Religions should not interfere with the freedom of others.
Why is it that anti-abortion campaigners justify violating the rights of women in the name of religious morals?

Do religious anti-abortion campaigners have a patent on morals now?

BTW, there are quite a few religious organisations in agreement with legalisation of abortion.

About the soul argument, it does not make sense.

One reason is that the evidence of the existence of souls or a God is absent. Stick to reality and facts when dealing with important issues, not with fairy tales.

Reality is that many women have to deal with unwanted pregnancies and should have choices and support in whatever decision they make.

Who wants to favour something that does not exist over an adult woman, who, obviously does exist and has human rights?
A woman’s physical and emotional well-being should always have priority over the non existing.

CR is right; abortion is nobody’s business but the pregnant woman’s.

Newsflash for the pro-lifers:

Woman -->> Boss of Belly!

"Secular humanist or athiest continue to insist their view is correct and then deny absolutes."

Runner, you are correct, us evil secularists believe in things
like people having choices in their lives, tolerance of others
etc. How shocking is that!

Given that you have no idea as to why various women make the choices
they do when it comes to abortion, I'd say that judging them
is rather arrogant of you.

As there is no substantiated evidence of any being who can claim
to decide on objective moral absolutes, it clearly makes no sense to
accept them.

Perhaps we could send you to the Taliban for a bit, so that you
can experience what living under claimed moral absolutes is really
like! :)

Runner “Secular humanist or athiest continue to insist their view is correct and then deny absolutes. How dishonest?”

Strange you put a question mark after “how dishonest”.
I would have thought you were actually making a statement, not asking a question, not even a rhetorical one but then, I do possess a rational mind, which might limit my ability to interpret the ravings of the irrational.

I would note, runner, your post has not advanced the reasoning process one iota.

The point of debating is to sway the argument, you seem to be content to make emotional stabs in the air with a blunt object as substitute for rapier wit and expect your antagonists to fall before you.

That is very Quixotic of you and like all things efforts to fight windwills, completely pointless.

Now, maybe you could try to challenge the statements of reason which I and others have made, which support the idea that women (and men) are sovereign individuals, with the right to determine their own destiny and that whilst that destiny may not comply or conform with your beliefs, those people are not forced to fealty to whatever mumbo-jumbo you shroud yourself in and would seek to inflict on others.

Good thief, If you believe, like I do, that individuals are free to make up their own mind, then yes, morality is subjective. The moral “collective value” is enshrined in the “law” of the country.

The “law” regarding abortion was introduced around 180-120 years ago (generally in the early half of 19 century) and repealed around 30 years ago, thus to “change”, abortion law could not be “absolute”. Thus it must be “non-absolute” or “subjective”.

Celivia, Happy to agree about prevention. However, that will only reduce the number of abortions, not eliminate them. They should be as rare as executions and killings in self-defence. You too want abortions to be rare, but why? Certainly not for the sake of the foetus. Two long posts from you without one reference to the foetus. Just “women, women, women”. Something missing.

Yabby, The evidence for objective morals is the fact that we are all having this discussion. If morality were merely subjective, we wouldn’t bother: we’d just have our different moral “feelings” and that would be that, there’d be nothing to discuss. If we did discuss, it would be like me saying “I have a headache” and you saying “I don’t have a headache”. Notice there’s no disagreement about the headache, just different separate feelings. However, when we express different views about abortion, don’t you get the impression that we’re talking about the same thing and disagreeing about it?

Col Rouge, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by the sovereignty of the individual. Personally, I regard God as sovereign and humans as equal subjects. Anyhow, I am concerned about the limitations you seem to be placing on who is, and who isn’t, an individual. I say the foetus is.

I think we should do better than the law. For example, I regard lying as morally wrong, but it’s legal. It’s only fraud that’s illegal, ie lying for money. Same with adultery, or cheating on your partner generally: legal, but not right. Do you really regard lying and cheating as morally acceptable? I know I can’t force my view about what is right down your throat – and I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t even if I could, as a matter of respect – but that doesn’t mean abortion is okay and up for grabs. If morality were really subjective, then everything would be okay, as every thing is bound to have the support of someone who “feels” it’s okay. In that case, the word "moral" wouldn't even exist. But, it does exist, and it means something.

Pax,

I agree with Celivia and Col Rouge with one exception. If it is to be the womans singular responsibility and rightful choice prior to any birth to abort or not to abort, then it should also be the womans singular responsibility after a birth. Men should be removed from the equation and laws passed that reflect child birth as a womans right and men being protected from support issues.
"I have chosen to abort. I have chosen to carry a child to full term. Oh, by the way. In 9 months it becomes your responsibility to see that it has food, clothing, shelter, access to health care, education and other social services for the rest of your life. It does not matter if you want the child or not". And The Courts back up this double standard. It's time men were freed from the financial responsibility of womens rights choices and their decisions.

I have difficulty understanding the apparently vast difference between two gametes about to fuse and a fertilised ovum. Destroying the former is uncharitable. Destroying the latter is murder. Presumably it is the same situation for a cell used to produce a clone.

What is the condition that is being satisfied here? The potential to become a functioning human being is satisfied by all cases, but such a definition would make all functioning human beings mass murderers. Kicking your toe or a having a good scratch would make you a murderer. In fact, a woman having an abortion would account for the loss of far fewer potential lives than a patient undergoing liposuction.

Then there is the related question of whether other animals have human qualities and how this might affect their status.

It has been discussed before on OLO but no differences have been resolved. I believe that the onus of proof lies with the right to lifers. If they wish to refer to consenting women having abortions as murderers, then they must show why an embryo should be so differently regarded than its precursors.