Morality of abortion

[Cope]

When you are making statements about what makes for a true Christian and what doesn't, you are determining the traditional moral framework of Christianity.

I'm merely reciting the position taken by the world's largest and most historic Christian institutions. Favouring the use of abortion as an alternative means of birth control is largely incongruent with traditional moral framework(s) of Christianity as outlined by its most significant and historic institutions. This is an uncontroversial statement which does not imply a determination on my part on the subject of Christ's elect.

And I am not too familiar with the Eastern Orthodoxy, but it seems as if the Papacy and the Church of England are at least ok with the idea of democratic nations being able to decide on abortion rights themselves, unlike the "Christians" in this thread.

Matthew 22:21 provides a clear scriptural basis for the separation of church and state (as was discussed here). I have not read any person in this thread expressing a view that supports the replacement of secular governance with religious rule.

And I never mentioned advocacy

I used the term advocacy to refer to the promotion of "abortion on demand". The purpose was to highlight that the church treats both the "sin" (in this case unnecessary abortion) and the encouragement to "sin" as being one and the same.

I don't care if it is something Christians actually want, it is just something they have to accept in our modern world. I care about not having zealots impose their will on peoples with different beliefs.

Voicing an opposition to abortion as an alternative to birth control is not synonymous with zealots imposing their beliefs.

It would be insane if the Pope started making demands of nations about their abortion rights, people would tell the papacy to right off.

Domestic opposition to legislation or legislative proposals is not comparable to an external institution with no sovereign authority outside of its own domain "making demands of nations".

See, anti-abortion people seem to take pride in their Christian roots for wanting to see an end to abortion without realizing it is a detriment to their cause.

The source of a Christian's moral reasoning cannot be a "detriment" to the causes inspired by Christian moral reasoning.

Do you know how suspicious it is that practically all pro-life movements are linked to Christian (perhaps some Muslims as well) churches? It heavily implies that there is a specific, cultural reason for opposing abortion rather than a general moral one. If it was just a general moral belief, you would have a much more diverse backing.

It isn't suspicious that the single most historically influential source of moral reasoning in Europe and the Americas (ie. Christ and His church) is associated with political movements concerned with moral and ethical questions. Christians do not oppose abortion (with limited exceptions) for "cultural reason[s]", they instead support the right to life for all human beings.

[The spartan]

I'm merely reciting the position taken by the world's largest and most historic Christian institutions. Favouring the use of abortion as an alternative means of birth control is largely incongruent with traditional moral framework(s) of Christianity as outlined by its most significant and historic institutions. This is an uncontroversial statement which does not imply a determination on my part on the subject of Christ's elect.

That's not what was being discussed. The position being pushed by those claiming Christian morality here is that abortion by choice should be illegal after conception. Full stop. And you are still trying to pass of your understanding of the issue as "traditional moral framework" when I have no reason to trust you are an authority of the matter. Polling, even in the religiously identitarian US, indicates that many, many Christians do not agree abortion by choice should be disallowed after conception. I don't think that is near as popular of a position with Christians overall as you are making it appear.

Matthew 22:21 provides a clear scriptural basis for the separation of church and state (as was discussed here). I have not read any person in this thread expressing a view that supports the replacement of secular governance with religious rule.

If you want the choice of abortion made illegal by the government, and citing the Bible as reasoning, you are trying to supplant a secular law with a religious one.

I used the term advocacy to refer to the promotion of "abortion on demand". The purpose was to highlight that the church treats both the "sin" (in this case unnecessary abortion) and the encouragement to "sin" as being one and the same.

I don't know of many people that promote "abortion on demand". This reminds me of the "pro-abortion" slur; people who want to defend the right to abortion are not typically going around telling people they should get abortions. The typically let individuals decide for themselves. I also resent the fact that Christians expect me to bow to their interpretations of what is sinful and not. Come back with something that doesn't require divine command theory, please.

Voicing an opposition to abortion as an alternative to birth control is not synonymous with zealots imposing their beliefs.

Then you aren't on the same page with the guys here that want it to be illegal to get an abortion by choice after conception.

Domestic opposition to legislation or legislative proposals is not comparable to an external institution with no sovereign authority outside of its own domain "making demands of nations".

Good, then the pro-choice people should feel safe as they are almost always in the majority in most of the West. That doesn't apply to the US, obviously, where there are fervent organizations doing everything they can legally and extra-legally who want to impose their will on the majority through law.

The source of a Christian's moral reasoning cannot be a "detriment" to the causes inspired by Christian moral reasoning.

Not the Christian moral reasoning, the cultural representation. Again, it isn't all Christians who believe abortion by choice is wrong, just certain groups of them. The groups tend to be...socially traditional, lets say, which makes sense when you look at the countries that have severe restrictions on abortion. It makes me wonder if the motivation to disallow abortion is really something else besides "protecting unborn lives" or promoting scripture.

It isn't suspicious that the single most historically influential source of moral reasoning in Europe and the Americas (ie. Christ and His church) is associated with political movements concerned with moral and ethical questions.

It isn't "Christians" though, it is just some of them. That is the suspicious part. And seeing how regional the opposition to abortion is in the US, I would be willing to bet money on it being a cultural issue. I can even put down a pretty good predictor for these regions (even for outside the US): what is the regional opinion on open female sexuality? If it is negative, then you have a strong correlation between that and demands for restricting abortion. If it is positive or people don't care, you will see a far less demand for limiting abortion access. Seems to be a better predictor than "being Christian", anyways.

