| Subject: |
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Abortion |
| Name: |
|
Jama Oliver |
| Date Posted: |
|
Oct 19, 06 - 9:41 AM |
| Email: |
|
jamaoliver@gmail.com |
| Website: |
|
http://www.jamaoliver.com |
| Message: |
|
It's not so much a religious issue as a "when does life begin" issue. Despite the fact that many of those who believe that life begins at conception happen to be religious, it is not the religion vs. anti-religion argument that you claim that it is.
There are agnostics/atheists who struggle with the "if not at conception, then when?" issue. We had this debate in several classes when I was in college (most of them philosophy classes, which are populated with very, very few religious sorts) in which professors have challenged their students to answer the question, "if not conception, then when?" One professor used the allegory of the sand...when does a few grains of sand become a pile? What makes it a pile at this moment, and not the one prior to it? Likewise, why is this baby worth saving at this moment and not at the one immediately prior? This, too, is the issue with which the Supreme Court struggled in Roe v. Wade, thus setting forth the (now seriously outdated) trimester format. We're discussing a scientific/philosophical issue here, not a religious one.
In addition, women have a choice whether or not to have sex. We then, if we choose to have sex, have a choice whether or not to use some form of birth control. The problem with the "freedom of choice" movement is that it only focuses on the one choice that is made after several other choices have already been made. The government is not (and, of course, should not be) forcing women to have sex, forgo birth control, and then have the children that inevitably will be conceived. The implication of making abortion illegal is merely forcing women to accept the consequences of a choice she made long ago, with the understanding that "if not at conception, then when does life begin?"
And, I thank you…I hope I will make a good parent! |
|
Replies:
|
|
|
|
|