I think it has to do with human rights and very little to do with religion.
2007-12-12 05:45:58 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree with you. I have mixed views on abortion. I would NEVER ever have one and think that it is murder, but I do believe that if it's a case where the birth could kill the mother then I can see the need for an abortion, yet even in that situation, I would risk my life for my child.
If women have "human rights" over their body then why don't they voice that right and say "I'M SORRY I DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX BECAUSE I'M NOT READY TO TAKE CARE OF A CHILD"??
2007-12-12 05:51:10 · answer #1 · answered by jesscblu 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
The two aren't even a little related. You asking this is the same as a pro-lifer asking how someone can be pro-choice, yet consider the death penalty to be wrong. They aren't the same issue. Pro Life is about when life begins as a legal and moral matter. That is a very different thing from asserting a natural right that places a positive burden on someone else. You see, NO natural right can exist that does so. Natural rights, by nature can only be negative. You have the right of freedom of action. By placing a positive right, someone else would be requiring you to render health care services for them, for free. If you refuse, you are violating their rights. Yet, by compelling you to do so, they are violating YOUR right of freedom of action. See how positive rights create inevitable logical contradictions. Those that believe in positive rights simply haven't thought the issue through.
2016-04-08 22:57:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Abortion is a tricky matter since both sides have opted for emotional snags rather than discussing the actual ethics of the matter.
The reason that it is often a religious matter is that the perception of fetus value is based on religious perspectives. From a Judeo-Christian perspective, life is only valuable when it has a soul, this is why tree safety is never part of the pro-life argument. Since sperm and eggs are considered not to have a soul, somehow the zygote and then fetus must get one at some point and then become valuable. This is additionally why no one in the pro-life camp is arguing sperm and eggs to be saved.
See, without the belief of the soul (which is a religious view), there is little strong argument as to why a fetus or a zygote is valuable (the potential of human life argument is bad, see no one caring about sperm and egg).
Thusly, to be a sustained argument it must be a religious one.
2007-12-12 05:59:46 · answer #3 · answered by Xenogyst 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It is both.
To the Pro-life side, the fetus does have human rights and the Pro-Choice side does not recognize the fetus' human rights.
The two reasons that it is a religous is also by both sides. The Pro-Life side is primarily mobilized by the church on this issue, while the pro-choice side also wants this to be a religous issue because then they can argue some type of seperation of church and state argument and try to force action though the mother's human rights although they ignore any human rights of the father.
2007-12-12 05:53:59 · answer #4 · answered by mnbvcxz52773 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
I think it serves the pro-choicers to marginalize the issue as a religious one. I think religious pro-lifers never give it a second thought, because their religion is part of their being. I think that your view-point is extremely valid, particularly when you consider the anti-death penalty issue isn't marginalized as a religious one. Perhaps more people will agree with you when euthanasia becomes a solution to the problem of paying for the aged.
2007-12-12 06:01:40 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Probably because ... FETUSES are very very different in many ways from *wanted*, thinking, dreaming, speaking adult or even baby humans who have complex relationships with others and feel emotional (and arguably more physical) pain. On the other hand, ADULT WOMAN ARE UNQUESTIONABLY HUMAN BEINGS.
Until we can separate the adult woman from the fetus, we have to decide which we value more. Children have no human rights outside their parents. Why should fetuses get more rights than frickin' children?
You people need to decide what you define as "human" and why you think women are suddenly not human enough to have a right to decide whose baby they carry, when, and why. Women are, unfortunately, not just baby-carriers whose only important bodily organs are the breasts, vagina, and uterus.
2007-12-12 06:00:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Ignorance. Anybody that says it is "a clump of cells" and not human is ignorant. DNA proves that children are human. There is no magical moment when your DNA magically changes from non-human to human. Your DNA never changes no matter if you have 1 cell or 1 trillion cells and that is what defines you as human.
Abortion supporters call it a religious issue because they can't defend their position scientifically or logically. When people are proven wrong, they often react irrationally.
Abortion is murder. Anybody that supports it is sick.
The "it's a woman's body" argument is moronic. It is not a woman's body that is killed. It's my house (protected by the 4th Amendment), but I can't murder my child inside of it.
2007-12-12 06:02:49 · answer #7 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Humans are born alive. Contrary views are almost exclusively religious. If you believe they are a human, why not give them health care?
2007-12-12 05:59:41 · answer #8 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They have framed it that way so they are comfortable with, in this one case, not coming to the defense of the most helpless members of society.
The same people who adore Amnesty International, PETA, Centers for Women and Families and who denounce the death penalty and war have to separate the cruelty and victimization that abortion represents in order to be able support it for the far left fringies. More turning a blind eye politics/ self-delusion.
2007-12-12 05:56:50 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. Vincent Van Jessup 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Whose human rights are you talking about? The rights of women to have the power over their own bodies to make decisions for herself? Or the rights of fetus' over the rights of women? It is a human rights issue and I believe the human rights go to the woman who is obviously already human with fully identifiable relationships and all those things that make her human. A fetus have neither human relationships or recognition of constitutional rights or due process prior to it's birth. BTW, my church is 100% pro choice. Meaning that it is up to the woman, not the church and not the state.
2007-12-12 05:55:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