The American paradox of Christianity and capitalism

[james&olya 1,121]

Do you want make abortion illegal and go back to the 'good old days' of back street abortions

where bleeding to death or dying of infections was commonplace?

One of the things I find most interesting is that in some countries where abortion is very legal and available the incidence is much lower than in others where it remains illegal in all cases. Are laws against abortion the best way to lower the rate of its occurrence? Or is the reason for the laws just to punish any who don't adhere to the moral code of whoever makes the law?

[chri'stina 190]

Do you want make abortion illegal and go back to the 'good old days' of back street abortions

where bleeding to death or dying of infections was commonplace?

Well I guess there are different ways to look at this.

If a society wants to make abortion illegal, it should be less judgmental about unwed mothers. If there is a social stigma of having a baby outside of marriage, abortion will be sought whether legal or not legal. For me to accept allowing all abortions just so people don't have abortions in secret, is just not possible for me. But I also haven't disowned my friends who had babies when they weren't married or treated them weirdly.

Edited January 18, 2011 by chri'stina

[james&olya 1,121]

Well I guess there are different ways to look at this.

If a society wants to make abortion illegal, it should be less judgmental about unwed mothers. If there is a social stigma of having a baby outside of marriage, abortion will be sought whether legal or not legal. For me to accept allowing all abortions just so people don't have abortions in secret, is just not possible for me. But I also haven't disowned my friends who had babies when they weren't married or treated them weirdly.

Don't accept abortions! I don't. But there are other ways to go about lowering the incidence besides violating our constitution by oulawing it.

[^_^ 5,021]

Well I guess there are different ways to look at this.

If a society wants to make abortion illegal, it should be less judgmental about unwed mothers. If there is a social stigma of having a baby outside of marriage, abortion will be sought whether legal or not legal. For me to accept allowing all abortions just so people don't have abortions in secret, is just not possible for me. But I also haven't disowned my friends who had babies when they weren't married or treated them weirdly.

A not-insignificant % of abortions happen due to factors other than wanting to avoid embarrassment or stigma.

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

The argument ultimately comes down to when people feel that life starts. Scientifically speaking A fetus is not viable outside of the mother until the third trimester. If you define a fetus as an individual as a individual person at conception, then you open the door to other crimes. Such as endangerment if the mother drinks, smokes, or does anything else to harm the baby, or manslaughter if something that the mother does causes a miscarriage.

at conception. and i also think birth control should be free to all within the usa.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Old Guy - what are you disagreeing with? Your graphic shows that fetuses are viable after 28 weeks, which is the start of the third tri. Your graphic also shows limited viability as early as 24 weeks, but the success rate isn't all that high. Either way, if your argument is to say 24 vs 28 weeks, I don't think you win much.

CAN'T I JUST POST A GRAPHIC WITHOUT YOU GETTING ALL JUDGMENTAL? JEEZ LOUISE!

[james&olya 1,121]

at conception. and i also think birth control should be free to all within the usa.

Life is present even before conception, should we mandate all potential unions of egg and sperm? Absurd? Obviously. But using the 'life' argument confuses moral values with legal definitions. When does legal 'personhood' begin? That is the question that should be the subject of debate.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Well, first of all it's "principles", not "principals".

The country wasn't founded on heads of schools. Nor was it founded on Christian principles. In fact, the founding fathers hated Christianity:

"The Christian God can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, evil and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed, beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

--John Adams

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

-- James Madison

"The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma."

--Abraham Lincoln

I didn't know Lincoln was there when the Constitution was signed!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I didn't know Lincoln was there when the Constitution was signed!

But, mawilson was.

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

Life is present even before conception, should we mandate all potential unions of egg and sperm? Absurd? Obviously. But using the 'life' argument confuses moral values with legal definitions. When does legal 'personhood' begin? That is the question that should be the subject of debate.

nice straw man you have there.

[mawilson 2,133]

I didn't know Lincoln was there when the Constitution was signed!

I knew some smart аss would nit-pick, but I threw it in anyway. Enjoy!

[james&olya 1,121]

nice straw man you have there.

Maybe if you read all the way through that very short post you will see that I said 'absurd'. I was only trying to show where that argument goes when taken a bit further. I think my point stands. The issue of beginning of 'life' is a moral/religious one. Unless we are in a theocracy we should not use religious belief as a basis for law. Separation of church and state means our government must be a secular one. As such, the basis for law should be centered on the rights and needs of its citizens. The zygote/embryo/fetus has not been recognized in law as a person. Therefore, what right accords to it under law?

Maybe you would be interested in the basis for the old testament sin of 'Onanism'. It has been considered sinful in certain situations in judeo-christian history to not allow that union of egg and sperm. And even now some christians are opposed to condoms and other 'barrier' methods, even to the point of it affecting our government's policy in foreign aid under gwb. So, no, definitely not a 'straw-man'!

Edited January 19, 2011 by james&olya

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

Maybe if you read all the way through that very short post you will see that I said 'absurd'. I was only trying to show where that argument goes when taken a bit further. I think my point stands. The issue of beginning of 'life' is a moral/religious one. Unless we are in a theocracy we should not use religious belief as a basis for law. Separation of church and state means our government must be a secular one. As such, the basis for law should be centered on the rights and needs of its citizens. The zygote/embryo/fetus has not been recognized in law as a person. Therefore, what right accords to it under law?

Maybe you would be interested in the basis for the old testament sin of 'Onanism'. It has been considered sinful in certain situations in judeo-christian history to not allow that union of egg and sperm. And even now some christians are opposed to condoms and other 'barrier' methods, even to the point of it affecting our government's policy in foreign aid under gwb. So, no, definitely not a 'straw-man'!

we were talking about whether life exists at conception, not all the gobbledygook mumbo jumbo that you are bringing up prior to that time frame.

[james&olya 1,121]

we were talking about whether life exists at conception, not all the gobbledygook mumbo jumbo that you are bringing up prior to that time frame.

Sorry about those big words.

[james&olya 1,121]

we were talking about whether life exists at conception,

Biological definition? Religious definition? By law it is neither definition that is relevant but rather the definition of 'personhood'. I know that makes it too straight-forward to be able to easily twist into support for whatever religious viewpoint you want government to enforce on all. Sorry.