Abortion

[Nicene Nerd]

Ah well, my experience with the issue was what I based my argument from, and frustration can hinder gathering a new perspective. Maybe it's a silly southern thing to mesh politics with religion and the rest of the planet isn't crazy.

I also live in the South, and I see people generally shape their politics according to their religious convictions (which is only right and natural), but I still generally find that "It's a sin" is the language used in church and among friends whereas "It's killing an innocent person, which violates their right to life" is the language used most often in political debate. Of course, many believe in fetal personhood because of their faith, but that doesn't usually make much a difference in their political argument.

[PlasmaHam]

Politics is based around beliefs, religious or not. And most Christians don't want politics intermingling with religion. Christ didn't come to this world to build an earthly kingdom, and neither should Christians. The Baptists are a good example of this. They were arguably the least respected and most persecuted Christian denomination in the 1600s, yet refused to become the state religion of Holland, stating that it was against Biblical teachings.

 

Abortion is as much of a rights issue as it is a religious issue. You don't typically see people holding picket signs saying abortion is bad just because it is a sin. You do see people holding picket signs saying abortion is bad because you are killing innocent children!!! While religion may influence your view on the matter, it is not the underlying reason people have a problem with abortion.

 

Next time you want to argue the merits of abortion, please say something better than the "religion is always the problem" excuse.    

Edited May 30, 2016 by PlasmaHam

[kb5462]

I don't know where other people live, but I live in the UK, which is arguably a post-Christian society, and I've seen plenty of people holding religiously-motivated signs outside abortion clinics. 

[ComedyMusicHistory]

I'm still on a break, but I thought I'd briefly reply.

 

Complete seperation of religion and politics would frankly be the best thing for everyone involved. This isn't exciting or interesting. This is like an athlete that specializes in soccer saying to an athlete that specializes in golf, "hey, we think you guys need to do something differently because we're generalizing this certain aspect through our own experiences in our sport."
But things are not simple. And you can't force people to follow your religious standards just because you feel you must.

 

This is about a church, not the law. I'm not even United Methodist. I just found it to be an interesting twist.

 

Kelsey Hazzard the founder and president of Secular Pro-Life was raised United Methodist, which was at the time officically pro-choice. Now she's a pro-life "none" (religiously unaffiliated). So at least to her it isn't like being pro-life is a matter of religion.

[ComedyMusicHistory]

I don't know where other people live, but I live in the UK, which is arguably a post-Christian society, and I've seen plenty of people holding religiously-motivated signs outside abortion clinics. 

 

In the US it's safe to say the majority of signs/information are not religiously-motivated. Certainly the majority I've read about in articles or seen in videos. While many pro-lifers may be more or less religious that's not the argument the vast majority of pro-lifers in the US would use when encouraging people to choose life. But there are still many non-religious pro-lifers. Like I'd say about 1/3 of the people who regularly leave comments, over the last few years, on this pro-life site I like are agnostic, religiously unaffiliated, or atheist. The March For Life has more religiously-motivated. I have seen some videos of people praying silently or quietly with rosaries. But most sidewalk counseling doesn't focus on religion. Even something like 40 Days For Life, which is a Christian-based pro-life organization, is about praying quietly at abortion facilities and trying to save life if given the chance, not forcing Christian morals on people.

 

There aren't many abortion facilities in the greater suburban area I live in. And most of those are more "hidden". There's one abortion facility, on the border of the city I live in a suburb of, I'll very occasionally if my family's going a few places. I've only one time seen anyone sidewalk counseling. That was a very non-threatening, little old man who had pictures unborn babies at different weeks of development. He was having a woman. I once saw a pro-life billboard in the city, which has a very high African American population and the neighborhood(s) it was in is almost entirely African American, which had a blonde-haired, light skinned, European looking baby doll and a dark skinned, African American looking baby doll that said, "Both of their hearts start beating at 21 days". It was trying to draw attention rate to the high abortion rate among African Americans. In my state 9% of the population is "Black" (of Sub-Saharan African ancestry), but 49.6% of abortions of abortions are done to "Black" Americans.

 

Now I did see one Roman Catholic church, it's very beautiful and big building, put a big banner on the church that said, "Pray to end abortion". But that was on the church.

 

So in experience the majority of pro-life activism is not religion, and the vast majority are not about Christian morals. Students For Life is a good example of a prominent pro-life organization that isn't necessarily secular and necessarily religious. 

 

Here's a video to give a general idea of what seems like typical sidewalk counseling in the US. It can of course vary.

 

I'm not interested in getting in a debate on this with anyone, but I just thought I should share what I've seen on this.

 

[JKAY]

 

Next time you want to argue the merits of abortion, please say something better than the "religion is always the problem" excuse.

Have you been to an abortion clinic? Harassment from religious people is pretty much a given. There's only one abortion clinic left in this state because of how much pressure was put on the original one.

Next time you want to argue the nonexistence of religious bias in politics, find one of the abortion clinics left and talk to the staff about the hoops they have to jump through just to get to work.

[Telesphore]

When my best friend first learned she was pregnant, I advised her to have an abortion. I've since become fairly pro-choice. 

[ComedyMusicHistory]

When my best friend first learned she was pregnant, I advised her to have an abortion. I've since become fairly pro-choice. 

 

I hope you're joking.

[Telesphore]

I hope you're joking.

Nope. When she asked for my opinion, I advised her to abort it. Her living situation was unstable at best, she couldn't count on the father, and I thought she deserved to live her life for herself; rather than devote it to a child when she was quite literally almost a child herself at 18.

