3 ms·
There is a lot to disagree with in your statement. First, you use "murder" incorrectly. Abortion, in the US, is legal, and therefore not murder. Murder is de
by tasty_freeze 9y ago
There is a lot to disagree with in your statement.
First, you use "murder" incorrectly. Abortion, in the US, is legal, and therefore not murder. Murder is defined as an illegal killing. That is why when someone is given the death penalty, they are said to be killed, not murdered. We say soldiers kill the enemy, not murder the enemy. By using "murder" you are adopting the conflation that anti-abortion activists have been (apparently) successful in promoting.
Second, nobody doubts that a zygote is alive. Nearly every cell in your body is alive (barring hair, nails, upper layers of skin, recently recycled cells), including sperm and eggs. When an egg and a sperm fuse, the result is also alive. The question is whether the rights of the zygote->blastula->fetus->baby trump the rights of the woman who is carrying it.
Obviously, by the time it becomes a baby, the baby's rights trump the desires of the woman carrying it, in general -- everybody agrees on that. Some people conceive (pun not intended) of the fertilized egg as being fully human, something God ordained and which is the vessel for a soul which has been waiting for that very zygote, and by aborting it, one is subverting God's will and destroying the intended future destiny of that soul.
Others don't share that belief. There is certainly no bright line dividing when that fetus is developed enough that its rights are superior to that of its mother, and deciding where to place that light should not be taken lightly and will cause discomfort. But we deal with such things all the time. It is legal to drive 45 MPH on the street near my house, but not 46. Yes it is somewhat arbitrary but not unreasonable either. That we have to make an uneasy boundary somewhere on the continuum isn't reason to declare that the speed limit should be zero, or that there should be no speed limit at all.
It should also be noted that at the time Roe v Wade was decided, Protestants and even evangelical Protestants by and large were not bothered by the decision. Catholics were, of course. It wasn't until the rise of the Moral Majority that the issue became objectionable to so many religious groups.
- gscott 9y agoAnd to further take this off topic I would like to mention that every church I have been to (mostly Methodist) never even talk about abortion. It just never comes up. Abortion right to life seems to be a favorite topic of some politicians and liberal commentators trying to ostracize Christians.
- tasty_freeze 9y agoThis is not a case of Christian persecution. Good for you, you are part of a liberal Christian denomination. But there are more than 100M Christians who strongly object to abortion on religious grounds. In most states in the US, there has been a terrible erosion in the ability to get an abortion, and this is due to political leveraging of the issue with Christian support. http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortio... 70% of evangelicals are opposed, while 44% of Catholics are. From that you might conclude that since the majority of Catholics are not opposed to abortion that proves your case. That would be wrong. The church and those who oppose it are far more vocal and influential than those who support it. Really, this topic is in the news all the time. I don't know how the religious connection has escaped you.
- gscott 9y agoIt is really interesting that it has escaped me since I have been to a number of religious retreats, events, and have been a regular church goer for about 20 years now. Maybe it is because I live in California.
- jessaustin 9y agoThe "mainline" protestants made a bit of a Faustian bargain on abortion. Like most religionists, their doctrine is determined primarily by what will generate the fullest collection plate. In attempting not to alienate women who've had abortions, they instead alienated judgmental old people, which latter group has got to be any religion's primary customer. Nowadays they're much quieter with their "abortion is OK" dogma.
- aidenn0 9y agoI find the definition "unlawful" for murder to be at odds with the common use. People refer to dictators as murderers all the time, even if the dictator unilaterally declared the killings legal. I find "unjustified" to be much more in line with common usage of the word murder.
- gkya 9y agoDictators usually kill illegally, and protect themselves from the consequences with the sheer power they hold. Fascists kill and protect themselves through the idiotic/selfish mass' silent presence on their side.
- snakeanus 9y ago> Dictators usually kill illegally Do they? They are the ones who define the law after all.
- tasty_freeze 9y agoI gave some examples of common use which contradict your claim. As for dictators, they are violating international law. Abortion is legal in the US (withing certain parameters), and international law does not declare it to be illegal either.
- aidenn0 9y agoKilling of armed combatants is considered justified, as is executions of people for capital offenses. Neither contradict my claim (though they don't contradict yours either). International law primarily regards the interactions between nations rather than the actions within a nation. It is debatable whether or not a nation that is non-signatory to a treaty has violated a law when they fail to abide by its precepts. I think most people would claim that murder is intrinsically wrong, and is not bad merely because it is contrary to some words on a piece of paper. People can disagree as to what is unjustified; one person might consider a death in an arranged duel to be murder, while another might consider it justified. Under the law of today it is unlawful, under many laws 200 years ago it would be lawful.