Christians do not oppose abortion (with limited exceptions) for "cultural reason[s]", they instead support the right to life for all human beings.

You mean Christians like yourself? Because it isn't Christians in general. You keep trying to pass off "your Christianity" as if it is "all Christianity". Classic move.

[Cope]

That's not what was being discussed. The position being pushed by those claiming Christian morality here is that abortion by choice should be illegal after conception. Full stop. And you are still trying to pass of your understanding of the issue as "traditional moral framework" when I have no reason to trust you are an authority of the matter. Polling, even in the religiously identitarian US, indicates that many, many Christians do not agree abortion by choice should be disallowed after conception. I don't think that is near as popular of a position with Christians overall as you are making it appear.

As I've made clear, I'm not disclosing my personal understanding of the Bible or scriptural doctrine: I'm reciting the official views of the largest Christian institutions on earth. That a significant number of people who identify as Christian currently hold views which contradict the views of the major churches is a concern for organized religion, but not one which says much about the traditional position of Christianity on the issue of abortion.

I would, however, like to hear a self-identifying pro-choice Christian explain how abortions on demand can be morally reconciled with the teachings of Christ. I have seen scriptural justifications for not treating parents who choose to abort a child as criminals (a position I agree with), though not one which justifies unnecessary abortion.

If you want the choice of abortion made illegal by the government, and citing the Bible as reasoning, you are trying to supplant a secular law with a religious one.

The secular world can legislate on the basis of any moral reasoning it chooses (including Christian reasoning) and still be secular. We don't say that the United States is theocratic because many (if not most) of its voters and legislators are influenced by religious reasoning in their decision making. What undermines secularism is when the institution of the church adopts a direct legislative role in government.

I don't know of many people that promote "abortion on demand".This reminds me of the "pro-abortion" slur; people who want to defend the right to abortion are not typically going around telling people they should get abortions. The typically let individuals decide for themselves.

It was the most erudite phrase I could conjure to describe the availability of abortion for any reason and at almost any time during a pregnancy. Henceforth I'll try to use the phrase "abortion by choice" (as you have) in our interactions.

I also resent the fact that Christians expect me to bow to their interpretations of what is sinful and not.

I don't expect you to bow to the church's interpretation of what is sinful or not.

Come back with something that doesn't require divine command theory, please.

Many months ago I offered you an argument which was not grounded in religious reasoning and you rejected it on the basis that an unborn human is not a person.

Then you aren't on the same page with the guys here that want it to be illegal to get an abortion by choice after conception.

The people posting on this forum are voicing an opinion. I have not witnessed any imposition beyond that.

Good, then the pro-choice people should feel safe as they are almost always in the majority in most of the West.

I don't think anyone has argued that pro-choice advocates are legitimate targets for violence or abuse: I certainly don't think they should be.

That doesn't apply to the US, obviously, where there are fervent organizations doing everything they can legally and extra-legally who want to impose their will on the majority through law.

That reads more like a complaint against the mechanics of government than anything else.

Not the Christian moral reasoning, the cultural representation. Again, it isn't all Christians who believe abortion by choice is wrong, just certain groups of them. The groups tend to be...socially traditional, lets say, which makes sense when you look at the countries that have severe restrictions on abortion. It makes me wonder if the motivation to disallow abortion is really something else besides "protecting unborn lives" or promoting scripture.

Their motivation is their adherence to the traditional teachings of the world's most prominent Christian institutions - which would correlate with my claim that the traditional moral framework of Christianity prohibits "abortion by choice".

It isn't "Christians" though, it is just some of them. That is the suspicious part.

As a person who doesn't often consider the tenants of my own faith thoroughly, allow me to claim that it isn't suspicious that some people consider the tenants of their faith more thoroughly than others. And to reiterate, if a Christian who does not oppose abortion "by choice" wants to offer a scriptural rationale for their view, I'd be interested to hear it.

And seeing how regional the opposition to abortion is in the US, I would be willing to bet money on it being a cultural issue. I can even put down a pretty good predictor for these regions (even for outside the US): what is the regional opinion on open female sexuality? If it is negative, then you have a strong correlation between that and demands for restricting abortion. If it is positive or people don't care, you will see a far less demand for limiting abortion access. Seems to be a better predictor than "being Christian", anyways.

Views on sexuality have been historically determined by church teachings. Regions which identify more strongly with traditional church teachings and practices are more likely to have "conservative" views on both sexuality and abortion because traditional church teachings on those subjects tend to be conservative. The cultural perspectives you're referring to are, I would suggest, derived from religious expressions.

You mean Christians like yourself? Because it isn't Christians in general. You keep trying to pass off "your Christianity" as if it is "all Christianity". Classic move.

I would appreciate it if you didn't constantly assign the worst intentions to my words. When I stated that "Christians do not oppose abortions for cultural reasons" I wasn't attempting to imply that pro-choice Christians aren't Christian. Allow me to amend the statement for clarity: the Christians who oppose abortion do not typically do so for "cultural reasons", they instead support the right to life for all human beings.

[Prodromos]

You mean Christians like yourself? Because it isn't Christians in general. You keep trying to pass off "your Christianity" as if it is "all Christianity". Classic move.

Imagine thinking that Christianity is simply a matter of self-identification, as if it were a fandom or football team or something.

