Surely both.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.
- Thread starter natasha levchenko
- Start date
Both. depending upon the circumstances of the pregnancy. I personally think if your not ready to be a parent (accidents happen) then your not responsible enough to be having (sex) . If he or she is adult enough to have sex then they ought to be adult enough to accept the consequences of their unprotected or accidental choices to have sex. Rape would be a whole different sent of circumstances and situations to consider. Doing the very very best you can to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is better than is having an abortion. Might be an old fashion notion but maybe only having sex with someone you love and want to build a life with makes sense, and you'd have parents that ideally would both want the child.
Like STDs?
In your mind, consent to sex is consent to all conceivable outcomes of sex?
A womans body, no one else can tell her what to do with it
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
In God’s eyes, life does not occur until the human breathes.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
So’s eating.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
So, we should have babies, many of which will be at risk — developmentally delayed, drug addicted, at risk for abuse and neglect — just to protect the mother from depression?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
For “pro-life” advocates, the “pro life” part generally stops at birth.
Loviatar
Red Tory/SpongeBob Conservative
For many current ones that's unfortunately true, but the Consistent Life Ethic is a thing. They tend to be anti-war as much as they're anti-abortion, and as they're usually Catholic, also often anti-capital punishment.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
She may not have acted; she may have been acted upon. And she didn’t create life; she assisted in creating tissue. God makes us nephesh by giving us breath.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Yeah, people will say, a woman has the right to do with her body as she chooses.
But no one will say anything, that the baby has a right to life. What's up with all that Go Figure
At the stage of abortion the fetus is not a baby. Calling is thus is appeal to emotion.
Until near death, when the "pro-lifers" insist that the dying person suffer as long as possible.
We also have secular, reality based, science to use. Including the formulation of moral principles and ethical codes.
According to science, individual humans are formed when a pair of gametes merge. It's the same with all other such organisms, from elephants to shrimp. Which humans matter, that is "are accorded personhood", is a really subjective opinion. Where I live, it didn't used to include black people. Things have improved morally in the last century or so and now black people are accorded personhood. I hope that in the near future unborn people will also be accorded more value than a tumor or a parasitic infestation.
But I am not holding my breath. Altogether too many people benefit from the anti-feticide political position to actually take concrete, evidence based, steps to reduce abortion.
Tom
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Beat me to it. One can't abort a baby.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is PRIMARILY a religious argument. That’s the theology — according to Genesis — of what constitutes “life.” It’s when breathing occurs. I didn’t comment on “what constitutes a human.” It remains to be determined what, exactly the religious argument against abortion is. Is it that humans are being killed, or is it that life is terminated? Science has to determine when individual life happens.
Because that determination lies largely in the purview of spiritual consideration, I’m not sure science can quantify it adequately enough to provide a definitive moment.
Because the fetus is physically part of the mother, rights and morality defined by individuality are of little use. “Rights of the mother” and “rights of the fetus” are, IMO, moot. Better to ask, “What needs to happen for our highest good?” That won’t give us scientific data or legal fine points, but it will help to answer a theological question with theology.
Here’s the illuminating kicker: we don’t hold funerals for miscarriages. If the fetus is a living human being, why wouldn’t we?
Correct,m betting foc doesnt make a comment thoght
I've never heard the term Consistent Life Ethic before.
But it describes me very well.
I'd add anti-environmental destruction, since I think that environmental disasters are the biggest threat to human life modern humans face.
Tom
I will.
A few years ago a couple of RF members, Father Heathen and Dawny0826, got pregnant. They described their grapesized progeny as "Baby Heathen".
Nobody confronted them about their misuse of the language. They consistently referred to their fetus as a baby for months. It was totally sweet, but rather hypocritical on the part of pro-feticide people who object to referring to very young human beings as babies.
Tom
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I would say that intent makes all of the difference in the world. If tiny grapesized Baby Heathen had died and ended in a miscarriage they would have been very sad and disappointed. If he or she died after birth they would have been heart broken.