[Chris-M]

Can we not please anymore with this particular tangent :'D?

Edited May 31, 2016 by Chris-M

[Nicene Nerd]

I'm with Chris. Let's go literally anywhere else now.

[Jesusismyticket]

So let us say we are not arguing from a religious point at all. Why not argue in the case of different problems.

 

#1: If you were to read the constitution, and bill of rights as a whole, it actually defends the Child's life.

It is notable that in every case the fetus is considered a child, which would make it seem the fetus is considered a person. The provisions they cited as denying the unborn child as a person, would also deny the right to life to all children, African-Americans, Native Americans, and a twenty-one year old. When the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted, only five states in the union at the time did not have legislation against abortion. The Court cited many cases to do with the right to privacy, but none of them actually involved a case with abortion. The closest cases to it were only three, which referenced sterilization and contraception, quite different matters. The case Union Pacific Railway Company v. Botsford actually defends the rights of an unborn child under the right of privacy.  Raleigh Atkin-Paul Morgan Memorial Hospital v. Anderson, the mother of an unborn child was forced to have a blood transfusion, although denying it before, to protect the life of the unborn child. Lastly in the case of Gleitman v. Cosgrove, the court was very firm in telling the family the right to life is an inalienable right, which cannot be denied even to those who are disabled. The preamble of the Declaration of Independence states all men are created equal, not that they were born equal. The preamble of the Constitution mentions the posterity, which by definition includes born and unborn descendants.  The only way this right to liberty can be lost is by due process of the law.

 

[Telesphore]

I'm with Chris. Let's go literally anywhere else now.

I fail to see how personal experiences on the topic aren't relevant, but defer to Moderation's judgement.

[Nicene Nerd]

I fail to see how personal experiences on the topic aren't relevant, but defer to Moderation's judgement.

Actually, I wasn't saying that as a mod. It's just a sickening conversation.

[Telesphore]

Actually, I wasn't saying that as a mod. It's just a sickening conversation.

Oh tosh. I used to be fairly pro-life, even to the point of disagreeing with medieval Jewish ethicists who, generally, were pro-choice insofar as such a concept could generally be said to have existed at the time. However, when push came to shove in my own life, I took a radically different position that surprised even myself; and therefore my position changed. Pro-life advocates, especially those like my former self, oftentimes seem to think that having an abortion because one isn't in a position to be a parent, or simply doesn't want to be -- especially in the case of teen pregnancies -- is some sort of selfish act; but it's different when it's you and yours, so to speak.

[Nicene Nerd]

but it's different when it's you and yours, so to speak.

Reminds me of a quote I recently ran across. "Everyone's pro-life with three exceptions: rape, incest, and my situation."

Of course, none of the reasons or context is relevant, since the only question which matters is whether an innocent person is being killed.

[kb5462]

Reminds me of a quote I recently ran across. "Everyone's pro-life with three exceptions: rape, incest, and my situation."

Of course, none of the reasons or context is relevant, since the only question which matters is whether an innocent person is being killed.

 

Yet, the world doesn't work like that. People don't think like that.

 

I'm not really interested in persuading people to be pro-choice or pro-life. But I do think we should be realists. What's going to be more effective for the pro-life side, "I understand how hard it is for you right now. Hearing your story and your situation is important to me. I can see why abortion is appealing to you; please, let me offer you an alternative where you are not alone.", or "you're killing an innocent person." ?

 

I think we can all work out which. 

[Telesphore]

Reminds me of a quote I recently ran across. "Everyone's pro-life with three exceptions: rape, incest, and my situation."

Of course, none of the reasons or context is relevant, since the only question which matters is whether an innocent person is being killed.

I would argue that context and reasons are relevant for even flat-out murder. Aborting a fetus is not the same. We can all agree that, say, shooting a grown man is wrong. If we as a society cannot agree whether abortion is ethically the same as murder or clipping your fingernails, it does not rise quite to the same stature.

[Nicene Nerd]

Yet, the world doesn't work like that. People don't think like that.

 

I'm not really interested in persuading people to be pro-choice or pro-life. But I do think we should be realists. What's going to be more effective for the pro-life side, "I understand how hard it is for you right now. Hearing your story and your situation is important to me. I can see why abortion is appealing to you; please, let me offer you an alternative where you are not alone.", or "you're killing an innocent person." ?

Of course the personal approach is more effective in helping people, saving the unborn, and advancing the pro-life cause on the ground. But that's entirely irrelevant to deciding the question of abortion's actual moral status.

 

 

I would argue that context and reasons are relevant for even flat-out murder.

Maybe killing generically, but murder? No. Murder is essentially by definition "unjustifed killing."

 

Aborting a fetus is not the same. We can all agree that, say, shooting a grown man is wrong. If we as a society cannot agree whether abortion is ethically the same as murder or clipping your fingernails, it does not rise quite to the same stature.

What does agreement as a society have to do with anything? There was a time when American society could not agree on whether black people were property or persons, but they all agreed that attacking white men was wrong. Did that mean killing a black person couldn't rise to the same level as killing a white person?

[Chris-M]

 Actually, I wasn't saying that as a mod. It's just a sickening conversation. 

 

 

My thought was more along the lines that personal examples just make debate unproductive. I'm not going to change my mind about abortion if my hypothetical sister gets an abortion, but I'm not going to feel comfortable making detached arguments at her. That's not because detached arguments are wrong, it's just a matter of prioritizing interpersonal comfort above carrying on a discussion.