Yvonne,
“Those who call themselves pro-lifers are not pro-choice, they are anti-choice and anti-abortion.”
Agreed, from now on I will use the term “anti-choice” rather than “pro-life”.
I am also curious about the answer to my hypothetical question what terminally-ill anti-choicers would do if offered medication derived from killed zygotes.
Personally, I wouldn’t want my life saved if it meant pulling random people off the street, killing them without their consent and using their bodies to manufacture my life-saving medication. But I would certainly take medication derived from zygotes.

Aqvarivs,
“Pro-choice is about developing choice not restricting the choice to abortion. “
Now that is a statement I can 100% agree with. Counselling services that are supposed to and expected to offer pregnant women balanced advice and support but fail to offer the full range of options need to be adequately dealt with. There was an OLO article and discussion titled Truth in Advertising which addressed this also.

Divergence,
thanks for highlighting the fact of natural quality control. Indeed, more than half of the conceptions are naturally aborted within the first trimester.
Imagine that zygotes were indeed regarded as ‘persons’, then every natural abortion should be a terrible, natural disaster, not different from an extremely high rate of cot deaths or childhood diseases killing about half our children. Much more attention is given to cot death, while the number of natural abortions is significantly higher..

Goodthief,
thank you for explaining so openly and patiently your reasons for being anti-choice. I understand that you have a natural, perhaps intuitive belief that abortion is wrong; even I don’t share these feelings I can respect your reason.
Still, can I assume that you understand why some women (in extreme cases such as presented by Danielle about very young women) should not be denied abortions because abortions are sometimes necessary to save women’s lives?


RObert, aqvarivs, Yabby, MickV
perhaps I’m paranoid about secret agendas, and I can agree that the majority of the anti-choice Christians most probably haven’t considered verses such as those we have presented.

continued

My main concern is that religious leaders with much influence (for example Ratzinger) must know the bible inside out and are very well aware that there are enough contradictions in the Bible to be able to conclude that there is no conclusive evidence that God is definitely opposed to abortion.
If the bible was clear about abortion there wouldn’t be so many Christian denominations who are pro-choice.

Having said that, and having read MickV’s post, I am now back at square one: it all boils down to the definition of a human being.

In my opinion, believing that a zygote has the same rights as a human being seems unreasonable.
A zygote or embryo does, undeniably, have some human properties such as DNA, or a few human cells, but that doesn’t make it a person.
If you’re building a car, for example, when do you need to start paying registration? When do you call it a car and when does it function as a car? Do you call it a car when you own one wheel, or four wheels, a windscreen or a car seat? Of course not- you wouldn’t say: “I’ve built a car” until the whole car is finished and functions.
Would the RTA people not find the owner of a windscreen and a couple of tyres a bit nutty if that person came in to register some tyres and windscreem with the statement that s/he wanted this “car” registered because it had potential?

I also like what Col says about the real issue: “the real issue is not abortion itself but what it represents, that is - an individuals sovereign right of choice” I suspect that there may be a lot of truth in that.

Now, all we have to do is agree at which point the life of an individual begins
I would say that an individual isn’t born until s/he has all human properties including a brain that is as developed as the brain of a newborn baby who is able to live independently outside the mother’s womb

Mick V, I enjoyed that Scriptural input, thank you.

Divergence, The points you make about euthanasia and what I’ll call “natural selection in utero” are well made. However, if we are going to allow this selection to take place, and the old and sick to be unplugged, I want this to happen with a full acknowledgement that it is a human being who is unplugged or deselected. Similarly, however many foetuses we abort, and no matter what our reasons, I want to see that same acknowledgement.

I can’t help but suspect that we all feel bad about abortion, out of consideration for the foetus, and that we reduce the foetus conceptually to make it easier to bear. I’ll be rebuked for suggesting this, I guess, but I really suspect it might be so.

Meanwhile, back in the fray, I would back a foetal brain with a positive prognosis over an adult brain that is setting like the sun. And if worse comes to worst, and I find that I am inconsistent but have saved some lives, I won’t be too regretful. This may seem shabby to the logicians online but, if forced to choose, I would choose life over consistency. Consistency and death are shabbier still.

Celivia, Thank you. You might agree that the combination of disagreement and understanding is not such a bad recipe for peace. I would accept an abortion that is necessary to save the woman’s life. I accept it because it’s self-defence, which would justify a killing in ordinary circumstances. Do you accept that it is a human being whom it was necessary to kill, to save the woman?

Celivia and Yvonne, Please don’t make peace one minute and then start with the name-calling the next. If you guys start with the “anti-choice” you’ll end up being called “pro-death”. Let’s not go there.

Pax,

Celivia, as we can see by the many various Xtian cults and sects,
the bible verses can be interpreted in just about any way at all,
with each group claiming that their particular interpretation is
the correct one. So how long is a piece of string?

The Catholics take a differnt viewpoint:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pell-plans-fidelity-oath-for-principals/2007/06/03/1180809340768.html

The idea there is that Catholics "submit intellect and will" and
simply accept what the old papa in Rome deems true, for he is meant
to be infallible and divinely inspired. That makes things easy lol,
you are wrong, as the pope says so :)

Xtians do what people do, they have selective memories. So they
forget all the nasty bits in the bible, just remember those that
suit their agenda. As they say, people create gods in their own
image, so true!

Yabby, having read your link and then your full post it would seem that it isn't just Catholics who suffer a selective reading and comprehension disorder. It isn't the text that is at fault. It is the interpreter and what he/she wants to convey. There are two types of people who read the Bible. Those who come to praise God and discover the history behind Christianity in all it's light, and those others who have come to denigrate and use the Bible to bash the faithful by continually highlighting and misrepresenting the negative lessons written for purposes of instruction. It's too bad that so many children have their maturity stunted by anger issues and grow into vindictive narrow minded bigots who can not but blame life for their existence. I'm amused by your inability to conceive why the Catholic Church might be pro-life. I suppose in your world pro-death is more serving for how you view the church. What the Church actually strives to do is ingrain in it's followers a sense of attention to personal responsibility and thinking about ones actions and the repercussions that follow such inattention. As in abortion for the sake of coping out on your responsibility for your actions.
Like all those criminals in prison who thought they were ever so clever in doing crimes but now whinge and bleed about doing the time and facing the consequences of their chosen acts. So to are there men and women who want to have sex with out having to face any responsibilities. Abortion is not about the business of life it is, absent of the rare exception, the business of stopping life. Surely you don't actually expect any religion to champion such a thing?

Mick, goodthief, thanks for your responses.
I clearly take a different view to Mick on some of that stuff but that happens. I've only founded limited commentary on the Numbers 5 passage so far and that pretty much all suggests that a miscarriage is suggested.

As Celivia pointed out it's hard to get rego on an incomplete car even if the designers know what they are going to build or regardless of how much care you lavish on it as you build it.

Personally what the bible has to say on the matter is no longer of much relevance to me other than as a consequence that some seem to think what it says should impact on how those who don't follow it should live. It's interesting to see that some christains interpret the same sources differently.

I do wish there were better names that pro-life and pro-choice, clearly few of us thinks the anti-<pick your stance> version reflects our position.

Cheers
R0bert