Abortion: 10 years as an atheist and I still don't get it

[tackattack]

---

Sorry NV, it wasn't intentional to not engage, just missed in the scroll. I was attempting to navigate the topic without religiosity being thrown in. Homicide/genocide/killing is not moral, IMO , but can be justified or unjustified. Ie. I would kill to eat and feed my family. I would kill to prevent anaphylactic shock. I would kill to make a safer community. I would kill to defend myself or an individual unable to defend themselves. I would kill in war for an ideal. I would would have the moral weight of those killings on my conscience and the weights would differ based on my ideals and to the perceived value of the victim.

Ok. Well you're still avoiding the question.

Christianity stands or falls on one issue: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's it. If I proved that Jesus never performed any miracle whatsoever except the miracle of rising from the dead, I'd still prove Christianity true even while showing the majority of the gospels to be false.  And the converse is true also: if you proved that Jesus did perform every miracle attributed to him in the gospels except for rising from the dead, and you inadvertently proved with absolute certainty that he did not rise, either physically or spiritually, then you would still be disproving Christianity.

Christians dodge questions, lie, and twist things around.  But there's no reason for that. Just admit that the genocides of Joshua were immoral, because they quite obviously were.  That will be a blow to your religion, sure, but it won't be the death knell. At the very least just admit that you disagree with the decision but that you trust God. But when you dodge and lie, or play stupid games, you're not advertising your beliefs with nobility. I don't think to myself, "I want to be a part of that group! Look how dishonest and underhanded they are! Sign me up!"

If Christians would just be honest and honorable in debate then we'd respect your opinion. So until you guys can do that, you'd be of better service to the unborn by saying nothing because when you open your mouth about abortion you're just going to piss people off.

---

Bolding by me. In case you skimmed I did admit genocide was immoral. I didn't dodge, I didn't twist. The rest of your post was just biased opinion and is worth just as much as you attribute to mine so you can just say nothing unless you'd like to actually read and discuss a topic.

---

@Mister Agenda I was speaking of murder as ending life. If you'd prefer I user unlawful ending of human life then I could rephrase. As fetus' aren't universally agreed upon when they are a human life, and the legality f killing them is in question in some areas; If a fetus is a life and if it is legal to kill them it is state sanctioned murder equivalent to the death penalty and should have just as much legal inquisition as to the cause and moral weight.

If you talk about 'ending life', you're equating ending the life of a fetus with stepping on a bug. If that's how you want to play it, you're going to have trouble making the case that people shouldn't do it, or that it should be a hard decision. We end lives all the time, just by living, it's no big deal. If you're of the opinion that a fetus is a human being that should be treated as a legal person, at least in some respects, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. You don't have to pussyfoot around on what you believe. If you don't believe that, what's your problem with abortion?

@Divinity The stigma and majority issues aside, shouldn't people struggle with the decision? It would be those that don't struggle (fetus are like a wart) with the decision I would be concerned with.

In my opinion, other people's struggles or lack there of are none of your business and private unless your opinion is asked for.

---

I do believe a fetus is a life, and worthy of person-hood. I also know that a definition of personhood is contestable so I was merely breaking it down to it's simplest. It's a life. Killing is either moral or immoral. I don't have a problem with abortion in justifiable circumstances, just like I don't have a problem with killing in the slew of reasons I listed earlier (war, execution, eating, self-defense, etc.).
I agree that other people's struggles are none of my business and I stated early on that in a real conversation I might not even answer if asked my opinion IRL, just to recognize the person's struggle. This is a discussion board though so I consider that carte blanch.

---

No I would not be ok with being compelled to do something, I am however a donor and after I'm dead they can have the parts. Reason stated above.

So then, it must be true that you don't also want women to be compelled to be a life support systems for their fetus for 7+ months.

After all, your not wanting to be a life support system for a baby, is completely understandable. But it would mean (in this scenario) certain death for that baby.

It's a simple bodily autonomy issue. Why is it ok for you to want the rights to keep your bodily autonomy in the hypothetical I poste, but not ok for a women to not have the same rights to her bodily autonomy?

And thank you very much for being a donor!

I received a kidney transplant back in 1989, that is certainly responsible for my continuing survival.

---

I don't want women to be compelled to be a life support systems for their fetus for 7+ months for a justifiable reason. If that reason is because you hate blue eyes or red hair and your baby will have them, I consider it murder. If it's to save the mother's life, or spare child suffering, then it's justified. Neither is a moral choice, it's the lesser of 2 bads. That's why I believe abortion is immoral, but sometimes necessary.
Nothing about the issue is simple, and it deserves thought, discussion and compassion. Most societies don't allow bodily autonomy at the expense of all else.

Congrats, I'm glad you made the list, there's not enough to go around and I'm glad it took.