The history of morality of abortion

[BigRedBuster]

To lump an entire group of people in and claim that most views changed due to politics is just silly and opportunistic.

That's not what it said at all . . .

 

I'm a little surprised at the hostility. What gives?

 

 

Pardon me if I took the article wrong. But, I took it as saying that anti abortion people didn't feel that way till Christian evangelists became anti abortion and mixed Christianity with politics and all of a sudden convinced all of these people they need to be anti-abortion.

 

From Landlord's post, I tend to agree quite a bit with him. I am simply uncomfortable with abortion being a political issue at all and I believe there are many more people out here like this than the article implies. yes, the evangelists are the loudest and most obnoxious anti abortion sector but that doesn't mean that is the majority of anti abortion people.

 

If I took the article wrong then that's my fault. I'm just a little tired of over the years so many pro-choice (a better term) people claiming they know why I feel the way I do.

[carlfense]

this is where the issue lies, when does life begin (or end, for that matter). some ethicists believe that life does not begin until consciousness. although that does seem extreme, it does make sense in terms of when life ends and the issue of euthanasia and mercy killings.

That's arguably no more extreme than the argument that life begins at fertilization. Those would be the book ends.

 

I'd be willing to guess that we have more than a few posters here who believe the latter but I'd be somewhat surprised if we have anyone who believes that life begins at consciousness.

[Landlord]

That's what this comes down to. You can huff and puff about all of the surrounding details your entire life, but ultimately, the crux of the matter is that a fetus either is or isn't alive, and if it is, aborting in most all contexts (I wanted to just say abortion is period, but that would be legalistic posturing) is murder.

In your own opinion, does this critical change happen before or after the zygote is attached?

 

On another tangent, what are your views on birth control?

 

 

I honestly have absolutely no clue as to the first question. And truthfully I'm kind of glad I don't. I think if I thought I had it all "figured out", that would lead to me being unsympathetic or unconcerned with individual people and their individual situations. As an evangelical Christ-follower that doesn't want to see unborn babies murdered, I think the solution to make that a reality isn't to obsess over the science of the process, necessarily, but for the women in those situations to have loving and personal relationships with people that will rub shoulders with them and hopefully encourage them towards good decisions.

 

Birth control isn't necessarily a black&white idea either. I obviously have a problem with birth control methods that are abortive or might possibly be abortive, but any preventative means of birth control aren't evil and are like any other thing; they are a neutral tool that can either be used in good or bad conscience depending on somebody's circumstances, intentions and heart.

[carlfense]

To lump an entire group of people in and claim that most views changed due to politics is just silly and opportunistic.

That's not what it said at all . . .

 

I'm a little surprised at the hostility. What gives?

 

 

Pardon me if I took the article wrong. But, I took it as saying that anti abortion people didn't feel that way till Christian evangelists became anti abortion and mixed Christianity with politics and all of a sudden convinced all of these people they need to be anti-abortion.

 

From Landlord's post, I tend to agree quite a bit with him. I am simply uncomfortable with abortion being a political issue at all and I believe there are many more people out here like this than the article implies. yes, the evangelists are the loudest and most obnoxious anti abortion sector but that doesn't mean that is the majority of anti abortion people.

 

If I took the article wrong then that's my fault. I'm just a little tired of over the years so many pro-choice (a better term) people claiming they know why I feel the way I do.

No worries. I just thought that the part that I quoted in the OP covered a bit more ground than that:

Ask most (white) evangelicals about the morality of abortion these days, and you’re certain to hear about its absolute immorality in most, if not all, circumstances. But this is a recent innovation in the history of evangelical belief, a product of political forces as well as new theological insight. . . . Their beliefs, like those of the people around them, change with time and circumstance.

 

I think the part that raises my eyebrows is that we're seeing such moral absolutism in an issue that was adopted relatively recently. (Hardly unique to any one ideology. It's probably similar to the outrage about denial of equal rights to homosexuals . . . when 20 years ago or less that was completely acceptable.)

[Junior]

That's what this comes down to. You can huff and puff about all of the surrounding details your entire life, but ultimately, the crux of the matter is that a fetus either is or isn't alive, and if it is, aborting in most all contexts (I wanted to just say abortion is period, but that would be legalistic posturing) is murder.

In your own opinion, does this critical change happen before or after the zygote is attached?

 

On another tangent, what are your views on birth control?

 

And is a vasectomy ok? If so why?

[Excel]

The crux of the matter is that a fetus either is or isn't alive, and if it is, aborting in most all contexts (I wanted to just say abortion is period, but that would be legalistic posturing) is murder.