48% of Catholics think abortion should be legal in all or most cases? Lmao.

Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62).

Notice also how it's the least religious or practicing "Christians" who support abortion. It's almost as if they don't really give a crap about Christianity.

[The spartan]

As I've made clear, I'm not disclosing my personal understanding of the Bible or scriptural doctrine: I'm reciting the official views of the largest Christian institutions on earth. That a significant number of people who identify as Christian currently hold views which contradict the views of the major churches is a concern for organized religion, but not one which says much about the traditional position of Christianity on the issue of abortion.

I think you quoted the Catholic Church, which still does not push for legal consequences for abortion. Look, if you want to say something like "Christians generally disagree with abortion", I would be ok with that. That isn't what is being put forth in this thread. You gotta keep the goal in focus: it is to make abortion by choice illegal, remember? The Catholic Church isn't going to help you much with that.

I would, however, like to hear a self-identifying pro-choice Christian explain how abortions on demand can be morally reconciled with the teachings of Christ. I have seen scriptural justifications for not treating parents who choose to abort a child as criminals (a position I agree with), though not one which justifies unnecessary abortion.

They apparently exist. I knew quite a few socially liberal Christians back in the day, but we never really talked specifically about abortion. As with all denominations of Christianity, I would imagine it is a matter of interpretation and weighting of specific sections of a Bible. Christians can't even agree on if God has a human representative on Earth.

The secular world can legislate on the basis of any moral reasoning it chooses (including Christian reasoning) and still be secular. We don't say that the United States is theocratic because many (if not most) of its voters and legislators are influenced by religious reasoning in their decision making. What undermines secularism is when the institution of the church adopts a direct legislative role in government.

Wait, how do you have reasoning solely from a religious text and still consider it secular?

I don't expect you to bow to the church's interpretation of what is sinful or not.

If you want laws removing abortions by choice (as described in Roe v Wade) based on scripture in the Bible, you do.

Many months ago I offered you an argument which was not grounded in religious reasoning and you rejected it on the basis that an unborn human is not a person.

You presented a secular argument as to why a fertilized embryo is a person? I don't recall that at all.

Especially considering your blase attitude towards in vitro fertilization, your moral reasoning seems rather arbitrary.

The people posting on this forum are voicing an opinion. I have not witnessed any imposition beyond that.

Lovely non-response, but it is kinda important for me to know what page you are on because you jumped into a conversation about why abortion by choice (and probably a bit beyond that) should be illegal. If you don't care for the legality

I don't think anyone has argued that pro-choice advocates are legitimate targets for violence or abuse: I certainly don't think they should be.

I meant feel safe about the legal status of abortion. In the US, many people don't feel safe about their legal access to abortion; the justification of such fear depending on what region of the country they are.

That reads more like a complaint against the mechanics of government than anything else.

It sort of is, the Religious Right has moved heavily into politics in recent years, especially in state governments of the South. Ever since pledging their service to POTUS Trump, the Religious Right has demonstrated they are far more of a political organization than a religious one. I guess they learned that consistent world views are not very pragmatic in politics, so they tossed them all aside.

Their motivation is their adherence to the traditional teachings of the world's most prominent Christian institutions - which would correlate with my claim that the traditional moral framework of Christianity prohibits "abortion by choice".

Ok, we are having a failure of communication here, when you use terms like "Christians" or "Church", you can't just be referring to conservative adherents to those groups. They all count, and I am interested in the pragmatic implications of Christianity; i.e. what Christians practice and do. So sure, if you want to say that conservative Christians or Christian traditionalists are against medical abortion by choice, then sure, I can buy that argument. It isn't particularly impressive argument; traditionalist Muslims are also against very against abortion rights as well. Social conservatives tend to be against liberal female sexuality.

I should add that since we are discussing traditional Christian views of abortion, historic views on abortion are quite interesting and seem to bleed over to today's views. You notice from pro-life activates that they focus their scorn on medical establishments that provide abortion services and are less harsh on women who self-abort (otherwise known as inducing a miscarriage). There is historical precedent of that because that is what abortion used to be; a woman inducing miscarriage because she thought another child would be detrimental to the family, or really whatever reason she decided, and that was something everybody knew happened. It was incredibly impolite to ask or accuse a woman of doing so as it was considered none of your business. Do you agree with that? That women inducing miscarriage is acceptable if she does it herself?

As a person who doesn't often consider the tenants of my own faith thoroughly, allow me to claim that it isn't suspicious that some people consider the tenants of their faith more thoroughly than others.

Then it isn't anything particularly core to the faith, now is it? And let's not pretend conservative Christians don't have beliefs and opinions that go against their tenants, Donald Trump and his wall are too popular with them, for that.

Views on sexuality have been historically determined by church teachings. Regions which identify more strongly with traditional church teachings and practices are more likely to have "conservative" views on both sexuality and abortion because traditional church teachings on those subjects tend to be conservative. The cultural perspectives you're referring to are, I would suggest, derived from religious expressions.

Yes, that is what I am saying, it has more to do with cultural persuasion than "being Christian".

I would appreciate it if you didn't constantly assign the worst intentions to my words. When I stated that "Christians do not oppose abortions for cultural reasons" I wasn't attempting to imply that pro-choice Christians aren't Christian. Allow me to amend the statement for clarity: the Christians who oppose abortion do not typically do so for "cultural reasons",

If you are saying that you believe pro-choice Christians are just as "Christian" as pro-life Christians, then we have been talking past each other.

they instead support the right to life for all human beings.

