Quote:


I've never seen anybody claim to be "pro-abortion", but I'm a Christian and I'm pro-choice.

It's pretty simple. I believe that a woman has the right to do what she wants to with her body, but that doesn't mean I support the action itself or would ever consent to someone doing it except in a serious case. It's something that is a right and should continue to be a right, though I wish the number of times it occurs was zero.

Okay, for the sake of discussion, what if an unborn baby qualified as "human life"?  In that case, would the woman's rights for her own body still apply?

Quote:

the exception, if this is one, does not negate the rule.  that's a very basic fallacy.

Quote:

are you sure?  i'm pretty sure the Bible is inflexible on things like murder.  if the unborn child is a person, then i would say that God is quite inflexible on it.

Quote:

arguing the law in a case of morality is a bit of a non-sequitor.  no?
if you are accepting the law as a fair measure of what is right and wrong, you would have to accept that at one time abortion was wrong, but now it's right.  also that at one time slavery based on race was at one time right, but now it's wrong.
this is another fallacy in this argument - the appeal to law which is based on the discussion of morality.

Quote:


infirm and mentally retarded people have no responsibilities, and yet they have legal rights.  same with small children, infants and babies.  no responsibilities, yet they have rights.  this point, therefore, is false.

Quote:

actually, this isn't necessarily true as there are children who are wards of the state.
but this argument could also be made of unborn children, so i think this is moot.

Quote:

what are you really saying here?  you are simply repeating what the discussion is about.  repeating the case of argumentation or your point without proof is blind repetition and does not further your point.
"just plain wrong"?  who says?  the law?  you?
just because it's a difficult decision does not necessitate either for or against abortion as necessarily right.  how does that make sense?  

Quote:

actually, traditionally, Christianity has certainly had a history of being a dogmatic religion.
if you want to talk about the teachings of Jesus, i might be inclined to agree, notwithstanding the directive to love.
i just don't see how killing an unborn child is expressing love.


Quote:

are you seriously appealing to a lame cliche to make your point?  that's your quote?  "one size of shoe does not fit everyone"?
personal morality, by the way, applies to issues in which others are not adversely affected.  this is the crux of the abortion issue - the person who is unborn.

Hi there Jeff,

1. You write (regarding cases where a woman has to have an abortion to prevent her dying) -

'The exception, if this is one, does not negate the rule. That's a very basic fallacy'.

In reply -

Is it ? Don't you agree that each case is to be judged on its merits ? You are right that the rule is not negated by exceptions. But what rule are we discussing here at the outset ? We are discussing the rule which is the freedom of a woman when she is pregnant. But you wish to set this freedom to one side in the mistaken belief that a foetus has rights superior to the pregnant woman herself. It is plainly not so. It is your own basic fallacy which you wish to impose on every woman. As already said, the foetus becomes a child, both medically and also legally, at the time when it is born. Why is this not part of your realisation ?

2. You write -

'I'm pretty sure the Bible is inflexible on things like murder.  if the unborn child is a person, then i would say that God is quite inflexible on it'.

Murder (which is only one form of killing a person) is used by you as a description of abortion. But here again you are wrong. Firstly, a person becomes a person, as said several times, at the moment he/she is born - both legally and medically. Why do you repeatedly fail to admit this fact is true ? He/she is named, recorded, and joins humanity at the moment of birth, not before. But murder applies only to people. People who (by logic, by medicine and by certified fact) are already born. So your emotive use of the term 'murder' is really inappropriate and reveals that you have an agenda.

3. You write -

'Arguing the law in a case of morality is a bit of a non-sequitor. No ? If you are accepting the law as a fair measure of what is right and wrong, you would have to accept that at one time abortion was wrong, but now it's right.  also that at one time slavery based on race was at one time right, but now it's wrong. This is another fallacy in this argument - the appeal to law which is based on the discussion of morality'.

Morality is itself the basis of law. No I do NOT accept that 'at one time abortion was wrong but now is 'right'. Abortion is as said a very unfortunate event and should not, in an ideal world, occur. It is no more right or wrong today than it always was. I do not say it is 'right'. Nor do I say physical 'death' or 'illness' or 'slavery' or 'religious intolerance' is right. All these things are products of an imperfect world. And we as moral people have to deal with the fact of their imperfection. The way we do so best is to first recognise the freedoms of accountable people.

4. You write -

'Infirm and mentally retarded people have no responsibilities, and yet they have legal rights.  same with small children, infants and babies.  no responsibilities, yet they have rights.  this point, therefore, is false'.

But, with respect, you are again wrong. Infirm and mentally retarded people DO have rights and they DO have responsibilities. But their responsibilities are legally given to their carers.  Isn't that so ? Their rights remain theirs.

5. Yes, a pregnant woman has both rights and responsibilities. Her responsibilities are various. But no politician or pope or any person outside of her husband or God has a right to force her on this issue. Her rights and responsibilities for her own body are her very own, before God.

6. You write -

'I just don't see how killing an unborn child is expressing love'  

What do you mean. You don't see/understand love in all its expressions ? I just don't see how burning Joan of Arc at the stake is expressing love also. Was it ? How about killing adults in wars ? Can you imagine a situation where killing an unborn child may be expressing love ? Think about this please.

Abortion IS an unfortunate thing. Who believes otherwise ? It should NOT happen in an ideal world. But we are not in an ideal world. The science of medicine exists because sickness exists in an imperfect world. It is not for you or me to pontificate on whether a particular woman loves the foetus or does not. Such a matter is for her to answer for before God. And not for politicians or theologians to pontificate on.

7. Yes, 'One size of shoe does NOT fit everyone'. So too with abortion. It is patently obvious that each and every case of abortion has its own story. How blunt an instrument is  that which makes every abortion a 'murder'. Nothing is more ridiculous and insensitive. There are literally thousands of different scenarios including those where the woman will die without abortion. That is why the spirit of the law in such matters is superior, in every way, to a dogma.

Conscientious wrote on Dec 29^th, 2007 at 8:04pm:


I would bet that not all readers will agree that you being a Christian gives you certain freedoms.