on MT?

 

[terryl965]

I believe it is a moral issue. I also believe that every individual has the right of choice in there on life. I was not put on earth to judge, I was put here to train and give insight into one's own journey in life.
Terry

 

[Kane]

I believe it is a moral issue. I also believe that every individual has the right of choice in there on life. I was not put on earth to judge, I was put here to train and give insight into one's own journey in life.
Terry

So do you think it people view it as a moral wrong because of religion or because of rational thought about life?

 

[MartialIntent]

In the abortion/pro-life debate, rights of the unborn child IMhO are nothing more than semantic sophism. Many pro-life campaigners have little or no experience of the dilemma many women [and their partners] are in when trying to make a decision to have a baby aborted, imagining their decision to abort to be nothing more than a whim. Not so.

Whether the unborn child has rights is something that will be debated eternally. However, the fact that the mother has rights cannot be disputed and to belittle those rights is repulsive.

 

[MartialIntent]

So do you think it people view it as a moral wrong because of religion or because of rational thought about life?

Personally I think religion only serves to complicate an already impossible dilemma. Even for the religiously pious, the path they are guided towards may never appear the correct one. I think religion can only serve as a guide but ultimately, the choice must be based on your own personal moral beliefs.

 

[michaeledward]

In the abortion/pro-life debate, rights of the unborn child IMhO are nothing more than semantic sophism. Many pro-life campaigners have little or no experience of the dilemma many women [and their partners] are in when trying to make a decision to have a baby aborted, imagining their decision to abort to be nothing more than a whim. Not so.

Whether the unborn child has rights is something that will be debated eternally. However, the fact that the mother has rights cannot be disputed and to belittle those rights is repulsive.

You may be unaware that you are using 'Pro-Life' language throughout your comments.

The terms 'unborn child' and 'baby aborted', are used to frame the argument in terms more acceptable to the Pro-Life position. The correct term, from the medical profession, is 'fetus'. A woman never has a 'baby aborted'. She terminates a pregnancy, the fetus is aborted.

It appears your argument is on the 'Pro-Choice' side of the discussion, except for the terms you are using.

 

[Makalakumu]

You may be unaware that you are using 'Pro-Life' language throughout your comments.

The terms 'unborn child' and 'baby aborted', are used to frame the argument in terms more acceptable to the Pro-Life position. The correct term, from the medical profession, is 'fetus'. A woman never has a 'baby aborted'. She terminates a pregnancy, the fetus is aborted.

It appears your argument is on the 'Pro-Choice' side of the discussion, except for the terms you are using.

I've known a few people who have had abortions and it is always a grave decision. The term may be fetus, but they know its their baby that is going away. No one that I've known that has had an abortion is ever truly happy with the decision...however, it was still the least worst outcome.

btw - I'm pro choice in the sense that I want to keep it legal and I'm non-religious. The bottom line is that there is no real line between fetus and baby...and I think it makes both terms appropriate.

 

[BrandiJo]

I think its a moraly wrong thing, but iv sat with my 14 yr old cusion who was molested and talked her though what she should do and suported her the whole way when she decided to have an abortion. I believe that its up the the person and what they believe not what i belive, i can only decide whats right for my body not any one elses

 

[Ray]

IIt seems reasonable but this is only if this isn't because a religion said so. I am opposed laws being based on literal doctrine being decided in a centrist fashion. With that said if you notice most the people that oppose abortion are for religious reasons and if this is true I don't see why it should be regarded.

Are you saying that my reasons for holding to my moral code {whatever it may be} should be minimized {or not "regarded"} if they are based on my religious beliefs; or if I accepted a religion that fit my already formed religious belief? Are the reasons behind other people's moral code better and more acceptable than mine because they're got better reasons?

...more of a religious moral issue or a universal moral issue?

What's a "universal moral" issue?

 

[Loki]

I attended the Second International Convention on the Embryo in Tel-Aviv this week, and a prominent Israeli philosopher offered the following concept as a guide to who who has rights:

He started on the common ground, human adults, who all moral persons agree human dignity must be conferred upon and must be protected. This is due to adults having the capacity to be part of a moral framework and both bear moral responsibilities and enjoy moral rights.

Next were children and infants who, despite high dependance on adults, have the capacity, even if not yet the ability, for a moral framework. Human dignity must be conferred upon them and this must too be protected.