See, now it feels like a trick because of your comments on in vitro. If you really believed all fertilized embryos (and above) are equally human beings, the process of in vitro fertilization would, at the very least, seem much more terrifying and serious to you than it did. I can't think of many other aspects of society in which we kill dozens of human beings (I still prefer the term 'persons') for the sake of one other. Not that that is even necessarily essential to the procedure of in vitro anyways; you could do it with less embryo destruction.

Imagine thinking that Christianity is simply a matter of self-identification, as if it were a fandom or football team or something.

48% of Catholics think abortion should be legal in all or most cases? Lmao.

Have you heard of how conversion missions play out? That is basically what it is: say the right words, and one is Christian. Did you think Christian practices were vastly different for no reason? Religion is a rather nebulous thing. The most formal Christian organization that exists is disavowed by huge portions of other Christians, yourself included.

Notice also how it's the least religious or practicing "Christians" who support abortion. It's almost as if they don't really give a crap about Christianity.

Right, you are still saying you have the true Christianity and the others are pretenders. Think of this from an outsider's perspective: people who call themselves Christians declare that these other people who call themselves Christians are wrong in their beliefs. How often has that happened over the years? All the time, you say? Doesn't sound like a particularly powerful position to hold.

[Prodromos]

Have you heard of how conversion missions play out? That is basically what it is: say the right words, and one is Christian. Did you think Christian practices were vastly different for no reason? Religion is a rather nebulous thing. The most formal Christian organization that exists is disavowed by huge portions of other Christians, yourself included.

Right, you are still saying you have the true Christianity and the others are pretenders. Think of this from an outsider's perspective: people who call themselves Christians declare that these other people who call themselves Christians are wrong in their beliefs. How often has that happened over the years? All the time, you say? Doesn't sound like a particularly powerful position to hold.

Could you define "Christianity"? Because judging by the bolded part, your understanding of Christianity seems to be that it's nothing more than a label; meaning, anyone who identifies as a Christian is automatically a Christian, part of a unified global Christian population, regardless of their beliefs.

That's certainly not how I see it. Other people may identify as "Christian", but when I talk about Christianity in this thread I'm not speaking of the label "Christian", I'm talking about a specific belief system. Other people may have different belief systems that are also named "Christianity", and so those people are "Christian", but those belief systems have different core doctrines from the one I'm speaking of here, so these are very different "Christianities." They're completely different religions, they just have a similar name.

[Sir Adrian]

Have you heard of how conversion missions play out? That is basically what it is: say the right words, and one is Christian.

Lol, absolutely not. Just saying the words without actually meaning and living them is about as far away from Christianity as you can get (PS: the Jesus cults of North America are not valid forms of Christianity).

Right, you are still saying you have the true Christianity and the others are pretenders. Think of this from an outsider's perspective: people who call themselves Christians declare that these other people who call themselves Christians are wrong in their beliefs. How often has that happened over the years? All the time, you say? Doesn't sound like a particularly powerful position to hold.

And if you understood the original message of Christianity and studied its history you would see why those people are wrong in their belief. Shouting Jesus as loud as you can does not make one a Christian, just like changing your name to Arnold does not make you ripped.

[The spartan]

Could you define "Christianity"? Because judging by the bolded part, your understanding of Christianity seems to be that it's nothing more than a label; meaning, anyone who identifies as a Christian is automatically a Christian, part of a unified global Christian population, regardless of their beliefs.

A Christian is, on paper, anyone who accepts Jesus Christ of Nazareth as their lord and savior. Beyond that, Christians of history have pretty much been anything and everything. There is a rather explicit commandment of "thou shalt not kill" that Christians frequently break, even in the name of Jesus, and are still considered Christians afterwards, so apparently your moral system can be whatever and the society at large will still treat you as 'Christian'.

That's certainly not how I see it. Other people may identify as "Christian", but when I talk about Christianity in this thread I'm not speaking of the label "Christian", I'm talking about a specific belief system.

I am sure that isn't how you see it, you believe the particularly version of Christianity you believe in is correct while others are wrong, like many Christians before you. You are the "true Christian" and others are just pretenders, very origianl idea.

By the way, are you familiar with the passage of Matthew 7:5? You want to recite it for me, please?

Lol, absolutely not. Just saying the words without actually meaning and living them is about as far away from Christianity as you can get (PS: the Jesus cults of North America are not valid forms of Christianity).

Oh, so you can clarify for me, oh authority on Christianity; do True Christians believe God has a mortal representative here on Earth that heads the Church, or don't they?

There have been a lot of people over the years that has preached different practices under the umbrella of "Christianity", some of them got their own denominations.

And if you understood the original message of Christianity and studied its history you would see why those people are wrong in their belief. Shouting Jesus as loud as you can does not make one a Christian, just like changing your name to Arnold does not make you ripped.

Then I don't know how, or particularly care, to distinguish Christians in society. I will give you a short anecdote: I was raised Methodist until my teen years and had a good friend who went the same church and believed basically the same things I believed, spiritually. For various reasons, my family stopped going to church and sorta stopped referring to ourselves as Christians. I was more or less considered an Atheist (I prefer Pantheism, though) by society while my friend who still went to church, who agreed with me on most important philosophical points about Christianity, was still considered Christian by everyone who met them.

