Abortion is immoral. Period.

It wasn't that long ago that people thought that women had no role in the creation of a child except as a place for the man's  planted seed to grow. It was as if the woman was nothing more than soil to plant a seed,  to wit, treating the woman as nothing but dirt. A woman aborting a fetus was the same thing as a soil rejecting the seed, that is, unthinkable. From the point of view of the man in these conditions, it was contemptible.
This type of thinking is anachronistic at the very least.

The population of the planet has changed, and we're no longer trying to increase the population, but we're trying to slow down the population increase. Overpopulation is a serious matter, and there is no collective agreement as to how to deal with overpopulation.

Let me tell you the story of the red kangaroo in Australia. It seems appropriate. The red kangaroo lives in some of the harshest, most arid areas of Australia. It's survival is always on the edge, and individuals make difficult choices in especially dry years. If a mother is carrying a joey in her pouch and she's having a difficult time even feeding herself and getting adequate water, she'll throw the joey onto the ground to die. The mother can't feed both herself and her young, so the choice is either both die or the mother survives to possibly reproduce another year.

This is a modern narrative.... it is not even historically correct. The Bible talks about the importance of the the mother, many indigenous peoples had mother's as deities.

To suggest that modern Western views can be forced to match other cultures is another important topic.

The question is whether our society should allow women to end the life of a baby inside them isnt so easily answered by these ideological narratives.

Is there any here who is honest enough to even acknowledge the issue that abortion ends a life. This life has its own beating heart, its own nervous system and is a genetically unique individual?

I have no problem acknowledging the points on both sides of this issue. Yes, this is a medical decision that impacts the body of a woman.

Is there anyone else who can acknowledge more than one ideological perspective?

First we have to recognize that we're animals, then we can work on becoming human. We can't assume that just because we're shaped like humans that we are in fact human. Becoming human is an ontological evolutionary process of our psyches that each of us has to go through personally. That's not something we can take for granted. Our anachronistic religions are no longer of any help, and they're only hindering any further spiritual evolution.

We may think that we're above nature, but we're not, we are nature, and this anthropocentric attitude and our alienation from nature is the greatest threat to our survival.

has anyone added anything meaningful since the first response?



this is still the only answer as far as I'm concerned. What other people do with their bodies is none of my business unless and until it effects my body/life*.




*life. Life does not mean lifestyle. Literally - life. Will what they plan kill/injure me? No? then it is none of my business.

I expect the same from others.

I agree with you on this. The fact is we live in an increasingly secular age, and one often dominated by contemporary progressive views that, with sufficiently wise government management of human affairs. we can end the evils of this world. My impression of history is that this is an illusion - and a very old one too ( the story of the Tower of Babel actually predates the Abrahamic Bible: it was in the epic of Gilgamesh a millennium earlier - likely the oldest know surviving piece of human literature.

In this view, the often quoted "right of a woman to control her own body" is widely held as trumping the supposed moral right to life of the unborn child. I believe that is a bit of sophistry that could as well be used to justify a long list of actions still held to be legally prohibited , even by the most ardent progressives. The viability of a seven or more month fetus is beyond doubt, and yet abortion advocates demand a legal structure that allows abortion up to the moment of birth - clearly infanticide in some cases.

The question at hand, namely, what should be the position of our government to the practice of Abortion? is of a different nature. It isn't necessary for our laws to enforce all moral behavior, and this one is a good example.

I believe this is an excellent example of our recent follies in enacting law through judicial decisions, rather than the legislative process called for in our constitution. ( and this applies equally to the notion that an illegal immigrant, observed in the act of illegally entering the country, deserves due process of law, as it does to abortion).

The actions of numerous state legislatures in regulating abortion attest to more reasonable approaches to this. However, progressive advocates demand an absolute right to abortion, and so far the courts have accommodated them.

Sovereignty implies supremacy within a thing's own domain or sphere. You still believe that a woman's domain--in this case, her body and its processes--is the domain of another. You're going to have to accept the fact that it's not.

And no I am not saying that women are above the law. But I am saying that the law is not above a woman's right to her own body and its processes.

Our law does not give to an underage girl the right to consent to lawful sexual relations with an adult male: such an action on his part is deemed to be rape, even if the girl participates willingly. Is her "sovereignty over her body violated by this?

What long list of things still held to be legally prohibited are you referring to?

You can start with that one. I'm all ears.

You are comparing the decision of an emotionally immature girl to have sex to the decision of a pregnant woman to abort her pregnancy.

You are correct. I am comparing both in the context of a supposed absolute sovereignty of a woman over her body as alleged by those who favor unrestricted access to abortion.

Unfortunately you appear to evade the issue implied here. That's OK with me. However don't expect me to respond as long as you continue.

In the case of the girl having sex with an adult, the law is there to protect her from the emotional and physical consequences of the act. In the case of a woman seeking abortion, you must believe that a law would protect her from the consequences of the act. And what would that be?

And don't worry, I don't expect you to continue to respond.

. . . .

You are making an illogical argument, based on the implied and unjustifiable presumption that a sufficient rationale for that (or any) law must be for the protection of someone. Virtually any conceivable law could meet that test.

Then you must be about to tell me the basis for your argument that a woman's body and bodily processes--specifically concerning abortion--should be determined by you or anyone else?

I merely pointed out that existing law already denies that control in the case I cited, and many others as well. You simply persist in your apparent unwillingness to engage the issue. Until you do I find no interest in further conversation.

Right. And you were about to explain the similarities between these two scenarios:

In the first scenario, an immature girl is going to have sex with an adult male.

In the second scenario, a woman is going to get an abortion.

So go ahead and explain the similarities as you understand them.

No, you demanded an explanation. I found that a bit fatuous and declined. The logical connection in the foundation for law is quite obvious.

Right. It's so obvious that you should have no trouble explaining it. So what are the similarities between underage sex and abortion?

You said: "I am comparing both in the context of a supposed absolute sovereignty of a woman over her body."

All I've done here is ask you to explain the similarities between the two scenarios in question. And that's when you started to dance.