Abortion and Separation of Church and State

[Neil_Anthony]

Although on an end note: Nobody is pro-abortion. It’s proper name is “pro-choice”, meaning the person who is pro-choice believes a woman should have the ability to choose what is right for her in a pregnancy. Very few people go around saying “I want babies to die! Pro-abortion!”

Oh, you might be shocked. People who have a pre-born baby with down’s syndrome can come under great pressure to abort the baby. Teenagers can come under great pressure to abort. Many people believe that the earth is overpopulated and the more babies you can kill in the womb, the better. Other’s simply believe that its a good idea to terminate any pregnancy where the parents aren’t ideal candidates. And most people aren’t ideal… most people are average.

Lots of the women going into abortion clinics are being half-dragged in by their boy-“friends” or their parents. I didn’t know this until I saw it first hand praying outside an abortion mill with the 40 days for life group.

 

[AliciaCL]

It is interesting that the pro-choice movement has long since dropped the argument that the fetus isn’t a person; it’s just a clump of tissue, etc. You dont’ hear that anymore because of how science and in utero photography has stunningly shown a little human in early months and even has a heartbeat at one month. Nobody were argue that the fetus is not live cells. It is inarguable that they are cells with the DNA from the mother and the father. That necessarily results in the conclusion that it’s human life.

The pro-life movement’s focus is entirely on the mother, the suffering, the physical burden of pregnancy, the embarassment if the mother is unwed, the financial burden in the present and the future, the fear of a life of parenthood. All of these are things deserving of our empathy, caring, help. But the pro-life movement tries to argue just because the woman can abort, she should be able to, so that she can be in control of her life. If science had advanced to the point where we could transplant a fetus into another human, would it then be looked upon as fair, to require a mother who wanted an abortion to transplant instead to protect the life of the fetus? Oh, that would be great, I imagine most pro-lifers would say. It only demonstrates that they place the mother’s “rights” above that of another. Indeed, it’s poignant to see a young girl pregnant, who cannot afford to raise a child, hasn’t had advanced schooling, hasn’t enjoyed the freedom of youth, etc. It still can’t justify abortion.

Murder is a crime under government law. It’s origin is moral. The Declaration of Independence was Christian-inspired, as was the Constitution. The government isn’t Christian, however. Abortion is so fundamentally wrong, as is murder, stealing, that it should be made illegal. That doesn’t mean putting young girls in prison, but rather imposing punishment on the abortionists, who by the way, violate their medical moral ethics by killing life.

 

[Susannon]

When is a person, a person? When people want to kill other people they call them sub-human - Jews, slaves, the unborn. Do you believe that if it was a person’s right to see Jews as sub-human then they had the right to kill them in concentration camps? No, clearly this is always wrong, whatever some strange Nazi might think personally, we know that all people are children of God and equal in His eyes. The unborn are people waiting for birth, full of the wonder of life from the Spirit of God.

There is no argument about being able to survive outside the womb, no baby can survive at whatever stage of its development, without its mother/mother substitute, whether at 4 months in the womb or 4 months after birth.

People are people, all equal in value in the sight of God - God has no favourites and does not love the born over the unborn. There is no excuse in these times for becoming pregnant, except for carelessness. And can a person put another person’s life against their own carelessness? If you are careless, then go through the consequences, life is life and not ours to destroy in any way - and that applies to war and capital punishment as well as abortion. You cannot be pro-life and pro capital punishment and war. They are part of each other, life is life and thank God for it, the wonder of life.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Before I begin, I would just like to point out that I am in no way pointing fingers, criticizing, or any such thing. I am merely curious and opening a discussion.
Well of course we all know that separation of church and state is an important value in our country. But I am curious: Many Christians opposed to the woman’s right to an abortion, say things such as “It is against God to have one.” But I must wonder: If it is against God, than why can’t Christians just do what is right for them and what they believe, and why can’t other people choose what is right for them? Now I do know that people should believe and vote for what they believe is right, but should hoping and voting to change laws really be a part of that believe?
I know that many non-religious people are against abortion as well, and that there are Catholics that are pro-choice, so perhaps I’ve titled this thread wrong. Then again, America is a country with many religious followers. And I wonder how many senators and representatives are part of a religion.
I guess I may be pointing out very fine lines, or perhaps a line that isn’t there at all. I’m not looking to start an argument, or criticize.
Although on an end note: Nobody is pro-abortion. It’s proper name is “pro-choice”, meaning the person who is pro-choice believes a woman should have the ability to choose what is right for her in a pregnancy. Very few people go around saying “I want babies to die! Pro-abortion!”

