Abortion? Where is the question?

Question

Here is the deal with this issue, I hear terms like Pro Choice, Pro Life or Anti Choice or Anti Life, but does not the issue just come down to personal belief? I have seen some pretty emotional ploys on what life is and is not, however this simply becomes a philosophical debate which would almost amount to a religious freedom issue? I will not say what I believe I would like to hear your opnion on the matter.

Again if you believe it is murder the question of life comes into play. So I ask once again where does the question of life begin, I hear some say before conseption but this to me would be a spirtual freedom belief and has no merit in a legal system. I can say you murder chicks every day when you eat your scrambled eggs again this would be a belief statement so again where would the question begin?

Great feed back by the way.

I going to up the ante, Why is this a political debate when religion and government is supposed to be seperate? Is if possible to seperate the two? Why or why not.

Answer 1

I do not think claiming that it "comes down to personal belief" adds anything to the debate because even if it is true, one side's personal beliefs have to win out anyway. It is not like saying "it comes down to personal belief" allows both sides to live in harmony. It is not possible for abortion to be banned and for it to be allowed. Allowing people to have abortions is not a neutral position which allows everyone to make their personal choices; it is a pro-choice position. Even if there really cannot be any objective answer to the abortion question, it does not mean that the question goes away. At the practical level one side or the other wins out. Or, as you believe, one personal belief or the other gets made in to law. Since claiming that the issue comes down to personal belief solves nothing, I think it is much better to analyze the problem and at least clarify the debate. We may gain something and certainly won't be worse off than we would be with the subjective stance you advocate which ends up being a matter of which side is more powerful.

I also think many people would deny that it is a religious issue. Pro-life groups often try to make strong secular claims against abortion. If a secular case can be made against abortion, then issues of religious freedom and separation of church and state do not come in to play. You assume that the empirical question of when life begins must be a matter of religious belief, or personal opinion, but I don't see why we should assume this.

As long as we are going to stick to secular cases for or against abortion, the question of when human life begins is an extraordinarily easy one to answer. The answer depends on what we mean by "human." If a "human" is merely the biological definition of an organism with human DNA, it is very obvious that life begins at conception. If "human" is, instead, defined as personhood - possessing qualities like conscious interests , then it is just as obvious as human life does not start until after birth. This is the easiest part of the entire debate to settle, and has already been answered.

The harder question is whether the biological definition of human life carries as much moral weight as the personhood definition of human life. The biggest problem here with the secular pro-life position is that DNA is not morally relevant. It is the characteristics of an individual, not their DNA, that determines how they should be treated. For example, imagine a set of twins. Both have the same DNA which has made them both mentally handicapped. They are split up at birth and one is lucky enough to receive an experimental new treatment for this defect, which allows them to develop nearly average mental capacities, while the other never receives this treatment and remains handicapped. When they turn 18, the right to vote will be given to one, based on her qualities (the ability to vote and comprehend voting) while the other will never be able to vote. It is not the DNA, but the characteristics of an individual that decides how they should be treated. DNA is a morally irrelevant factor, and this is a huge problem for the secular pro-life position which rests its case for the fetus being "human" on a biological DNA-based definition.

It is only once you introduce religious ideas about when the soul enters the body and the moral importance of the soul that the question of when human life begins becomes a religious and subjective question.

As for the separation of church and state, this really only makes sense from a secular perspective. If a person really believes in God, it is more logical for them to endorse basing the laws on God's will than to keep church and state separate. The sepration of church and state is not a neutral position, but a secular one. It directly opposes religion. All religions claim to be true, and by claiming to be true, they also claim that their moral beliefs are true. If one thinks that one's moral beliefs are true, one necessarily believes that others should act in accordance with those moral beliefs. It is the nature of moral beliefs that they make claims how others should act. And for many people their religion is the source of their moral beliefs. Not allowing their moral beliefs to be applied to others is logically the same as claiming their moral beliefs are false. I, as an atheist, have no problem with this, but a believer should. So yes, it is possible to separate religion and the state, but doing so is not a neutral position, but rather logically implies that religion is wrong.

As for your claim about murdering chicks when we eat eggs, this is not biologically true. The eggs that people eat are usually unfertilized eggs, no more really than the chicken's period. So if you have an opinion that eating unfertilized eggs is murdering a chick, your belief is just mistaken. I understand that you weren't really arguing for this, but it was a bad example for your claim that beliefs cannot be judged right or wrong.

