Aactually the stated purpose of the State, at least in the United States, is to allow all citizens the unfettered right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. . Note that the first of these is the right to life from which all other rights flow.The job of the state is to ensure the efficient and cohesive operation of society. Does abortion disrupt society? No, as much as pro-lifers would like abortion to have negative physical side effects, there is precious little evidence to show that there are. Does murder (or any of its common synonyms) disrupt the operations of a society? Yes, and it is therefore an area the state can regulate.
The role of religion is to guide our moral choices. Catholicism is perfectly able to deny its members abortions, divorce, gay marriage, Freemason membership, contraceptive use, etc, but whether those are acceptable areas of government regulation is a separate question. If Catholics could legislate everything they wanted to according to moral principals alone, we would not live in a democracy, but a theocracy.
Not my cell phone reception. You’ll have to be more precise.Are you really asking if abortion disrupts society?? It disrupts everything.
lets just say for a second that every women who got pregnant from this point forward would decide to have abortion what would happen to society?Not my cell phone reception. You’ll have to be more precise.
This, of course, depends on what the society is willing to allow. Most people are uncomfortable with causing pain, so setting the limit according to when a fetus begins to feel pain (~20 weeks) is probably a fair restriction. Catholics obviously believe all abortions are equally immoral, but again, the laws are not supposed to implement a morality. What matters is that some limit is demanded, and 20 weeks is a compromise that gives the pro-lifers their limit while also allowing the pro-choicers to retain abortion.so should a women be able to have an abortion in the 3rd trimester
should late term abortions be legal
what about the 2nd trimester are abortions ok then.
1st trimester are they ok then?
Please explain your reasoning behind each position.
What was God thinking when he asked Mary? What if she had said no?lets just say for a second that every women who got pregnant from this point forward would decide to have abortion what would happen to society?
Your thesis is wrong from the get go in that your assumption that killing members of society causes no societal harm is unsupportable.This, of course, depends on what the society is willing to allow. Most people are uncomfortable with causing pain, so setting the limit according to when a fetus begins to feel pain (~20 weeks) is probably a fair restriction. Catholics obviously believe all abortions are equally immoral, but again, the laws are not supposed to implement a morality. What matters is that some limit is demanded, and 20 weeks is a compromise that gives the pro-lifers their limit while also allowing the pro-choicers to retain abortion.
My points, summarized, are these:
- In the absence of a societal harm, abortion is an entirely personal moral issue.
- The state should not have a say in personal moral issues.
- Religion does have a say in personal moral issues.
- Religion should follow the example of God
- God in this world commands, but does not compel, morality.
- Therefore religion should likewise demand, but not compel, morality.
so you say pain is a determinate factor when it comes to if abortion should be legal or not. Correct?This, of course, depends on what the society is willing to allow. Most people are uncomfortable with causing pain, so setting the limit according to when a fetus begins to feel pain (~20 weeks) is probably a fair restriction. Catholics obviously believe all abortions are equally immoral, but again, the laws are not supposed to implement a morality. What matters is that some limit is demanded, and 20 weeks is a compromise that gives the pro-lifers their limit while also allowing the pro-choicers to retain abortion.
My points, summarized, are these:
- In the absence of a societal harm, abortion is an entirely personal moral issue.
- The state should not have a say in personal moral issues.
- Religion does have a say in personal moral issues.
- Religion should follow the example of God
- God in this world commands, but does not compel, morality.
- Therefore religion should likewise demand, but not compel, morality.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”Aactually the stated purpose of the State, at least in the United States, is to allow all citizens the unfettered right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. . Note that the first of these is the right to life from which all other rights flow.
Standard pro-abortion claim that wanting to outlaw abortion is tantamount to imposing a theocracy is duly noted
Without the right to life all rights are meaningless. You insist on trying to treat abortion as if it was just another political issue to be worked out. it’s not. There is no right more basic than the right to life. The idea that we should stay out of the way and allow 1.2 million children a year have their right to life taken away is specious… We are under no obligation to accept your personal definition of what life deserves to be protected, nor do we have toaccede to the definition of life put forth by those who want to justify taking it away“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
In other words, as long as the people respect the laws enough to consent to them. There is no law *compelling *people to get abortions, because such a law would likely lead to some sort of revolt, most likely widespread civil disobedience. Likewise, a law *prohibiting *abortions would cause people to protest and circumvent the ban. The problem is that pro-life and pro-choice groups are both fairly large and very fervent in their beliefs. This is not a question of a few people being concerned about some local ordinance (they could live with it, they just have concerns) but rather they both believe the inalienable rights are at stake. What does our government do in this situation? Exactly what it should: stay out of the way and let the groups battle it out between themselves. The laws allow pro-choicers to get abortions, and allow the pro-lifers to not get abortions.
This impasse will not be resolved until one group can essentially convert the other.