People who make declarations about the True beliefs of Christianity are a dime-a-dozen, I look to who pragmatically gets labelled as Christian in society to identify Christians. Determining which "True believers" are in fact that seems way too complicated and way to egocentric; people are going to naturally think the Christians most similar to themselves are the true ones, as with any religious distinction.

[Prodromos]

A Christian is, on paper, anyone who accepts Jesus Christ of Nazareth as their lord and savior. Beyond that, Christians of history have pretty much been anything and everything. There is a rather explicit commandment of "thou shalt not kill" that Christians frequently break, even in the name of Jesus, and are still considered Christians afterwards, so apparently your moral system can be whatever and the society at large will still treat you as 'Christian'.
I am sure that isn't how you see it, you believe the particularly version of Christianity you believe in is correct while others are wrong, like many Christians before you. You are the "true Christian" and others are just pretenders, very origianl idea.

By the way, are you familiar with the passage of Matthew 7:5? You want to recite it for me, please?

How did you discover the true definition of a Christian? What if someone identifies as Christian but doesn't accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior? What right do you have to say they aren't a true Christian?

[Aexodus]

I think within the religious debate, we should stay away from ‘who is Christian’ and move towards ‘what is christian’.

Can abortion be justified in christian morality?

[Gaidin]

Can abortion be justified in christian morality?

Does it matter? In the western world we do not live in a society that is legally based on and required to hump the bible. We're secular. You want this to matter, pick the proper third world country that hasn't had this kind of societal revelation yet. Move there. Follow their laws.

[Prodromos]

Does it matter? In the western world we do not live in a society that is legally based on and required to hump the bible. We're secular. You want this to matter, pick the proper third world country that hasn't had this kind of societal revelation yet. Move there. Follow their laws.

Are you going to make us?

[Gaidin]

Are you going to make us?

Nah. Just don't make me follow the Bible. There's a reason I live where I live. Just don't be shocked when all rulings don't go your way. You know, when the court says the states can legally handle third term abortions as they see fit. And lo and behold, they do.

Let's get something straight. You guys are happy as all frak when those states are running people into the next state to get the medical service they need. But when states free up services legally?

Whine whine whine whine whine.

[Cope]

I think you quoted the Catholic Church, which still does not push for legal consequences for abortion. Look, if you want to say something like "Christians generally disagree with abortion", I would be ok with that. That isn't what is being put forth in this thread. You gotta keep the goal in focus: it is to make abortion by choice illegal, remember? The Catholic Church isn't going to help you much with that.

The purpose of this thread was/is to discuss the ethical issues surrounding abortion. The Latin church doesn't have to explicitly support restrictive legislation in order for it to view the practice as sinful - not that I would refer my grievances to the Papacy anyway since I'm not a Catholic.

They apparently exist. I knew quite a few socially liberal Christians back in the day, but we never really talked specifically about abortion. As with all denominations of Christianity, I would imagine it is a matter of interpretation and weighting of specific sections of a Bible. Christians can't even agree on if God has a human representative on Earth.

Schisms within Christendom are typically caused by structural, cultural or liturgical disagreements rather than scriptural ethics. This is why even churches which appear to diverge wildly on matters of ceremony and doctrine are in agreement on the sanctity of life as it applies to the abortion debate. Virtually every major Christian movement from Roman Catholicism to Mormonism, to Anglicanism, Calvinism, and Eastern Orthodoxy agree that the deliberate ending of a pregnancy is only morally permissible in extreme circumstances.

Wait, how do you have reasoning solely from a religious text and still consider it secular?

The separation of church and state (ie. secularism) precludes the church from exerting direct authority in government: it does not imply the presumption of atheist rationale in policy making.

If you want laws removing abortions by choice (as described in Roe v Wade) based on scripture in the Bible, you do.

This sentiment can be broadly applied to the advocates of any legislation with an ethical dimension: the moral standards of some are always supplanted by those of others.

You presented a secular argument as to why a fertilized embryo is a person? I don't recall that at all.

I presented an irreligious argument explaining why the right to life should be extended to zygote's.

Especially considering your blase attitude towards in vitro fertilization, your moral reasoning seems rather arbitrary.

The IVF argument was the effective equivalent of claiming that historic rates of infant mortality rates ought to have discouraged pro-life advocates from attempting to reproduce.

Lovely non-response, but it is kinda important for me to know what page you are on because you jumped into a conversation about why abortion by choice (and probably a bit beyond that) should be illegal. If you don't care for the legality...

This is a discussion among video game players: I doubt any member of this conversation occupies an institutional position which provides them with legislative influence and/or power. If that assumption is correct, then no one here is in a position to impose anything upon you.

I meant feel safe about the legal status of abortion. In the US, many people don't feel safe about their legal access to abortion; the justification of such fear depending on what region of the country they are.

I find it very unlikely that the United States will criminalize abortion in the near future.

It sort of is, the Religious Right has moved heavily into politics in recent years, especially in state governments of the South. Ever since pledging their service to POTUS Trump, the Religious Right has demonstrated they are far more of a political organization than a religious one. I guess they learned that consistent world views are not very pragmatic in politics, so they tossed them all aside.

Religion has played a significant role in American politics from the inception of the nation. The way in which it informed moral perspectives and political decisions was far more pronounced historically than it is today.

