As an agnostic I neither believe nor disbelieve in souls. I also hold women have the right to deny anyone to use their bodies. If there are souls, wouldn’t the fetuses/babies go to heaven anyway?
There are atheists who are against abortion. They reason they say is why does anyone have the right to deny life to any other being? Do we have the right to deny someone life?
One crux of the question is if he/she is a person yet. Pregnancy puts a lot of strains on a woman.
However, the existence of souls is not dependent upon our belief in them.
A logical fallacy at its finest.
I hold that women do not have the right to kill babies based on their location.
Another logical fallacy. By that logic, wouldn’t a two year old go to heaven anyway? Why not make it legal to kill 2 year olds then?
We do not have a right to kill other people, no matter how young or old they are nor based on where they are located.
I do not find your argument compelling. I encourage you to read this article:
Science has proven that the fertilized egg has all the DNA and chromosomes of a SEPARATE human being, a human being that is neither the father or the mother. It is alive and growing minute by minute.
Yes, it is dependent on the mother. And the father is also responsible.
Responsibility is a key issue here. If you get into a car accident you did not intend to cause, you are still responsible.
We failed to teach that sex is exactly how human life comes to be. Too many expect to enjoy sex whenever with whomever with no consequence what so ever.
Why is it that those for abortion are hardly ever those who have had abortions?
BTW, we DO have souls whether one chooses to accept that fact or not. The vast majority of people believe we have souls.
We have to do much better in teaching the proper place for sex.
Why do you believe in rights? I think they are immaterial, like souls. If you don’t believe in souls but you do believe in rights, isn’t that a double standard? What are rights made of? If they aren’t made of anything, how do they exist in your worldview?
Yes … and don’t go losing yours.
.................... A Friend :)
But if people do have souls then we can murder them and let their souls go to heaven, so murder is no biggie.:shrug:
I think it would be extremely difficult to be pro-life if you don’t believe in the existence of the soul. With the sacred out of the equation, human value at that point is determined according to utility, which fetuses have virtually none of. You could really even correctly call the fetus a parasitic organism, since it is feeding off of its mothers resources.
From a Catholic perspective, if the human being had no soul - or more specifically, no rational soul - then abortion would not be wrong. The Catholic Church does not consider it unethical to abort an animal fetus, which has a soul, but not a rational soul. Aborting a creature with an immortal, rational soul is an objective act of murder.
Actually, there are prolife atheists who don’t believe in the immortality of the soul.
Their argument is that, if you only have one life and it ends easily, it’s even more important to protect human lives of unborn babies.
I honor their logic.
(Obviously I disagree with their premises, but it’s true that wherever you start, it’s clearly wrong to kill unborn babies.)
If there are souls, maybe you would go to heaven if someone kills you. Would that make killing you right?
Abortion is still wrong …
… but here’s a counter-question: What if there are not really any atheists?
**[size=]Romans 1:18 **
The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made.
As a result, they have no excuse;
21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks.
Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools …
Setting one’s goal for spiritual oblivion is not humility … it is however such a poor choice that almost anything else is better.
The ONE theoretical benefit of it WOULD be … “Hey … no hell! We can DO IT! Yes We Can!”
Of course postmortem, those wouldn’t even know that THEN. NOR could they find out that they were right (not that they ever would be :whistle:).
Oops. One MORE benefit! Atheism is almost a spiritual South Pole … whereby almost any step in any direction away from it is better, a step into the light.
Atheism as a FEELING, not a lifechoice (like in Psalm 22 or St. John of the Cross’ "Dark Night of the Soul) is something great saints sometimes go through. Generally these don’t commit the sin of abortion (from approval of it, to funding it, to performing it) – yet the sacrifice of Christ is so great that even those who have chosen abortion for another still have a chance to be saved – if they seek God’s bountiful mercy.
It might just as well be argued that “If animals have no souls …” (is it ok to kill them for mere convenience)? Generally, no there as well.
Say! The blueprints for a new art museum have no souls have they? OK to burn them up? <* Don’t do it. Most juries would hold you responsible for the destruction*. The value of each child is inestimable. Which is not the same as worthless. Or “worthy to be destroyed” (because some amoral mental masturbator gets a satanic “inspiration” and political backup).
If you stopped reading this post where the scripture ended you will not be seeing this. If you get this far you’ll note, and I’ll admit, that the ending of it is not MORE inspired by the Holy Spirit. So … mea culpa for that … and maybe read the passage from Romans again (or another inspirational scripture) and end on a higher note. Take heart. We ***have ***souls. So do the babies being formed by God Himself … abortion is the destruction of whom He is forming. WHY suppose we have no souls?
Seriously considering doing it is playing with spiritual fire. Better news is … The Lord wants all to be saved, and has paid a horrible price to be able to blot out that sin and others like it. :coolinoff:[/size]
If you didn’t have a soul, could I kill you? Would that be wrong?
If a mom didn’t like her infant anymore, could she leave her on the side of the road? Would that be wrong?
Captfun, don’t tell me what I do(n’t) know/believe, and especially don’t try to use a “holy” book to argue for that.
And yes, for the sake of argument if there is a heaven killing people so they go there would be a kindness. To me, that just makes the belief in heaven ludicrous (no offense). The one follows from the other.
I’m not suggesting we kill newborns, but at what point does a fetus become a “person”?
Yes, it does. However, there are billions of years of trial-and-error behind the process, and women’s bodies are pretty well situated for pregnancy at this point.
If strain on bodies is the arbiter there’s really not much hope for anyone.
You have a soul.
Abortion is always wrong.
CaptFun responds in RED
I submit that abortion puts strain on a woman’s body as well, upsetting a delicate hormone balance that leads to a dangerous increase in cancer rates. The abortion may be physically rough, emotionally damaging, and may lead to life-long infertility. Induced abortion is not natural and a woman’s body is not made for the type of strain it causes, unlike the natural strains of pregnancy and birth.
I don’t agree that it’s difficult. If you believe that murder of innocent human beings is wrong–as nearly all people do regardless of religion–being pro life is the only position that makes sense. The arguments most people make in favor of abortion hinge on the idea that the unborn are not human beings, not that killing innocent humans is okay. The problem with that logic is that an unborn child differs from a newborn by being of smaller size, less mature level of development, different environment, and greater dependency on others. Yet a newborn differs from a toddler in those same areas, and a toddler from a teen, etc. Nobody is arguing that it is okay to kill a newborn but not a toddler because of these differences.
Ultimately you are correct of course, but most people who support abortion oppose murder in general regardless of religion, so their views about abortion can only work if they are convinced the unborn are not human, not that they have no soul. If they realized that this is not true, then it wouldn’t be any harder to be pro life than it would be to say that killing a toddler is wrong.