Abortion, What's the big deal?

So when do we decide abortion is killing an an infant.

When the Pope tells us it is.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So when do we decide abortion is killing an an infant.

I guess abortion is decided to be killing an infant as soon as we decide that the unborn is or has become an infant. Or we can hold to the view that the unborn is merely a parasitic entity that spends all its time sucking the life out of its mother host until she deems it time to end its feeding frenzy based on her right to do so. That is until the unborn magically appears from the womb and is then cronwed the protected infant human baby!!!!!! But I think thats only common sense.😛

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
When the Pope tells us it is.

No, my pop never discussed such things with me and neither did my ma.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
When the Pope tells us it is.

Nope. When Singer, Dawkins et. al. tell us it is.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So when do we decide abortion is killing an an infant.

It sounds like you've already decided.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It sounds like you've already decided.

No, I haven't figured that one out. I do think, however, the RCC should get off its collective ash and allow birth control by direct means, like the pill, etc., so we can avoid the whole issue for the most part. If the sperm never meets the egg, there will be no abortion. Obviously, there will still be pregnancies in spite of any birth control but the absolute numbers would go way down if the RCC changes its rules.
I assume fundamentalists believe an infant is formed if the sperm touches the egg, even before the egg starts dividing, which is nuts in my perfectly unhumble opinion.

Originally posted by sonhouse
No, I haven't figured that one out. I do think, however, the RCC should get off its collective ash and allow birth control by direct means, like the pill, etc., so we can avoid the whole issue for the most part. If the sperm never meets the egg, there will be no abortion. Obviously, there will still be pregnancies in spite of any birth control but the absol ...[text shortened]... s the egg, even before the egg starts dividing, which is nuts in my perfectly unhumble opinion.

Obviously, there will still be pregnancies in spite of any birth control but the absolute numbers would go way down if the RCC changes its rules.

And why exactly is that necessarily a good thing?

Originally posted by sonhouse
No, I haven't figured that one out. I do think, however, the RCC should get off its collective ash and allow birth control by direct means, like the pill, etc., so we can avoid the whole issue for the most part. If the sperm never meets the egg, there will be no abortion. Obviously, there will still be pregnancies in spite of any birth control but the absol ...[text shortened]... s the egg, even before the egg starts dividing, which is nuts in my perfectly unhumble opinion.

Well, your unhumble opinion is closer to the truth than the accused fundamentalists find themselves. The Bible is very clear the life begins at birth, literally, 'away from the womb.' Biological life begins at conception, but human life (i.e., soul life) begins at birth with the creation of the soul by God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, your unhumble opinion is closer to the truth than the accused fundamentalists find themselves. The Bible is very clear the life begins at birth, literally, 'away from the womb.' Biological life begins at conception, but human life (i.e., soul life) begins at birth with the creation of the soul by God.

Or so you believe, which is not the same thing as reality. It happens to be YOUR reality but it often turns out reality is not what you believe.
For instance, do you believe Dophins have souls? Bonobo's? If not, then is abortion a non issue for those species, even though they may have human or near human intelligence? If, in your view, they don't have souls, then what would be the big deal of aborting a fetus 10 minutes before it would have been naturally born? Is it the presence of the 'soul' that makes abortion a big deal for fundies?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, your unhumble opinion is closer to the truth than the accused fundamentalists find themselves. The Bible is very clear the life begins at birth, literally, 'away from the womb.' Biological life begins at conception, but human life (i.e., soul life) begins at birth with the creation of the soul by God.

The Bible is very clear the life begins at birth, literally, 'away from the womb.'

Really? Where does it say that?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]The Bible is very clear the life begins at birth, literally, 'away from the womb.'

Really? Where does it say that?[/b]

Presumably that means when the child actually enters the world, leaving the mother.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b] Obviously, there will still be pregnancies in spite of any birth control but the absolute numbers would go way down if the RCC changes its rules.

And why exactly is that necessarily a good thing?[/b]

Because, in case you hadn't noticed, the planet is way overpopulated with humans at the moment.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, your unhumble opinion is closer to the truth than the accused fundamentalists find themselves. The Bible is very clear the life begins at birth, literally, 'away from the womb.' Biological life begins at conception, but human life (i.e., soul life) begins at birth with the creation of the soul by God.

I never knew that the bible said life begins at birth. Why is it always the religious fundamentalists who insist that it begins at conception, then?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So when do we decide abortion is killing an an infant.

I think the question is more like " why do we decide that because an infant is encased in 1 inch or so of muscle and tissue and is a bit younger that it has less rights to life than an infant who is a few feet outside" It has a brain , legs , feet etc . Is it because it can't survive on it's own? (because a baby can't) Is it because it can't think or is underdeveloped? (babies aren't either)

This is a difficult question and I sympathise with mothers who feel they have to abort.. There are two sides to this.
The most interesting thing I've seen on this is when a woman protested by holding up large pictures of babies who had been legally aborted (chopped up limbs and all). She was arrested (in the UK I think) on the grounds the pictures were offensive and obscene. Her argument was that if the pictures were obsene how could the practice not be?. She felt that society should be able to stomach the reality of the abortion laws. If it can't then why pass them.It's the same argument that says you should only eat meat if you can handle a visit to an abatoir or vote for war if you know what it actually entails on the ground.