Ok, we are having a failure of communication here, when you use terms like "Christians" or "Church", you can't just be referring to conservative adherents to those groups. They all count, and I am interested in the pragmatic implications of Christianity; i.e. what Christians practice and do. So sure, if you want to say that conservative Christians or Christian traditionalists are against medical abortion by choice, then sure, I can buy that argument. It isn't particularly impressive argument; traditionalist Muslims are also against very against abortion rights as well. Social conservatives tend to be against liberal female sexuality.

The claim that Christian traditionalists typically oppose abortion by choice isn't intended to be an "impressive argument": it's a statement of fact.

I should add that since we are discussing traditional Christian views of abortion, historic views on abortion are quite interesting and seem to bleed over to today's views. You notice from pro-life activates that they focus their scorn on medical establishments that provide abortion services and are less harsh on women who self-abort (otherwise known as inducing a miscarriage). There is historical precedent of that because that is what abortion used to be; a woman inducing miscarriage because she thought another child would be detrimental to the family, or really whatever reason she decided, and that was something everybody knew happened. It was incredibly impolite to ask or accuse a woman of doing so as it was considered none of your business. Do you agree with that? That women inducing miscarriage is acceptable if she does it herself?

Despite the fact that traditions are by definition historic (at least to some extent), there is nevertheless a distinction to be made between traditional and historic. My not being bound by Medievalism, for instance, isn't an indication that I disagree with a traditional view - it might simply be that the tradition I adhere to is younger than the 15th century.

As to the point at hand, I do not agree that women who have abortions should be criminalized.

Then it isn't anything particularly core to the faith, now is it? And let's not pretend conservative Christians don't have beliefs and opinions that go against their tenants, Donald Trump and his wall are too popular with them, for that.

The sanctity of life is, I would say, particularly core to the Christian faith. That said, to identify as Christian one need only believe that he follows the word of Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding, there is a difference between self-identification and election.

The parable of the Sower and the Seed, Matt. 13: 1-24, offers a scriptural explanation:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

³ And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

⁴ And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

⁵ Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth

⁶ And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

⁷ And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

⁸ But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

¹⁸ Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

¹⁹ When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

²⁰ But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

²¹ Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

²² He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

²³ But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Yes, that is what I am saying, it has more to do with cultural persuasion than "being Christian".

Views on sexuality and family are typically informed by religion. Christianity is itself an integral part of many cultures.

If you are saying that you believe pro-choice Christians are just as "Christian" as pro-life Christians, then we have been talking past each other.

See the parable of the Sower and the Seed which I posted above.

My view is that scripture does not allow for abortion by choice (a view which is shared by the most significant Christian churches). Even if it did allow for it, I would still object on the basis that the wanton destruction of human life is irreconcilable to my conscience. That is because I place value in human potential, and lament to see that potential avoidably destroyed. Others seem to think the only thing that matters is if human can either experience pain or if he/she conforms to their arbitrarily constructed notion of "personhood".

See, now it feels like a trick because of your comments on in vitro. If you really believed all fertilized embryos (and above) are equally human beings, the process of in vitro fertilization would, at the very least, seem much more terrifying and serious to you than it did.

Please refer to my previous comments on that. I would prefer it if IVF was more efficient, but since its intention and indeed outcome is the facilitation of new life, IVF is not objectionable. If I was terrified by a life-giving procedure, I'd be completely overwhelmed by the rest of the world.

I can't think of many other aspects of society in which we kill dozens of human beings (I still prefer the term 'persons') for the sake of one other. Not that that is even necessarily essential to the procedure of in vitro anyways; you could do it with less embryo destruction.

Even if you could demonstrate that medical professionals were needlessly destroying embryos during the IVF process, I still wouldn't oppose IVF - I'd oppose the needless destruction of embryos. And if the loss of life during the process is inadvertent but ultimately necessary to facilitate new life (which it in fact is) then said loss cannot be said to be needless. The same ethical reasoning is applied vis-a-vis abortion in cases of medical complications which threaten the life of the mother: the loss of a child in such cases is neither needless or wanton. What you appear to believe is that I should rather have no IVF life exist than risk deaths by IVF. That's logically comparable to suggesting that I'd rather humanity didn't exist than risk people performing abortions.

[Aexodus]

Does it matter? In the western world we do not live in a society that is legally based on and required to hump the bible. We're secular. You want this to matter, pick the proper third world country that hasn't had this kind of societal revelation yet. Move there. Follow their laws.

Seeing as I’m not a Christian I don’t think I’ll do that.

[Prodromos]

Nah. Just don't make me follow the Bible. There's a reason I live where I live. Just don't be shocked when all rulings don't go your way. You know, when the court says the states can legally handle third term abortions as they see fit. And lo and behold, they do.

Let's get something straight. You guys are happy as all frak when those states are running people into the next state to get the medical service they need. But when states free up services legally?

Whine whine whine whine whine.

All laws are simply one group of people imposing their beliefs on everyone else. Unless you're an anarchist of some sort, then you probably don't have a problem with people imposing their beliefs on everyone else, as long as they are your beliefs. Difference is my beliefs are actually just God's commands. I want abortion to be illegal everywhere for the same reason I want rape, assault and slavery illegal everywhere. If you mess with one person, you make it everyone else's problem. So you don't get to attack an innocent person and then complain when other people intervene.