 

It isn't as simple as "alive" vs "not alive". It's a process, a timeline, for that collection of cells to form into a distinguishable independent living organism, at least that is my opinion and I don't believe that the threshold is reached at conception, I think it's somewhere after that. Where is debatable.

 

I also realize I'm not well educated on the subject and haven't taken the time to really think about it so I don't know where that point lies but wherever it is I think abortions after that point should be, at least in general terms, prohibited barring other compelling reasons.

[StPaulHusker]

That's what this comes down to. You can huff and puff about all of the surrounding details your entire life, but ultimately, the crux of the matter is that a fetus either is or isn't alive, and if it is, aborting in most all contexts (I wanted to just say abortion is period, but that would be legalistic posturing) is murder.

In your own opinion, does this critical change happen before or after the zygote is attached?

 

On another tangent, what are your views on birth control?

 

And is a vasectomy ok? If so why?

As someone who has had the procedure, yes it's okay. Why? Because they are my balls and I said so.

[carlfense]

I honestly have absolutely no clue as to the first question. And truthfully I'm kind of glad I don't. I think if I thought I had it all "figured out", that would lead to me being unsympathetic or unconcerned with individual people and their individual situations. As an evangelical Christ-follower that doesn't want to see unborn babies murdered, I think the solution to make that a reality isn't to obsess over the science of the process, necessarily, but for the women in those situations to have loving and personal relationships with people that will rub shoulders with them and hopefully encourage them towards good decisions.

Thanks for your input and it sounds quite reasonable to me so long as it isn't forced on people.

 

Birth control isn't necessarily a black&white idea either. I obviously have a problem with birth control methods that are abortive or might possibly be abortive, but any preventative means of birth control aren't evil and are like any other thing; they are a neutral tool that can either be used in good or bad conscience depending on somebody's circumstances, intentions and heart.

I see. Personally, I don't really have an opinion of birth control in the context of morality.

[carlfense]

The crux of the matter is that a fetus either is or isn't alive, and if it is, aborting in most all contexts (I wanted to just say abortion is period, but that would be legalistic posturing) is murder.

It isn't as simple as "alive" vs "not alive". It's a process, a timeline, for that collection of cells to form into a distinguishable independent living organism, at least that is my opinion and I don't believe that the threshold is reached at conception, I think it's somewhere after that. Where is debatable. I also realize I'm not well educated on the subject and haven't taken the time to really think about it so I don't know where that point lies but wherever it is I think abortions after that point should be, at least in general terms, prohibited barring other compelling reasons.

Agreed.

[Excel]

As an evangelical Christ-follower that doesn't want to see unborn babies murdered, I think the solution to make that a reality isn't to obsess over the science of the process, necessarily, but for the women in those situations to have loving and personal relationships with people that will rub shoulders with them and hopefully encourage them towards good decisions.

 

What do you mean by that? Would you go so far as to require women seeking abortions to be "counseled" before obtaining the procedure? A counseling that, at least in Kansas, is legally required to include bits about all abortions terminating "the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" and other controversial statements inserted by the religious right.

 

Who decides what a "good decision" is anyhow? You? Are you going to legally require that women listen to people like you and your idea of a good decision like they have to in Kansas? That's what your words seem to imply, or at least your fellow Christians who say things to that effect often end up advocating such laws.

 

It drives me insane that some Christians, especially the evangelicals, think that they know what's best for everyone and that people not only should but legally must listen to them. Your religious beliefs work well for you and that's great, then apply them to you. Don't force them on others. They shouldn't be the basis for law.

 

I share your negative feelings about abortion. It is a sad and regrettable procedure because, even if I don't think that it is unquestionably murder, it does reside somewhere in a gray area and is often a turbulent, unplanned and troubling time for women. I would hope that no woman should ever have to find herself considering abortion but it happens and it needs to be available and safe.

 

In a perfect world:

 

- Men and women have access to real sex education (not "abstinence only" crap)

- Women are empowered and respected in society and relationships to the point that they are able to determine when, how and with whom they would like to have sex

- A variety of forms of contraception are readily available to men and women

 

But we do not live in that world and unplanned or unwanted pregnancies happen and abortion needs to be an option.

 

I find it interesting that not only are "most" evangelicals against abortion, they're also against those things that would make abortion less common.

[Landlord]

It isn't as simple as "alive" vs "not alive". It's a process, a timeline, for that collection of cells to form into a distinguishable independent living organism, at least that is my opinion and I don't believe that the threshold is reached at conception, I think it's somewhere after that. Where is debatable.

 

I also realize I'm not well educated on the subject and haven't taken the time to really think about it so I don't know where that point lies but wherever it is I think abortions after that point should be, at least in general terms, prohibited barring other compelling reasons.