As an edit I’d like to say that I know that abortion is a very, very bad act. I am just asking whether we should put it onto other people to believe what we do.

Abortion is not a religious issue, it’s a human rights issue!!

How many times in history have evil doers tryed to pass off killing or owning as property a group of people by claiming that those people are less than human?

How do we view those times of genocide and slavery now? Usually as the root of all evil, don’t we?

Issue solved, next question.

 

[rwoehmke]

It is interesting that the pro-choice movement has long since dropped the argument that the fetus isn’t a person; it’s just a clump of tissue, etc. You dont’ hear that anymore because of how science and in utero photography has stunningly shown a little human in early months and even has a heartbeat at one month. Nobody were argue that the fetus is not live cells. It is inarguable that they are cells with the DNA from the mother and the father. That necessarily results in the conclusion that it’s human life.

There was a time in history when we truly did not know that the instant a human sperm and a human egg came together a new human being instantly came into existence, a human being which almost all recognize has a right to live until natural death. That single cell can now be shown to be a distinctly unique live human being. It will never turn into a frog, a mouse, or a rabbit. It’s cells take nourishment, develop, differentiate and grow. It is alive. It is human. No doubt about it. To kill it at any stage amounts to murder. Call it abortion if you will, but it is murder; the unjustified intentional taking of another’s life.

Murder is a crime under government law. It’s origin is moral.

A civil law against murder is accepted in almost every country and civilization on the earth because human kind recognizes, whether explicitly or not, the natural law that murder is wrong. Murder is recognized as the unjustified taking of a human life. No matter how one tries to cut it, abortion is murder and no amount of disassembly will change that.

In the Western countries, the mother who obtained such a murder was never punished under civil law, but those who carried out the procedure were. We need to work towards doing that once again.

 

[Spirithound]

A common belief was that it was ok for a woman to abort until “quickening”–when the baby begins to move in the womb.

This comes from a time of lesser scientific knowledge, and basically represented the best they could have perceived. Luckily science has made huge leaps!!

 

[Ed_Rand]

This comes from a time of lesser scientific knowledge, and basically represented the best they could have perceived. Luckily science has made huge leaps!!

They were all very familiar with what happens inside the womb. It doesn’t take modern science for that.

 

[po18guy]

We can solve this argument once and for all by making murder a right. Explain any difference.

 

[Mark77]

Kat,

We are not forcing other people to believe what we believe.

We are simply defending life, innocent, defenseless life, the lives of unborn babies.

The Truth is the Truth no matter what we think is true.

Why can a mother murder her own baby for her selfish “choice”, her “personal privacy”, her “reproductive rights”, or any other politically correct slogan that is thought up by an attorney paid by the billion dollar baby murdering abortion business?

If that were justified, I could murder anyone who was an inconvenience to me.

We are not “imposing our beliefs” on anyone.

Murder is always wrong!

It is the ultimate betrayal and the worst kind of hate when a mother and a father can “legally” murder their own baby, their own flesh and blood which is a miraculous gift from God Himself.

Ave Maria, Ora Pro Nobis.

Mark

 

[bbarrick8383]

One could look at it this way as well:

People have been convicted of a double homicide when killing a pregnant woman.

Why cant people be convicted of homicide when killing just the baby?