The government's courts can say whatever the heck they want to say, I really don't care. No matter how the courts decide, the truth is unchanging. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

"The Supreme Court of the United States is not the only power in this world. It is very great, but the Supreme Court of the Almighty is greater. Judge Taney can do many things, but he cannot perform impossibilities. He cannot bale out the ocean, annihilate the firm old earth, or pluck the silvery star of liberty from our Northern sky. He may decide, and decide again; but he cannot reverse the decision of the Most High. He cannot change the essential nature of things— making evil good, and good evil.

Happily for the whole human family, their rights have been defined, declared, and decided in a court higher than the Supreme Court."

- Frederick Douglass's response to Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

[Gaidin]

No matter how the courts decide, the truth is unchanging.

The truth is what you interpret it to be. Facts are unchanging. Fact is, after Roe v. Wade came about, back alley and very dangerous abortions went down. Even now, very dangerous abortions bordering on surgical that save mothers lives are very necessary and many states run mothers into other states to get them. Because those states don't give two damns about the mothers health and are very willing to risk the mothers health for a baby that's already dead, will be born dead, or won't live longer than five minutes. And if Roe v. Wade gets reversed, back alley very dangerous abortions will skyrocket again. These are facts. Whatever truth you believe in, you can not argue with these facts.

[The spartan]

How did you discover the true definition of a Christian? What if someone identifies as Christian but doesn't accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior? What right do you have to say they aren't a true Christian?

It doesn't particularly matter to me. From the outside, Christianity looks pretty much like the other religions (Islam, most notably). Some people called Christians, some other group of Christians says they are wrong, and they fight and call each other false Christians.

And did you look up Matthew 7:5? Good stuff.

The purpose of this thread was/is to discuss the ethical issues surrounding abortion. The Latin church doesn't have to explicitly support restrictive legislation in order for it to view the practice as sinful - not that I would refer my grievances to the Papacy anyway since I'm not a Catholic.

I know what the thread is about, we were specifically discussing something. You believe there should be heavy legal restrictions on abortion. A lot of other Christians don't agree.

Schisms within Christendom are typically caused by structural, cultural or liturgical disagreements rather than scriptural ethics. This is why even churches which appear to diverge wildly on matters of ceremony and doctrine are in agreement on the sanctity of life as it applies to the abortion debate. Virtually every major Christian movement from Roman Catholicism to Mormonism, to Anglicanism, Calvinism, and Eastern Orthodoxy agree that the deliberate ending of a pregnancy is only morally permissible in extreme circumstances.

Did you see that poll? A ton of Christians are ok with abortion by choice. Your response seems to accuse them of not sticking with the faith.

The separation of church and state (ie. secularism) precludes the church from exerting direct authority in government: it does not imply the presumption of atheist rationale in policy making.

Hold up now, we were discussing the moral motivation here, not governments. You aren't using a secular moral framework, you depend on a religious one. See Divine Command Theory. It isn't very productive to argue moral quandaries with such people.

This sentiment can be broadly applied to the advocates of any legislation with an ethical dimension: the moral standards of some are always supplanted by those of others.

What? Yes, moral standards produced in religious scripture are not secular.

I presented an irreligious argument explaining why the right to life should be extended to zygote's.

Sure didn't seem that way.

The IVF argument was the effective equivalent of claiming that historic rates of infant mortality rates ought to have discouraged pro-life advocates from attempting to reproduce.

No it's not, IVF is a procedure we have control over and can regulate. We are literally killing babies, by your definition, to do it. Not "potential babies" literal human beings, again, by your definitions. You are ok with that but not ok with abortion by choice, it makes me think your motives aren't really about reducing unborn fatalities.

This is a discussion among video game players: I doubt any member of this conversation occupies an institutional position which provides them with legislative influence and/or power. If that assumption is correct, then no one here is in a position to impose anything upon you.

If they are US citizens, they can very much impose their will on me through voting. Institutions are there to protect me, and others, from that, but recent years showed us institutions are weak.

I find it very unlikely that the United States will criminalize abortion in the near future.

Nationally? Maybe, depends on how hard conservative Christians can stack the supreme court, and they are trying. Individual States are in much more jeopardy. I kinda treat the political issue much like I treat gun control: the cats out of the bag and people who oppose it really need to give up trying to remove it. It won't happen. The literal most conservatives can do to get rid of abortion is to push it underground, which there is very much a black market waiting to cater to those needs. You know, like the good old days.

Religion has played a significant role in American politics from the inception of the nation. The way in which it informed moral perspectives and political decisions was far more pronounced historically than it is today.

Well no, the founding fathers were not really what you could consider modern conservative Christians to be. Nor was moral reasoning that stunted by that point (this was post enlightenment, after all), they knew murder was wrong outside of it being commanded so by God. They were aware of secular reasoning, and indeed seemed to prefer for political affairs. See, that is the appeal with secular moral reasoning: it can apply broadly across people with different religious persuasions.

The claim that Christian traditionalists typically oppose abortion by choice isn't intended to be an "impressive argument": it's a statement of fact.

If it is trying to be used as an argument, it should be impressive. Otherwise, you aren't going to convince anybody not of your particular religious background. And if you are doing the same exact thing as every other religiously motivated person out there, it will be hard to notice your argument. You are just another Christian saying we should understand Christianity the way you do.

Despite the fact that traditions are by definition historic (at least to some extent), there is nevertheless a distinction to be made between traditional and historic. My not being bound by Medievalism, for instance, isn't an indication that I disagree with a traditional view - it might simply be that the tradition I adhere to is younger than the 15th century.

