Abortion and Separation of Church and State

[Kat876]

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.

 

[Inman]

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?

It is not about Christians or people that believe there is a “right” to abortion.

It is about protecting the innocent.

The focus on the “right” to abortion, is merely a justification for those unwilling to protect the innocent.

 

[Kat876]

The focus on the “right” to abortion, is merely a justification for those unwilling to protect the innocent.

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

 

[Spirithound]

…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?

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.

We believe that an abortion is not just an offence against God, it is also an attack against an innocent baby. It is the government’s mandate to protect our physical lives, and it is the millions of aborted babies who our governments have failed.

 

[peary]

Well of course we all know that separation of church and state is an important value in our country.

The Constitution is very explicit in this regard:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” - 1st Amendment

This is self-explanatory. Congress, NOT all three branches of government, NOT the Judiciary, NOT the Executive Branch, but **CONGRESS ALONE **shall be prohibited from making any law establishing a religion for everyone to follow; likewise, Congress, NOT all three branches of government, NOT the Judiciary, NOT the Executive Branch, but **CONGRESS ALONE **shall not pass any law prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.

By the same logic, Congress, NOT the Judiciary, NOT the Executive Branch, ***cannot ***pass any law dis-establishing any religion or religious sentiment among the people.

This is what is meant by “separation of church and state” - no more, no less.

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?

Christians cannot come to a consensus on the abortion issue. They are torn between a two-thousand year old tradition which states that procuring an abortion is a grave sin; there is the Commandment that “You shall not commit murder,” and a theological/political fantasy of supposed rights (again, going against the thought in the Declaration that all people at whatever social level have the right to life) that human rights exist in one’s head, and for a utilitarian purpose only.

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” is still semantically the same as “pro-abortion.” That means that one will tolerate abortion and supports it just the same.

By raising abortion to a ‘right’ in the political arena, it becomes part of public discourse and something to be discussed and debated. If it wasn’t such a factor in our inherent value of human being, the debate would have fizzled out years ago. Here we are, in 2008, thirty-five years later and it’s still a hot topic because it goes to the very core of our intrinsic value and worth as human beings. If it would have been left up to a woman and her physician, the medical community would have ethically dealt with this already. That is MY opinion.**

 

[Spirithound]

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!”

You should read up on some women’s experiences with Planned Parenthood.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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

That is the whole issue. We see a lack of choice for the baby. It would appear many weigh the baby as a zero, while we care for the baby who is unable to care for itself.

 

[CWBetts]

Simply put, those in the pro-life camp sees abortion as murder. In other words, it is not an issue of legislating religous doctrine, but of human rights. The most basic right of all is that of life, especially innocent life. I base my view not on the Constitution, but on the Declaration of Independence, to wit: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that we are endowed by our Creator cetain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and persuit of happiness.” These rights are in descending order. That is life being the most important of these, and persuit of happiness beimng the least. In additon, I challenge anyone in favor of abortion to view highly graphic images of victims. If they offend you and cause you discomfort, then how can you defend the practice?
Furthermore, if the right to life is not protected, what meaning do any other rights have? Just imagine, if you were born after 1973, you could have been a victim. You survivied by the grace of God. Doesn’t it follow that survivors of a genocide do everything within their power to stop it?
Also, remember that not all rights are protected. Slander is not protected speech. Libel is not protected press. Neither is child pornography. Felons may not own firearms. Religous cults can have practices restricted if they harm others. Likewise, a woman’s right to choose is superceded by the infant’s right to life. The point that scares me is thst if infants within the womb are considered sub-human, who is next? The termanally ill? The mentally disabled? The blind? Stutterers? Christians?
The argument of rape, incest, or life of the mother also are fallicous. Rape and incest are horrible crimes, but the infant is not the perpetrator. The infant is the victim as well. Why should he or she be executed? As far as the life of the mother, when is it acceptable to murder one to save the life of another? I’m not talking about somone giving their own life to save another. When it comes down to it, this is murdering an innocent who has no say in the matter. Besides, I know of no parent who would not sacrifice thier own life to save their child.
For the argument that this is pro-choice, not pro-abortion, this argument makes no sense! Because the only choice involved is the choice to kill babies! If anyone can justify the continuance of abortion, I would sincerely like to hear your arguments.

 

[Ender]

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!”

I’m not sure I see a significant difference between this and saying “I want mothers to have the right to kill their babies if they so choose. Pro-choice!” In any event, as others have said, this isn’t an issue of the separation of church and state.

