(March 11, 2013 at 9:20 am)EGross Wrote: [update]As noted, I have indicated that there is a religious influence in the Abortion and Death debate. But every dogma seems to have a different definition or influence. As I noted, incest is really a religious concern, since God holds it as an abomination. And defining when the body within the womb is alive, that also can be defined by religion, and has been. The "heartbeat rule" recently passed in on state in the USA is one. A few months ago, conception was considered to be from the moment of intent, not the moment an egg was fertlized. And in Judaism, a child that is stillborn or miscarried is not treated as ever having been alive at any point - there is no requirement to sit shiva, since it never had it's own life, according to halachah. (In recent years, a heter has been made, permitting the grieving family to sit shiva, but not because the baby was alive, but because the family may do so to heal, or they may forego it. If it was an person who lived, then there would be a requirement to sit shiva, and then pray 3 times a day for the next 11 months).
That is based on dogma, just as "in case of incest" is also based on religious dogma.
And my point was to show that religion is really at the core of the debate, using incest as an example.
LOL, you're funny!
I told you that my reasons are not from religious dogma, re-word your bare assertions please.