Yes, and much younger than Christianity.

As to the point at hand, I do not agree that women who have abortions should be criminalized.

So if we get to the point where a woman can self-abort at home safely, effectively, and cheaply, you think that should be allowed under law?

The sanctity of life is, I would say, particularly core to the Christian faith. That said, to identify as Christian one need only believe that he follows the word of Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding, there is a difference between self-identification and election.

Please, the sanctity of life is central to many religions, Christianity isn't special in that regard. Jews place sanctity on life but are far more lax on abortion regulations than Christians, on average. Secular ethical frameworks also put value on life, you don't need Jesus for that. Not to mention, you have to very specifically define "life", because you don't mean life in general, you are referring to either persons or humans or something but have a shaky basis to those definitions.

Views on sexuality and family are typically informed by religion. Christianity is itself an integral part of many cultures.

Yes, religion and culture both inform each other, that is why Christians everywhere across the world know to pray to Jesus but disagree on what the teachings of Christ mean for them. And the Christian practices are almost always rolled into the previous religious practices (*cough cough* winter solstice *cough cough*) and so on. How does that disprove what I am saying? Christians still disagree on abortion, with the more conservative being against. That is what I am saying the deciding factor is. Any random Christian may be pro-life or pro-choice, but a conservative minded person is much more likely to come down on the side of pro-life. Ergo, it isn't being "Christian" that matters there, it is being conservative. Conservatives, in what I am guessing is not a coincidence, also tend to view liberal female sexuality much more negatively than non-conservatives. That is what I view as being the main motivation for limiting abortion as much as possible: whores deserve consequences. Hence the lack of concern given to fertilized embryos (professed to be fully humans and people) that are destroyed for IVF procedures; no female sexuality (whores) was involved.

My view is that scripture does not allow for abortion by choice (a view which is shared by the most significant Christian churches). Even if it did allow for it, I would still object on the basis that the wanton destruction of human life is irreconcilable to my conscience. That is because I place value in human potential, and lament to see that potential avoidably destroyed. Others seem to think the only thing that matters is if human can either experience pain or if he/she conforms to their arbitrarily constructed notion of "personhood".

Without scripture, or really, American Christian culture, how would you identify "wanton destruction of human life" with abortion? That isn't something people just automatically assume. But if you are worried about childhood potential, does that also mean you are pro social programs focused on feeding, educating, and otherwise investing in children who are not so well off? Big fan of public education, are you?

Please refer to my previous comments on that. I would prefer it if IVF was more efficient, but since its intention and indeed outcome is the facilitation of new life, IVF is not objectionable. If I was terrified by a life-giving procedure, I'd be completely overwhelmed by the rest of the world.

But, again from the perspective that all the fertilized embryos are equally deserving of life, the selecting of an embryo to implant is essentially a death panel. These aren't "potential people" here, you already admitted to them being living humans that are being discarded. It would be like the IVF service presenting a dozen babies to the family, they pick one, and 'liquidate' the rest. Really, this whole notion seems pathetic: either fertilized embryos are ethically the same as a born baby, or they aren't. We don't typically liquidate babies that were not chosen. If you are ok with a procedure that kills 15 babies so that 1 will be born, you should also be ok with an orphanage that kills 15 unwanted babies to get 1 adopted.

Even if you could demonstrate that medical professionals were needlessly destroying embryos during the IVF process, I still wouldn't oppose IVF - I'd oppose the needless destruction of embryos. And if the loss of life during the process is inadvertent but ultimately necessary to facilitate new life (which it in fact is) then said loss cannot be said to be needless. The same ethical reasoning is applied vis-a-vis abortion in cases of medical complications which threaten the life of the mother: the loss of a child in such cases is neither needless or wanton. What you appear to believe is that I should rather have no IVF life exist than risk deaths by IVF. That's logically comparable to suggesting that I'd rather humanity didn't exist than risk people performing abortions.

It isn't inadvertent, it was by design. When harvesting and fertilizing the eggs, everyone involved knows only one will get implanted. It wasn't an accident, it was purposeful. Abortion due to a life-threatening issue arising was not purposeful or planned.

But really, it is the fact that you, and the Religious Right in general, don't often bring up IVF in the first place is what is telling, as you would imagine their goal would be to stop as many unborn deaths as possible since what they value is "unborn life". But that isn't the goal because that isn't the concern.

And if Roe v. Wade gets reversed, back alley very dangerous abortions will skyrocket again.

At least the whores are getting punished. Let's be honest, they know they cannot completely do away with abortion practices, they just want it to hurt as bad as possible: "Gotta look at this ultrasound of your baby before getting an abortion!"

[basics]

The truth is what you interpret it to be. Facts are unchanging. Fact is, after Roe v. Wade came about, back alley and very dangerous abortions went down. Even now, very dangerous abortions bordering on surgical that save mothers lives are very necessary and many states run mothers into other states to get them. Because those states don't give two damns about the mothers health and are very willing to risk the mothers health for a baby that's already dead, will be born dead, or won't live longer than five minutes. And if Roe v. Wade gets reversed, back alley very dangerous abortions will skyrocket again. These are facts. Whatever truth you believe in, you can not argue with these facts.

Gaidin,

Isn't it also a fact that people who don't want babies have the means to make sure they don't become pregnant.

[Infidel144]

Seeing as how that violates Roe v Wade, I doubt that.

How does it violate Roe?