3rd trimester fetuses likewise have a capacity for a moral framework, since the cortex, infrastructure of the mind, which allows for participation in a moral framework, has already been formed.

These three categories are on the same level of human dignity.

Next are near viable humans, like second trimester fetuses. While they cannot participate in a moral framework, their near-humanity gives them a minor respect, which is different from a lack of respect. We can't treat them as we wish, like we could a glass of water, but we shouldn't consider them full humans. A similar respect is owed to human corpses. There is no human society where bodies are simply left to rot and disregarded as if they weren't once living humans.

First trimester embryos evoke a lesser respect, but still respect nonetheless, same for a human blastocyst and fertilized egg. There is no instance where potential human beings evoke no respect, but not all deserve the same level of it.

This is so far the best explanation I've heard for what should be the moral status of a human fertilized egg/blastocyst/embryo/fetus, and though it many not be complete, it's the most well reasoned and sensible one I've heard to date.

A certain absurdity worth noting is that abortions in America can take place up to the ninth month (granting a third trimester fetus a non-human moral status), despite a law limiting them to the sixth, and Bush's policy restricts stem cell research entirely (giving a fertilized human egg a full human status).

As for terminology, pro-life is also a misnomer. Is anyone who isn't pro-life anti-life? I think pro-abortion and anti-abortion are much better descriptions of the two ends of the range of opinions on the matter.

 

[Ray]

...and Bush's policy restricts stem cell research entirely (giving a fertilized human egg a full human status).

It is my understanding that Bush's policy is to not use federal money for stem cell research. It is my understanding that individual states may grant state money for stem cell research. I also understant it to be that private money may be spent on stem cell research. At least that's what I got out of the National Institute of Health's web site. Am I wrong and can you point me to such documentation.

Limiting stem cell research doesn't equal giving a fertilized human egg full "human" status.

 

[Loki]

It is my understanding that Bush's policy is to not use federal money for stem cell research. It is my understanding that individual states may grant state money for stem cell research. I also understant it to be that private money may be spent on stem cell research. At least that's what I got out of the National Institute of Health's web site. Am I wrong and can you point me to such documentation.

Limiting stem cell research doesn't equal giving a fertilized human egg full "human" status.

In a case where I'm mistaken (which is probable) and there is no ban on cloning-for-biomedical-research but simply no use of federal funds, then you're right.

 

[michaeledward]

As for terminology, pro-life is also a misnomer. Is anyone who isn't pro-life anti-life? I think pro-abortion and anti-abortion are much better descriptions of the two ends of the range of opinions on the matter.

This is an interesting proposition. But, I am not in favor of abortion - so to describe my position as 'pro-abortion' is also a misnomer.

I wish no one ever had to have an abortion.

I wish no one ever had to have their appendix removed either.

Sometimes, however, decisions must be made. I am fully in support of a person being able to make decisions. I am fully in support of a woman who is pregnant, or a doctor in an emergency room making a choice that is appropriate for the circumstance in which they find themselves.

So perhaps the 'Pro-Life' crowd is better named the 'Anti-Abortion' crowd.

And those you describe as 'Pro-Abortion' would better be described as 'Pro-Choice' (or Pro Decision).

 

[Loki]

This is an interesting proposition. But, I am not in favor of abortion - so to describe my position as 'pro-abortion' is also a misnomer.

It's only a misnomer from an absurd viewpoint where the debate arises every time any woman becomes pregnant. In that context, it's absurd to be pro-abortion in every case for obvious reasons, and it's absurd to be anti-abortion in every case, since if the fetus is a potentially lethal health risk for the mother, he should be aborted by any moral standard, religious or not.

If taken in the spirit of the current debate, it arises only when the fetus does not prove to be a potentially lethal health risk and there is moral ambiguity over whether its birth is favorable or not. In this context, pro-abortion and anti-abortion labels make sense.

 

[michaeledward]

It's only a misnomer from an absurd viewpoint where the debate arises every time any woman becomes pregnant. In that context, it's absurd to be pro-abortion in every case for obvious reasons, and it's absurd to be anti-abortion in every case, since if the fetus is a potentially lethal health risk for the mother, he should be aborted by any moral standard, religious or not.

If taken in the spirit of the current debate, it arises only when the fetus does not prove to be a potentially lethal health risk and there is moral ambiguity over whether its birth is favorable or not. In this context, pro-abortion and anti-abortion labels make sense.

