Yopaz said:
DailonCmann said:
BreakfastMan said:
As for why Christians think it is bad, well the Bible says murder is bad, so by putting two and two together... I think you can do the rest.
So, why is fighting wars okay? Or the death penalty?
I don't think the death penalty is allowed by Christian logic, but the bible says "You shall not murder" so they make a difference between killing and murdering. Murdering is bad, killing for a cause is perfectly fine. Or to say it in a different way. Christian logic is no logic.
OT: I think Christians are more against it because they believe the ethics of the bible, and by twisting what the bible says enough you can get them to believe that Jesus spoke to the masses and told them abortions should be illegal because it's a worse crime than rape, arson and murder combined. If something gets said enough people start believing it.
It isn't necessarily because of religion, in the start I think the protesters against it were more common than those who were for it. Birth control of any sort was heavily debated when it was introduced. With abortions I think people started to protest out of ignorance, then they started the pro-life vs pro-choice. As ignorance left us more became pro-choice, but the religious nuts aren't known to change their beliefs with increasing technology. They still think that a book written 1600 year ago is accurate enough to explain the creation of the world.
Nobody ever said fighting wars were "okay" unless one group of people wanted something another group of people refused to relinquish/share.
It's for that reason that the only requirement to get into heaven is to appreciate Jesus and accept him as part of the holy trinity. You could be the biggest psychopath ever, kill hundreds of people in cold blood yet still get into heaven via the Jesus method.
Also, fun fact: Jesus denounced the Old Testament. So yes, Jesus is cool with teaching evolution in school. Time for the fundamentalists to shaddup already.
Also, religious reasoning aside, abortion is still highly immoral when you look at the facts.
We base that morality on three factors:
Intrinsic value of human beings ? an intangible quality.
Common nature of human flesh and blood ? biological evidence of Law of Biogenesis, uniqueness of DNA & embryological/anatomical science.
The equality of common physical attributes of human beings - Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency (SLED).
If we do not morally discriminate against human beings outside the womb with these attributes (we treat them equally as humans under the law) then such conclusions also apply to pre-born human beings because:
Size - Hillary Clinton is not considered less human than Shaquille O?Neal. An embryo is not less human than a newborn.
Level of Development ? Toddlers are less developed than pre-adolescents who are less developed than adults. An embryo is the organ development stage of a human being while in the next stage, a fetus?s organs mature, just as an adolescent?s organs mature through puberty.
Environment ? Astronauts and scuba divers do not lose their human nature in non-supportive environments. A womb is the natural environment for the pre-born at their level of development. Exposing human beings to unnatural, uninhabitable environments is an act of murder.
Dependency ? We don?t kill those who depend upon us. Infants depend upon parents/guardians for all their primary needs. Our dependencies extend to each other, and without the defense of the goodness of meeting human dependencies, none of us would be alive.