It doesn’t matter what I think, pain is a frequently cited rationale for the limit. If that satisfies people enough for them to respect the law, then it is fine.so you say pain is a determinate factor when it comes to if abortion should be legal or not. Correct?
Now let me ask you a question, if you don’t mind, it may sound a little crazy but just go with me I have a point to this.
Would you say that its ok to kill someone who feels no pain?
ok I see, I could see how your opinion may not have much influence in society sometimes, but let me ask you this question lets say for a second the USA or where ever you live adapts a policy that all 2nd born children should be killed off. Would you sit around and say my opinion doesn’t matter so I’m going to let it happen, or would you get up and have something to say about it?It doesn’t matter what I think, pain is a frequently cited rationale for the limit. If that satisfies people enough for them to respect the law, then it is fine.
I read an interesting article by a doctor a while ago. He was saying that with modern life support systems, we can postpone the time of death basically indefinitely. More and more frequently, doctors are facing the decision of whether or not to withdraw “life-sustaining” treatment. They usually have a pretty good idea of which patients have a chance of recovery, but they really want a clear set of regulations which will allow them to make these decisions more easily and accurately. As time goes on, more and more deaths will come from the withdrawal of life support systems; prohibiting this will lead to an accumulation of patients with no chance of recovery. If we had advanced enough support systems, should we ever let anyone die?
I’m not advocating for mandatory abortions. You are completely free to both avoid them personally and campaign against them.Without the right to life all rights are meaningless. You insist on trying to treat abortion as if it was just another political issue to be worked out. it’s not. There is no right more basic than the right to life. The idea that we should stay out of the way and allow 1.2 million children a year have their right to life taken away is specious… We are under no obligation to accept your personal definition of what life deserves to be protected, nor do we have toaccede to the definition of life put forth by those who want to justify taking it away
Certainly I would oppose the decision, people ought to be able to decide the number of children they want.ok I see, I could see how your opinion may not have much influence in society sometimes, but let me ask you this question lets say for a second the USA or where ever you live adapts a policy that all 2nd born children should be killed off. Would you sit around and say my opinion doesn’t matter so I’m going to let it happen, or would you get up and have something to say about it?
I know your not but lets say that we lived in a country that mandates aborting a second child if you got pregnant with one. If you had the power to stop this policy or continue it what would you do. You have the final say so your opinion matters what would you do?I’m not advocating for mandatory abortions. You are completely free to both avoid them personally and campaign against them.
do you know why kids don’t get adopted?Consider, however, that the total number of children served by the US foster care system each year is around 400,000. Assuming, if abortion were made illegal, all the babies would be put up for adoption we would quadruple the number of kids in the foster care system. Since foster kids are dramatically more likely to end up homeless or criminal, making abortion illegal would definitely constitute a societal crisis.
csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0407/Crime-unemployment-homelessness-dog-ex-foster-care-youths
So? You are advocating the legality of women killing their children. Without the right to life all other rights are meaningless.I’m not advocating for mandatory abortions. You are completely free to both avoid them personally and campaign against them.
Consider, however, that the total number of children served by the US foster care system
It depends on how much power I had. Say the mandatory abortion was to mitigate chronic overpopulation. If I could replace the abortion law with some other incentive (e.g. a 2nd child tax) then I certainly would. If I knew there would be no replacement, there would be many, many complex considerations you’d have to make. Maybe the overpopulation is bad enough to cause some sort of public health crisis, such as an epidemic. However, if this were an entire country, instead of a city, then I would likely overturn it as it is highly unlikely the entire country is so dramatically overpopulated.I know your not but lets say that we lived in a country that mandates aborting a second child if you got pregnant with one. If you had the power to stop this policy or continue it what would you do. You have the final say so your opinion matters what would you do?
do you know why kids don’t get adopted?
Even the right to freely question the official policy that you are currently exercising?So? You are advocating the legality of women killing their children. Without the right to life all other rights are meaningless.
The number of children in foster care is menaingless unless you believe killing potential recipients is an acceptable solution to social problems.
ok I see I agree having these policies would reduce population, but let me ask this question would you also be ok with killing all the 2 year olds in a country to reduce population. just a simple yes or no will suffice.It depends on how much power I had. Say the mandatory abortion was to mitigate chronic overpopulation. If I could replace the abortion law with some other incentive (e.g. a 2nd child tax) then I certainly would. If I knew there would be no replacement, there would be many, many complex considerations you’d have to make. Maybe the overpopulation is bad enough to cause some sort of public health crisis, such as an epidemic. However, if this were an entire country, instead of a city, then I would likely overturn it as it is highly unlikely the entire country is so dramatically overpopulated.
Edit: Don’t go tearing down obstacles if you don’t know why they were put up.
no it because they are unwanted and the crippled adoption systems in this country.Kids don’t get adopted because few people have the combination of resources, capability, and desire it takes to adopt.
One denied the right to life can’t question anything.Even the right to freely question the official policy that you are currently exercising?