 

I agree with the principle and I also agree that it's not an absolute line as if there is a switch that is flipped, but you yourself said there is a point or a threshold somewhere. So somewhere along the way there is a living organism where there wasn't previously.

 

Since we can't state definitively where that is, and since the consequence on one hand is possible murder and the consequence on the other is inconvenience, even though I very rarely ever speak of abortion from a legal perspective, if we are going to make laws on the matter, wouldn't a "safe is better than sorry" mentality be of upmost importance here?

 

Because if we err too far down the timeline in our majority consensus as to where in that process life begins, we are guilty of the most horrific genocide the world has ever seen.

[Landlord]

What do you mean by that? Would you go so far as to require women seeking abortions to be "counseled" before obtaining the procedure? A counseling that, at least in Kansas, is legally required to include bits about all abortions terminating "the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" and other controversial statements inserted by the religious right.

 

Who decides what a "good decision" is anyhow? You? Are you going to legally require that women listen to people like you and your idea of a good decision like they have to in Kansas? That's what your words seem to imply, or at least your fellow Christians who say things to that effect often end up advocating such laws.

 

 

That is the opposite of what I mean, actually. I prefer not to look at it from a legal perspective whatsoever. I can't say whether or not there should be laws surrounding the issue, that's for someone else to decide. What I mean has absolutely nothing to do with forcing or coercion or taking away a choice whatsoever, and is really centered around the idea that the solution to something like this not being found in the law, but being found in changing people's hearts.

[BigRedBuster]

What do you mean by that? Would you go so far as to require women seeking abortions to be "counseled" before obtaining the procedure? A counseling that, at least in Kansas, is legally required to include bits about all abortions terminating "the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" and other controversial statements inserted by the religious right.

 

Who decides what a "good decision" is anyhow? You? Are you going to legally require that women listen to people like you and your idea of a good decision like they have to in Kansas? That's what your words seem to imply, or at least your fellow Christians who say things to that effect often end up advocating such laws.

 

 

That is the opposite of what I mean, actually. I prefer not to look at it from a legal perspective whatsoever. I can't say whether or not there should be laws surrounding the issue, that's for someone else to decide. What I mean has absolutely nothing to do with forcing or coercion or taking away a choice whatsoever, and is really centered around the idea that the solution to something like this not being found in the law, but being found in changing people's hearts.

 

 

I agree Landlord.

 

With me personally, I absolutely despise abortion as a political or legal issue. It is used as nothing more than a way for both political parties to solidify their base while other issues go undiscussed. AND, this is an issue that absolutely can not be dealt with in the legal or political atmosphere. Even if they completely outlawed all abortions (for which I don't support) abortions would still be performed.

 

I think where Landlord is going (correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to put words in your mouth) is that I would prefer to work on WHY are abortions even needed? Why does a woman believe she needs to end the life of a fetus that is partly her? Fix those things and the abortion issue goes away. The problem with that is that neither side of the political abortion issue want it to go away. THAT is sickening if you think about it.

[Excel]

I would prefer to work on WHY are abortions even needed? Why does a woman believe she needs to end the life of a fetus that is partly her?

 

It's failure in morality. That's the problem with abortion. That's why women feel they are needed, because they want to murder a child.

 

Not because they weren't properly educated about sex, or because contraception wasn't available or successful or because they were raped.

 

Most women that get abortions are twenty-something coeds who purposely get pregnant at drunken, drug fueled blood orgies and then wait until they can feel the fetus kick before they get an abortion so they can be sure they're actually murdering a baby.

 

This is a moral issue. Something is wrong with the women, not with society and the options we've made available to them.

 

 

By the way, to Landlord, even if every woman in America got pregnant and aborted a fetus every year it still wouldn't be genocide. It would be sad but not genocide. That's just hysterical Christian hyperbole.

[BigRedBuster]

I would prefer to work on WHY are abortions even needed? Why does a woman believe she needs to end the life of a fetus that is partly her?

 

It's failure in morality. That's the problem with abortion. That's why women feel they are needed, because they want to murder a child.

 

Not because they weren't properly educated about sex, or because contraception wasn't available or successful or because they were raped.

 

Most women that get abortions are twenty-something coeds who purposely get pregnant at drunken, drug fueled blood orgies and then wait until they can feel the fetus kick before they get an abortion so they can be sure they're actually murdering a baby.

 

This is a moral issue. Something is wrong with the women, not with society and the options we've made available to them.

 

 

By the way, to Landlord, even if every woman in America got pregnant and aborted a fetus every year it still wouldn't be genocide. It would be sad but not genocide. That's just hysterical Christian hyperbole.

 

 

What???