English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

What if I said scientifically life starts at the day of conception, and I think killing life after it starts is wrong and therefor I want it illegal.

Am I forcing my religion on anyone?

I am prochoice but I just think to be prochoice and say no dont be prolife and force your religion on me is stupid.

I'm just calling stupid stupid.

2006-07-08 04:25:53 · 12 answers · asked by pope 2 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

12 answers

I don't think it would be forcing religion. There are laws against murder, you go to jail if you kill someone. So how is abortion any different? The child inside, although not born yet, is very much alive inside his/her mothers womb. So if one chose to abort the child, would that be no more different then shooting an unarmed man?

2006-07-08 04:32:15 · answer #1 · answered by Linds 7 · 0 0

You can "say" anything you want, but adding "scientifically" at the end of your "definition" deflates your argument, and begs several questions.

What do you mean "scientifically?" What "science" are you referring to? It seems you plopped it in there in the hope the authority of the word itself would justify your argument - it doesn't.

Your logic slope gets even more slippery with the word "life." Weren't the sperm and the egg alive BEFORE "conception?" And, in the hope of not sounding absurd, the next argument is that "the fertilized egg is human life and the sperm isn't." Really? How so? How exactly is a fertilized egg "human?"

And this is where all these arguments fall into the black whole of dogma. The "pro-life" group (which usually includes a large contingent of pro-death folks), would have it defined at what they think is the earliest stage of sperm-egg union. (I apologize to anyone who works in the field for not brining up the issues with what the hell does THAT mean - since it has many different aspects to it.) If you ask the pro-lifer "Why?" they usually answer with the "viability" or "human potential" arguments. These are ignorable because the pro-lifer is not about to get into the details of those 2 aspects of embryology - as science.

It is this non-negotiable tenet that makes it indelibly religious.

If a skeptic made your suggestion, then he'd back it up with something more than "saying" when human life started.

2006-07-08 05:02:19 · answer #2 · answered by JAT 6 · 0 0

prochoice or pro life is not a religion, you are forcing your belief. Besides, pro-choice means you believe it is up to the person to make that choice. What you describe about your beleifs falls under prolife. It is the prolifers that want to make it illegal and tell women what they can or cannot do to their bodies. If a teenage girl gets raped, ends up pregnant and there is some health issues that will hurt the baby or the mother, it should not be up to the courts to decide. Some judge is not going to be there at 1 a.m. changing diapers or dealing with being a single, teen parent or a baby that has some type of serious health or physical issues. As you can tell I am pro-choice.

2006-07-08 04:34:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

if u mean religion as "belief" then yeah, u r, BUT people do it all the time with all issues. Everyone has a religion, even if that means religiously believing that there is no god.

U can argue from the point of what is best for society especially if u have conclusive, irrefutible evidence that life begins at conception. but really, abortion is about value judgements and these are always subjective. Some will always think murder is ok.

not that this answer has really helped to clarify the argument...

2006-07-08 04:39:24 · answer #4 · answered by flower 2 · 0 0

Even though I am a Christian, I am pretty liberal on everything except abortion. And when i do talk about abortion, I try not to from a religoius standpoint. Before I was a Christian I felt the same way as what you are saying.

So what I am saying is, I do not think so.

2006-07-08 04:31:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I agree.

Scientifically, life does start at the moment of conception. It's just the argument of when is the baby a "person" deserving of legal protections.

2006-07-08 04:32:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous61245 3 · 0 0

There ought to opt to be freedom of selection. no one choose rigidity absolutely everyone to stay by using the regulations of yet another team. we are loose to hitch any corporation we sense an empathy for. it really is in ordinary words excellent. there's a asserting, "He who talks the loudest does not continually say the most." thoughtful anybody is waiting to figure for themselves what's logical wondering and what's rhetoric. each and every u . s . a . has its judges to opt for the biggest themes and that is a techniques extra acceptable to have a conflict in courtroom than on the battlefield the position it receives messy. i assume "Tolerance" is the foremost word. And for the non secular extremists, undergo in ideas the words of the carry close, to love your neighbour as your self and to love God.

2016-11-01 10:51:51 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Abortion isn't a religious issue. Or shouldn't be anyway.

2006-07-08 04:29:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Abortion is about killing innocent babies, not about who you worship.

2006-07-08 04:30:48 · answer #9 · answered by takeashot30 4 · 0 0

Watch the movie "Silent Scream", then we will talk.

2006-07-08 04:28:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers