On Abortion, Can’t Pro-Lifers Leave Religion Out of the Discussion? (Report from CPAC)

[cbayer]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/15/on-abortion-can-t-pro-lifers-leave-religion-out-of-the-discussion.html


Ann Wagner, 2011; Marjorie Dannenfelser, 2010; escort awaits Planned Parenthood visitors before a pro-life protest, 2013. (Alex Wong/Getty, The Washington Post/Getty, Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty)

by Caitlin Dickson Mar 15, 2013 5:53 PM EDT

A CPAC panel Friday tried to focus on the procedure’s side effects on women, physically and mentally. One attendee wishes that were the major line of attack—and not just faith.

Alex sat behind several rows of empty seats in Maryland’s Gaylord Convention Center’s main ballroom on Friday, listening intently to the pro-life panel discussion ahead of her, looking down at her sparkly encased iPad only occasionally between applause and nods.

“I think in this day and age women deserve better,” the 24-year-old Alabama transplant said at the end of the CPAC panel, declining to give her last name because she now works in D.C. politics. “The anti-abortion movement needs to emphasize to young women that we care about you, we want to offer you other options and prevent the damage that abortions can have on women. I think this panel did a good job of explaining that.”

The panelists, who took the stage following Mitt Romney’s lukewarmly anticipated speech, were here to talk about abortion and the pro-life movement’s strategy for reversing the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision 40 years after the ruling.

more at link

[goldent]

1. I agree that opposition to abortion does not have to be based on religion

I am always fascinated by the situation in Germany

The Federal Constitutional Court decided a year later to maintain its earlier decision that the constitution protected the fetus from the moment of conception, but stated that it is within the discretion of parliament not to punish abortion in the first trimester,[citation needed] provided that the woman had submitted to state-regulated counseling intended to discourage termination and protect unborn life

[cbayer]

3. Is that the current law in Germany? Seems rather severe.

[goldent]

5. I don't have any first hand knowledge of the laws in Germany

But there are wikipedia articles on abortion laws in various countries. I have found that in much of western Europe, abortion is somewhat more restrictive than in the US (particularly how late abortion-on-demand is allowed). The UK is more similar to the US in allowing abortions much later in pregnancy, but they are becoming a bit more restrictive due to more scientific/medical knowledge of fetuses in the 2nd trimester.

I have also heard from Asian friends that people in their country view it as obvious that life starts at conception, but say abortion is allowed as a practical matter.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

2. Given that many of the arguments against abortion are based on particular moral views

It would be difficult not to bring religion into it. One of the basic questions is "is a fetus a human being?" If not, when does a fetus become a human being.

[cbayer]

4. That would only be true if one thinks morality is somehow unique to religion.

I don't think it is.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

7. I never said it was

However, if one is truly religious, then one has a strong sense of what is truly moral.

[Promethean]

8. If this is to be the place to discuss religious issues civilly then statements like this cannot be..

unchallenged.

I cannot help but be insulted by this statement. The implication is clear and while I am not an Atheist I do sympathize with them and am not what any religious person would consider "true." Civility is a two way street FA and if this is to be the place for civil discussion of religious issues I suggest you think about what you are saying.

[okasha]

9. Why are you insulted?

The post doesn't say that all moral people are religious, or that one must be religious to be moral.

Now, I happen to disagree with what it does say, which is that «truly» religious people are necessarily moral. Henry VIII was genuinely religious, after all. If this is to be a civil discusion group, though, it would be helpful if everyone took their indignation off hair trigger before coming into the room.

[Promethean]

13. The implication

is that only the "truly" religious can be "truly" moral. It is an outright statement that you cannot be moral without religion. Sorry but I came to my spiritual beliefs late in life and lived a perfectly moral life before then. No crimes (except a speeding ticket), I don't drink, never done drugs (I don't even like using aspirin) and most importantly the idea of doing harm is absolutely repulsive to me. That is any kind of harm, to any living thing.

My moral code predates my spirituality by a significant amount and to say that I am not "truly" moral is most definitely an insult.

[goldent]

15. "It is an outright statement that you cannot be moral without religion."

My philosophy professor would be disappointed if I didn't challenge that statement. That is perhaps the most famous fallacy in formal logic and is known as denying the antecedent.

FA said

However, if one is truly religious, then one has a strong sense of what is truly moral

He does not say that ONLY the truly religious have a strong sense of morality.

So you can challenge that statement and claim that not ALL religious people have a strong sense of morality. But you cannot claim he said if you are not religious then you are not moral. It does not follow.

[goldent]

6. As I mentioned in another response

in some countries, no-one argues that life begins at conception, but they still allow abortion. They will say that yes, they are ending a life, but they simply accept it. They don't have the "when does like begin?" debate.

Perhaps they view it a little like we view removing life support from someone near death - this might not be a great comparison, but it is something that we do accept, including the Church.

[okasha]

10. The real question is not whether

a fetus is a human being, but at what point a fetus becomes a person, who is by definition entitled to the full protection of the law. .

[Leontius]

11. So the question for you is not one of biology but a question of ????

[okasha]

12. It's a question of the point at which

biology, ethics and law intersect. And before you ask, I don't know the answer, except that I suspect that there are several such points, one of which is the «born alive» standard.

[cbayer]

14. I would suggest that in most cases that definition should not be scientifically determined

but determined by each individual facing the decision. While there may be a cut off, it should be very late and probably linked to viability.