Constitutional Amendment Banning Abortion

[bigus_D]

Originally Posted by bigg cheese

You are right of course. It always comes down to what constitutes life. And of course, that is where we part ways.

Where I find a inconsistency is how murder, as a "moral wrong" can exist in a world that was allegedly an accident, with no purpose, and us killing each other would merely be animals thinning the herd, just because it is what we do.

If you believe in God as the creator of the universe, then I would ask, "how do you know?," and "is it worth the risk of being wrong?"

As faith-driven as it is, and I freely admit it, I can appeal to a higher power. The most science (in the hands of an a-deital individual) can do is appeal to the intellect of man, and no man's opinion is therefore worth more than that of another.

In my opinion this is the basic crux of the argument.

Abortion is murder if life begins at conception.

According to my understanding of the Catholic faith, life begins even before conception. Therefore contraception = murder (hence the Catholic position against contraception).
Typically, the argument is made that life begins at conception. This argument is usually based on religious grounds. This is consistent with the views posted in this thread thus far.
Another typical argument is that life begins at some point after conception (i.e. viability). This is more of a scientific view.

In any case, it is not clear when exactly life begins. That said, no religous opinion has a place in this argument.

"Is it worth being wrong?..." It is fine for you to use this argument to decide for yourself not to have an abortion... but if my religion doesn't say that life begins at conception, then your religion has no place telling me what to do.

[bigg cheese]

Are you Catholic? I am not.

In any case, it is not clear when exactly life begins. That said, no religous opinion has a place in this argument.

So then until there is a perfect answer, no one should debate it? This is exactly why I appeal to a higher power on the subject. Man's opinion, PhD or not, is still just an opinion. Don't forget, it was just some man who decided that "viability" constitutes life, and also decided just how "viable" it would have to be, and then there are still others who think that we can murder a baby outside the womb now. Even those who don't believe in a God are incredibly divided on when life begins and when it can be routinely ended.

Life without a Creator is not sacred, and the mere concept of Murder is nothing more than a passing thought.

[agentl074]

This is why there will never be a solution to this issue. The topic of abortion and pro life is much too sensitive to address. There are too many variables in the debate and we do not know with certainty.... Basically this is why we draw a "reasonable" line in the abortion issue and leave it as that. The problem with reasonableness is that it is debated also.

As far as the political influences regarding the final canon of the bible, google "the missing books of the bible". The was a History channel documentary on "Banned from the Bible" - books which were intentionally left out of the canon. The reasons for leaving books out of the bible were due to the decisions of elders, the significance and political climate at the time. I have a lot more research yet to do to prepare for my religion and culture studies course

[EdC]

And now there is another issue:

Originally Posted by bigg cheese

. . .This is exactly why I appeal to a higher power on the subject. Man's opinion, PhD or not, is still just an opinion.

I've found that appeals to a higher power are again, just "man's opinion" as to what the will of that higher power is, or what the respective scriptures mean. Guidance, yes, answers, no, or at least never for me.

[Fletch]

Originally Posted by bigg cheese

Life without a Creator is not sacred....

Disagree.

[Paco Bedejo]

Originally Posted by public servant

Would you support a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion except to save the mother's life or in cases of incest or rape?

Why or why not?

I didn't vote. You failed to give the proper option.

I don't believe the FEDERAL level of our government is the place for such legislation. Regardless how you feel, the 1/2 feels the other way. A blanket FEDERAL law one way or the other does not represent the people.

[Fletch]

Originally Posted by Paco Bedejo

A blanket FEDERAL law one way or the other does not represent the people.

Correct answer for 99% of all issues, IMO.