 

[NTOT]

Before I begin, I would just like to point out that I am in no way pointing fingers, criticizing, or any such thing. I am merely curious and opening a discussion.
Well of course we all know that separation of church and state is an important value in our country. But I am curious: Many Christians opposed to the woman’s right to an abortion, say things such as “It is against God to have one.” But I must wonder: If it is against God, than why can’t Christians just do what is right for them and what they believe, and why can’t other people choose what is right for them? Now I do know that people should believe and vote for what they believe is right, but should hoping and voting to change laws really be a part of that believe?
I know that many non-religious people are against abortion as well, and that there are Catholics that are pro-choice, so perhaps I’ve titled this thread wrong. Then again, America is a country with many religious followers. And I wonder how many senators and representatives are part of a religion.
I guess I may be pointing out very fine lines, or perhaps a line that isn’t there at all. I’m not looking to start an argument, or criticize.
Although on an end note: Nobody is pro-abortion. It’s proper name is “pro-choice”, meaning the person who is pro-choice believes a woman should have the ability to choose what is right for her in a pregnancy. Very few people go around saying “I want babies to die! Pro-abortion!”

As an edit I’d like to say that I know that abortion is a very, very bad act. I am just asking whether we should put it onto other people to believe what we do.

Constitutionally, the federal government is prohibited from imposing religious beliefs upon the people. Therefore the government has no right to condone the belief that is acceptable to offer human sacrifice through slaughter of the unborn.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

---

 

[CWBetts]

Constitutionally, the federal government is prohibited from imposing religious beliefs upon the people. Therefore the government has no right to condone the belief that is acceptable to offer human sacrifice through slaughter of the unborn.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

---

This is a misapplication of the non-establishment clause. In fact, it is the very same exuse atheists use to keep religous symbols off of public lands. Thee proper application is this clause is to keep the United States from havin an official state religion. Unfortunately, we Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, have let ourselves become so intimidated by organizations such as the ACLU, that we have let Atheism become the state religion of the United States.

Another problem with this post is calling abortion a human sacrifice ritual. There is enough wrong wiyh this genocide of the unborn to criticize that you don’t have to call it things that it isn’t.

 

[NTOT]

This is a misapplication of the non-establishment clause. In fact, it is the very same exuse atheists use to keep religous symbols off of public lands. Thee proper application is this clause is to keep the United States from havin an official state religion. Unfortunately, we Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, have let ourselves become so intimidated by organizations such as the ACLU, that we have let Atheism become the state religion of the United States.

Yes you are correct here. I was pointing out the absurdity of those who take it even further by claiming the first amendment restricts religious organizations themselves.

Another problem with this post is calling abortion a human sacrifice ritual.

Which it very much is.

There is enough wrong wiyh this genocide of the unborn to criticize that you don’t have to call it things that it isn’t.

Yes there is enough wrong with abortion already, but that does not make it any less a human sacrifice to an idol. Over the past couple of weeks of scripture readings at Mass, some excellent examples of the different types of idols were identified.

 

[Brendan]

Many Christians opposed to the woman’s right to an abortion, say things such as “It is against God to have one.” But I must wonder: If it is against God, than why can’t Christians just do what is right for them and what they believe, and why can’t other people choose what is right for them? .

The same could be said for things like chattle slavery and rape. The Christian response is to oppose those as they are against God.

If one would follow your line of reasoning, you would have the Abolitionists like the Quakers, Methodists and faithful Catholics who apposed the institution of slavery on moral grounds to just let the plantation owners be, after all the Supreme Court had said their was a legal right to own slaves. “Opposed to slavery, don’t own one” would be your response.

The same could be said for rape. Christians oppose it on moral grounds.You pointed out that some people believe they have a right to ‘choose’. Would the very fact that a person believed they had a right to rape be grounds alone to permit it?

What if they even got a judge to agree with them? Would the correct response then be “OK, I’m not going to impose my morality on rapists, therefore I won’t interfere with this now legal right to rape”

I would REALLY hope not!

The fact is, there really IS such a thing as objective morality. Certain things are, by their nature, absolutly wrong and immoral.