And, as I have a Y chromosome, I will never get pregnant; I will never be faced with the 'absurd' viewpoint at anytime.

Because my point of view will always be absurd, I defer, in all cases, to those who will be forced to determining whether the viewpoint is absurd or not.

Leave the decision to the women.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I never really cared as much about the abortion and for a lot of my life I was pro-choice. However after hearing many pro-life arguments I did find a point for their arguments and decided that there needs to be a centrist solution. Abortion in my opinion should be legal to 4.5 months, the midway point between conception and birth.

It seems reasonable but this is only if this isn't because a religion said so. I am opposed laws being based on literal doctrine being decided in a centrist fashion. With that said if you notice most the people that oppose abortion are for religious reasons and if this is true I don't see why it should be regarded.

HOWEVER, I have met a few people who are not religious (at least I think they are not) that are oppose to abortion but I do not see this that often.

Anyways, as the thread is titled do you think abortion is more of a religious moral issue or a universal moral issue? What do you think? Are there any non-religious people oppose to abortion on MT?

I think Kane is trying to ask what drives the question of abortion being immoral.

If it is just your religous morals then is it right in this day and age of Democracy and Republic representation, for someone's religous morals to become law?

Or is the question of Ethics, meaning that society believes that all potentional life should be preserved?

Now how do you logically get from Religous Morals to Societies Ethics, to determine Law.

If enough people believe a certain way then it makes this Moral belief a personal Value. If enough people believe that this value is ethical, (* at this point it does not matter where the value came from, Religous, or societies Taboo's, or what have you *) or unethical then they can argue and make their logical point to convince our Representatives in the Governement to make a Law.

What the issue has turned into is something much different then this.

Those who are one side of the arguement because of their religious Morals, believe that their religion is being attacked by the opposing side, when they argue against their point of view. They then make the issue a matter of "God" and what is "Right". When a logical arguement might proceed, it has now turned into an emotion arguement. Once this happens, there is no point in continuing as there is no way to make either side happy.

If the arguements are presented without a religous flavor or content, then those that have separated themselves from a religion or are looking at it from the Republic point of view, as in you determine your personal Values, and then argue the point of ethical or unethical, and try to convince thsoe involved in the Governement to pass a Law, would be able to listen, and reply, and as the Brief or Arguement has been presented without Religious content then the opposing side cannot respond with an attack on Religion, without them being the first to make it an issue of emotion, and not an issue of Societies Ethics.

****

Now to my point of view. I think the Pro Choice option allows for those of Religous beliefs to practice their beliefs. With freedom of religion and not state approved religion, I do not believe their beliefs have to be mine.

The other arguement I like to listen too, is that Abortion happens world wide and happened even when it was not acceptable, with a very poor success rate for the women, or living and being able to have children later. So people will execute the process even if it is illegal.

Now I do not believe it should be a form of birth control, for I think other methods should be available and supplied.

I also believe in Euthanasia, and that assisted suicide should be allowed. I do not know the the proper execution of this process, so I understand why their is a discussion on this issue.

 

[arnisador]

Mid-way in time isn't mid-way in development...I can't see the 4.5 months argument.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner made a compelling argument in their book "Freakonomics: The Hidden Side of Everything" that Legalized abortion is largely responsible for our declining violent crime rate.

The argument goes that as Roe V. Wade ushered in legalized abortions in 1973, the crime rate began declining in the early 1990's (coinciding with when the millions of unwanted children would have reached the prime teen years).

Their theory is, that the most violent crime prone adults where those that were unwanted and neglected by their mothers. Mothers of that sort are naturally more incline to abort a child if that is a viable and safe option.

Hence, abortion, as well as increased incarceration rates, have culled countless potential violent offenders from the pool, and more every year (Hence our continuing falling violent crime rate).

Now, it's a controversial theory, and some have taken issue with it (Some for statistical reasons, but the vast majority for reasons of a more prejudiced nature). But I find the argument fairly compelling. Moreover, as a former fence sitter on the abortion question, i've decided if a woman thinks she can't take care of a child, and doesn't want it, then she knows best.

 

[terryl965]

So do you think it people view it as a moral wrong because of religion or because of rational thought about life?

Kane in my views it would be religous base to make it wrong. But remember my opinion only.
terry

 

[arnisador]

Many economists question that particular example in Freakonomics. The WSJ ran an article on that point not long ago.