All in all I think you asked a good question. :)

Answer 2

I am not against abortion. I think it is a complete and personal descision of the person carrying the baby or fetus or whatever. I think they should not ban abortion because I can understand where maybe a young girl may need it. Maybe its best for the child, if you know they won't have a happy life. And sometimes its not fair to the mother either which really is no excuse. But say your a 12 year old girl and you were raped by your father and you got pregnant. That can bring mental and health issues for the baby and thats just horrible for the mother. I think it should be completely up the person carrying the baby/fetus. No one should ban it. Though I can see where people are coming from where its like, well you should take away a life because you or someone wasn't responsible enough. It really depends on the situation. But over-all I do not believe it should be banned. Its a personal descision, for personal reasoning and thats why it should stay legal.

Answer 3

You are posing this question in such a way that murder should also be chalked up to personal choice. If the only one you are hurting is yourself then that would be a personal choice. Abortion hurts an innocent baby. Murderers can be charged for both the murder of a woman and her unborn baby. The justice system does indeed consider that baby a is living person with rights. The double standard is disgusting.

Follow up

An egg that we eat for breakfast is not fertilized. The egg producing hens are never let in with roosters so I don't consider that a murder of a baby chick. The moment of conception/fertilization is the most defineable answer for when life begins. It is the action of reproducing. It's not all spiritual either. Any scientist will tell you that the cells that make up a fertilized egg are very much alive. If the baby is formed by the division of these cells how then could the cells be referred to as anything but a baby? How many cells does it take to be human?

Religion and government can never be truly seperate because each lawmaker and voter takes their religious values (if they are in fact religious) into account when making decisions that affect others who are not members of their religion.

Answer 4

As a woman, I personally believe it should be every womans own choice and no one elses, not even the father. He doesn't have to carry that child for 9 months and go through the pain of childbirth. Most men have no idea what so ever the horrible things that get messed up in a woman's body when she has a child. Also, very few men ever stay home and look after the kids while the wife works and has a life.

If you have the chance, read the book "Freakonomics" by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt. It has some interesting information about how the legalization of abortion lowers the crime rate. With less unwanted children going into lives of crime, the crime rate drops.

Answer 5

It is the struggle to know which notion is the greater, the more than the other or principled guide for action. It is a struggle between notions of freewill, comparative value and the fruits of such priorities as liberties, shall we know good or evil from their defense in the absolute, or what exceptions do we confer and upon who. The notion that wisdom comes from the exertion of ones will over all other commanding forces and chooses is not wrong but incomplete. In my conceptual perspective, the Will is positive and the Judgment faculty is negative. The Will is fundamentally the same essentially human, but the Judgment is the more formally differentiable for individual personality. It is the Judgment that may put a person into the wrong, but a Judgment for personal action that may put us right again. All external Judgment does not correct the other, but the Will informed of the righted Judgment corrects its self, choosing a second time a different action. This is not a guarantee for perfect choice, but a gaining for wisdom. A Will that is perpetually under an external Judgment is not a freewill and therefor gains less wisdom from the errors of its own Judgment that it can not realize on its own, and is therefor not its own but for an other only. History has proven this impossible as an infinitely enduring condition.

Answer 6

Abortion is absolutely a personal belief. What people don't understand is that the only way to accommodate all citizen's personal beliefs is to legally allow safe abortions and then let women choose whether or not they have one.

The abortion debate becomes confusing because both sides are arguing different issues and never actually listen to or respond in a constructive manner to the other side's point of view.

**********************************************************************
You are exactly right. This should not be a political issue. Religion should not enter into politics and the only pro-life argument against abortion has to do with religious beliefs.

Answer 7

I am not really for or against abortion, it is a choice, but if you look at history, abortion has always been an option for women and been performed throughout time whether or not it's been legal. At least since Roe v. Wade, it's been both legal AND safe. If R v W is repealed, it does not mean women will stop getting abortions, but it does mean we will have to go back to the "alley clinics" and coat hanger days. *shiver*

Answer 8

It all boils down to when you believe life begins. I don't know for sure exactly when, but I have no doubt that it begins before birth so I have to opt to the side of caution. A woman may be inconvenienced by carrying a child to term, but that is a far lessor evil than killing an innocent child.

Answer 9

I understand what you're saying. I think it should be legal depending for what happened... in Argentina (my country), it's only legal for girls who were raped. I think it should be this way... but also for someone who may have a problem if they got pregnant---
it's not good though to just have an abortion because you seriously don't like kids, 'cause THAT"S murder...

so, um, yeah... that's my input in this... see ya around

Answer 10

It is a personal belief if it is wrong or not so that is why I want to keep it legal.