While the civil law might allow for such immorality ( like it did for the extermination of Jews in 1940’s Germany or for slavery in antebellum US, and yes abortion now) it does not change the sheer immorality of it.

And it deserves, and really, cries out for, strong opposition.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

There are different theories of political philosophy at work here that cause some confusion:

**** holds that the rules of civil society are created through the mutual consentSocial contract theory of those being governed, to keep the peace, for the common good.

Other theories are **deontological **and hold that the laws of civil society are based on natural rights that people have, which originate somewhere other than the opinions of those being governed.

In practice, most voters are not political philosophers, and their ideas are a hodge-podge of different notions that sometimes fall more into social contract theory, and other times fall more into the ‘natural rights’ area. Most people when asked to justify their opinions come up with arguments about ‘what works’ and ‘what is right and wrong’, not being aware of the philosophical issues.

The deontological notion of ‘intrinsic human rights’ is difficult to defend in philosophy. Philosophers have tried to prove the existence of these rights using pure logic, but it is a real challenge and most philosophers have abandoned the idea that we can somehow use logic to prove that people have rights. So we’re left with mostly people who believe in natural human rights because they believe that God established those rights. (secularists will still use the notion of human rights in their arguments because they are appealing to most people, but they do not truly believe that these ‘rights’ are anything other than good ideas that people should agree on).

So, we’ve ended up with a situation where most people who believe that humans actually have intrinsic rights, not just rights that are given by the community, are people who believe in God.

In social contract theory, there is no reason to outlaw abortion, since the people being aborted are not capable of fighting back. If they can’t fight back, there is no practical reason to give them any rights, since they have no ability to cause us harm if we harm them. The child in the womb can not revolt, so they have no say in the matter of what laws should exist.

So, this is why many people see abortion as a religious issue. You can’t prove that a human being has a right to life except by appealing to a notion of God. They only speak of ‘right to life’ as a way of saying ‘society should abstain from allowing murder in order to keep peace, for the sake of the common good’.

We know that people do have intrinsic human rights, including the right to life. And we must continue to do everything we can to make the government protect those rights. But within social contract theory, this will be seen as forcing our religion on others. I say, lets keep doing it and be bold about it. Our religion says we have to protect human life, and I’m proud of it, and will do everything I can to protect innocent life.

 

[fix]

Although on an end note: Nobody is pro-abortion. It’s proper name is “pro-choice”, meaning the person who is pro-choice believes a woman should have the ability to choose what is right for her in a pregnancy. Very few people go around saying “I want babies to die! Pro-abortion!”

Pro choice = pro abortion. People who claim they are not pro abortion are simply playing word games. If they claim there is “right” for some person to kill their unborn child they favor abortion. If they really did not favor it they would not want other people killing their kids.

 

[fix]

But I don’t believe that’s necessarily true. Many people DO believe it is the woman’s right.

People hold all types of incorrect beliefs. How does that prove their understanding is correct?

 

[po18guy]

The U.S. constitution must be properly interpreted, just as with scripture. Unfortunately, the court, in most cases, appears not to be lead by the Holy Spirit. If not lead by the Holy Spirit, then which spirit leads?

 

[CWBetts]

NTOT,
An abortion is no more a sacrificial rite than having your appendix removed. It is cold-blooded murder. Nothing more, nothing less. Again, there is enough to say about abortion withot making things up.

 

[Corki]

Not all the participants in our early government held that life began at conception (not all were christians either). A common belief was that it was ok for a woman to abort until “quickening”–when the baby begins to move in the womb. Funny thing, when I was an agnostic, I came to very much the same position by my own reason.

A common belief by whom? Even in the early Church, much earlier than our early governments, when fetal development was not well understood, it was not “ok” to abort before quickening. It was considered a grave sin of its own rather than the sin of murder as it was classified after quickening.

This comes from a time of lesser scientific knowledge, and basically represented the best they could have perceived. Luckily science has made huge leaps!!

Amen!