Abortion debate: The argument is moot because any law banning abortion is unenforcable. Pt goes for D+E, D+C, suction evac. for miscarrage or abortion, same difference. It's exactly the same procedure. Enforcement is -- a cop in every OB office, a cop at every OR door ?? Stupid, futile argument. If abortion cannot legislated by statute, it's a matter of conscience.
Let them condemn the conscience of others. They're good at that !! It keeps them from considering their own conscience... The gay, the feminists, the abortionists, the Arabs, never them... It's "good vs. evil" in their black + white, borderline world... Talk about "mental disorder" !!
'The timing of ensoulment in humans does vary between different religions, and within people of the same religion.
"[I]f we are considering public policy in a pluralistic society, we should not take a particular religious outlook as the basis for our laws" (Singer, 1990). ~~ One of the important reasons for religions to place a high value on human life is belief in the soul. Each individual is precious and unique because they possess a soul, a spiritual status. The body, soul and spirit of the human individual are not separated but are integral in a Christian view. Before an individual becomes a self-aware person they may possess a soul. The timing of the beginning of the human individual actually coincides with the time of ensoulment, which I have discussed elsewhere (Macer, 1990). It is generally believed there is no intermediate in the animal kingdom, although some animals may possess souls. If the soul is from God then it is not necessary to envisage intermediates, but the threshold can be crossed in a single step, between animal instinct and human reflection. The timing of ensoulment in humans does vary between different religions, and within people of the same religion.In a tradition where the presence of a soul is the source of autonomy and protecting human life, the characters of personhood are less important in assigning autonomy.
Many people accept that all humans are equal in moral status, and all humans are of superior moral status to nonhuman animals. From these two moral principles they put human welfare ahead of animal suffering. Peter Singer argues that these two moral principles cannot be defended within the terms of a nonreligious approach to ethics. He concludes that there is no rational ethical justification for always putting human suffering ahead of that of nonhuman animals. He argues that "if we are considering public policy in a pluralistic society, we should not take a particular religious outlook as the basis for our laws" (Singer, 1990). But we can ask, do we need to take rational utilitarian philosophy as the basis for public policy? Many different people's cultural and religious views are more consistent with human beings having a higher moral status than animals, and these views may have more in common with each other than with the rationalistic philosophy of academics. There are some fundamental questions about who should decide this, and it needs to be considered at greater length. http://www.eubios.info/BLL/BLL6.htm
But the issue is more practical than philosophical. Enforcing a ban on abortion is not a legal possibility. In a perfect world, every child would be wanted, and healthy. There would be no abortion, no child abuse, no poverty, etc...
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
