That has become a popular distinction. I don’t think it can be sustained, but it is a popular distinction.Hi. To me Religion is a “structure” in which we practice our beliefs. I do believe a “Religion” can be separated from life and government, but it would be impossible to separate “beliefs” or “spirituality”. Hope that makes sense.Peace.
“illegal” is not across the board?
Quite often, no. For example, if I walk up to you in the street and shoot you, I’ve broken the law. If I walk up to you after you’ve broken in my house in the middle of the night and I shoot you, I’ve not broken the law. Does the latter situation invalidate laws against shooting people in general? Obviously not.
Are you then not for total prohibition by Fed. law? What then, is the punishment? (and for whom?) I know this has been dealt with here before. Making it illegal in every case will not eliminate it, that is for sure.
I am for abortion being completely illegal. The punishment should fall completely on the abortionist. Crush those providing illegal services, not those who are victimized by the providers. That making any act illegal doesn’t eliminate that act is irrelevant.
I guess what I am saying too, I would not want any church/Religion to be in charge of the Nation. As long as that does not happen and we still can practice our freedom of beliefs and spirituality we will be okay.
Peace.Only because laws have been passed in our Relativistic society are abortions not illegal. We have two value and moral systems here when we talk about abortion. In my system, abortion is the ending of the life of an unprotected human infant. Apparently in yours “anything” that makes life easier is legal, moral and valued, including abortions.
Your personal attack is well-noted, and not appreciated. It does not help the discussion, as Ender has said in another thread.
Murder is only tollerable if it is necesary to protect an innocent life. You could argue that abortion is appropriate when it is the only option to save the mother as long as reasonable efforts are made to protect the child after it is removed from the womb. But you can not reasonably argue that because on rare circumstances murdering the baby may be the only way to save the mother you have license to indiscriminately murder any and all prenatal babies.
That is a sickening precedent. to consider that people would take this approach in how they deal with their fellow man and then get government support. There are lots of people whose entry into the after life would make my life easier but I would never consider killing them.
If the life of the child is trying to be preserved after removal from the womb, then it is not a procured abortion.
Actually, I don’t think abortion is a religious issue. I would still be against it on ethical grounds, even if I was not religious.
The semantics of that are worth another entire thread or two. Abort the pregnancy but not the child? I was a big NASA fan growing up and it wasn’t till I was in my late teens that “abort” meant anything to me other than delay a count down of a launch; to be resumed later. you can abort launches with out destroying the rocket and crew. but back on topic…
Abortion is a matter of fundamental human rights. If we do not have the right to life, simply because we are living human beings, then we have no rights at all – mere privileges, which the state can grant or withhold at will.
Oh, sorry if I sounded obtuse, royal archer. I was simply trying to point out that abortion is a procedure to directly kill the human in the womb. Therefore, to deliver a human and attempt to keep the human alive is not categorized as abortion.
I apoligize for the personal statement. I was out of line. No excuse, other than a big mouth.
Peace.No, you didn’t sound that way. I just have a diverse background and am not a big fan of institutional definitions of terms that have many opportunities to be looked at from new ways. Our society is to polarized leaving out opportunity for new points of view. I just jumped on the opportunity to add a point of view that I feel is not getting as much air time as I feel it deserves. I also tend to think outside the bos so I find my self explaining a lot whether Ineed to or not.
Abort the pregnancy, not the child. That’s quite an catchy phrase. I can imagine in 25 years it might be a viable phrase.
My uneducated theory is that if both sides took all of the money they are putting into the current fight and put it into research development. The ability to abort a pregancy but spare the child migh be a reality. But that is not ot say it wouldn’t generate a whole bunch of other moral issues.Abort the pregnancy, not the child. That’s quite an catchy phrase. I can imagine in 25 years it might be a viable phrase.
Lets see:Abort the pregnancy, not the child. That’s quite an catchy phrase. I can imagine in 25 years it might be a viable phrase.