I’m actually against abortion in the third in second terms. In the first few weeks though it’s far more an issue of religion.
Abortion involves deciding where something becomes a human. I personally don’t think we can say so objectively without a heartbeat and brainwaves since the lack of those is what makes a person dead.
This is my point exactly: consistency.
“What makes a
person dead” doesn’t change the fact that the person is a person ontologically.
Humans are the only being in existence that your line of reasoning is applied to. We never hear anyone in your camp argue that when something has the chromosomal makeup of a dog, a cat, an elephant, or even a primate that they are not ontologically that form of being based only upon an arbitrary line we have drawn in their development. Their being consists in the fact that they ARE what they are no matter what stage of development they exist in.
This idea isn’t even applied to astronomy when scientists are so desperate in their search for “life” on other planets that the smallest single-celled organism is called “life”.
Yet when it comes to human persons what is considered by you to be a “person” is not based upon what we are ontologically but what you arbitrarily define as “life” for no other reason than to dehumanize so as to justify killing it.
Does it have the chromosomal makeup that it will become a human person? Does it have 23 chromosomes from a human father and 23 chromosomes from a human mother?
Then yes we can absolutely say that it is objectively a human person, regardless of your arbitrary and imaginary line.
The issue of homosexuality is you desiring to make something illegal between two consenting adults because of your beliefs.
That more than one person consents to doing something wholly against their nature doesn’t make it licit.
If a 40-year-old man and an 11-year-old girl are having “consensual” sex it’s still called statutory rape.
If a man is beating his wife, even though she “consents” to it by refusing to press charges, its still spousal abuse.
A woman selling her body for money or drugs is still prostitution, no matter if she and the “johns” she has sex with “consent” to it.
“Consent” is not a valid point of criteria for morality, period.
Also I AM NOT imposing on your beliefs unless I MAKE YOU HAVE AN ABORTION!!! This is like a baptist accusing other people of imposing on their beliefs because those other people drink alcohol and one is able to purchase alcohol.
That’s an absurd argument. It hardly matters if I have participated in an abortion or not, you’re still imposing your beliefs.
Just as during the Antebellum period in 1800’s those in the North had the idea of slavery imposed upon them by Southern democrats, even though they never owned a slave in their lives.
Yet the very same arguments that they used to endorse slavery, the dehumanizing rhetoric towards African-Americans, are the same arguments that people like you use in favor of abortion;“they’re not really human”, “you don’t have the right to impose your beliefs onto us”, etc.
“Freedom” doesn’t grant you the license for you to do as you please. It’s the responsibility to do what you ought.
It doesn’t grant you the right to commit immorality, nor does it free you from having the truth “imposed” upon you.