Ender

 

[Chris_LaRock]

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.

The issue of civil law and medical science could be used to make a case against abortion also. That’s how Godless Prolifers and other atheist pro-life groups argue the point.

 

[Ed_Rand]

I share your confusion in regards to abortion and the separation of Church and state. That a person deserves the rights of citizens at the moment of conception seems to be a belief that could only come about through one’s religion. Even when I was an agnostic, I was very against late-term abortions. It just sickens me. But the morning-after pill? it seemed like a godsend…

All I’m saying is this, reason alone would never have led me to believe that life begins at conception and that a person deserves the rights of the state at that moment. My religion has brought me to that point.

I fear for this country because it seems to me that it is nearly impossible to argue from rational and legal standpoints that a person deserves the rights of a citizen at the moment of conception.

 

[Ruthie]

Reason alone brought *me *to it…

When sperm meets egg, an entire and unique human genome is formed. I still have the same DNA that I had in my mother’s womb.

If it is wrong to deliberately kill a human whose DNA is not yet fully expressed once that person is *outside *the womb, then it is wrong to kill him or her *inside *the womb.

If it is permissible for us to kill the human in the womb because he/she is inconvenient, or embarrassing, or sick, or makes me sick, then…

Well, my DH has a cold, and wants me to wait on him, which is inconvenient. His bad jokes embarrass me. I might catch his cold… Where’s my .45?

• • • Just joking, sweetie! don’t look at me like that! Besides, it would make a mess on the rug.

God bless us all,

Ruthie, who would probably have been aborted if it had been legal in the early '50s… :sad_yes:

 

[RobbyS]

Reason alone brought *me *to it…

When sperm meets egg, an entire and unique human genome is formed. I still have the same DNA that I had in my mother’s womb.

If it is wrong to deliberately kill a human whose DNA is not yet fully expressed once that person is *outside *the womb, then it is wrong to kill him or her *inside *the womb.
s:

It was no accident that the first laws against abortion were enacted shortly after what you say was actually observed by a Belgium scientist. This was in the 1840s and the Texas statute overthrown by Roe v. Wade enacted in the 1850s. It was doctors, by the way, who led the charge, not preachers.

 

[puzzleannie]

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.” .

and many Americans, no matter what their religious beliefs, uphold the constitutional protection of the right to life, for all, including the unborn and infants (partial birth abortion kills a live infant, not a fetus) and upholds rights that do exist, not a mythical “right to choose murder” or “right to privacy” which are NOT even mentioned in the constitution. This election and laws of this country are based on this constitution, and the candidates elected must swear first and foremost to uphold that Constitution. All of it. Do not vote for a candidate who promises as his first action to attempt to enact laws that overturn these protections.

Please locate for me the provision in the Constitution which states “the right of an individual to murder an innocent human being shall not be abrogated because we all have right to choose who lives and who dies.”

 

[Ed_Rand]

Please locate for me the provision in the Constitution which states “the right of an individual to murder an innocent human being shall not be abrogated because we all have right to choose who lives and who dies.”

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.

 

[peter116]

A smart man once said…

“I noticed that all those who support abortion have already been born.”

 

[Genesis315]

Why couldn’t those neo -Nazi’s who were trying to kill Obama and other African American adults and children do what was right for them, and those of us who oppose what they were doing do what is right for us? They couldn’t do what they wanted to do for the same reason those who desire to have abortions performed should not have the right to do what they want to.

The state cannot separate itself from truth, goodness, and justice.

 

[Corki]

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.

You are absolutely right!

And while we’re at it, we shouldn’t force other people to believe what we do about rape, polygamy, child mutilation, infanticide or wife beating. After all, the laws against all of those things are just artifacts of the Judeo-Christian background of our country. Such acts are perfectly acceptable in some cultures.

(Sarcasm off )

And by the way, anyone who wants abortion defined as a “right” is pro-abortion no matter how much he/she wants to redefine the terms.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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?

Hi Kat,

When you boil this question down, the question becomes, “Do I have a duty to protect the innocent?” And yes, we have the duty to do what we can to protect the innocent from murder. Respecting the wishes of others is not a sufficient justification to allow them to kill others. We must act to stop the murder of the innocent using any legal means at our disposal.

When we start talking about tolerating murder, tolerance has gone too far. Tolerance is sometimes a good thing, but it is not more important than preserving life.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

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!”

I’ve been shocked and amazed to hear, on many occasions, people argue for an abortion. Women in less-than-ideal circumstances are frequently urged to abort.