I believe the real issue with abortion is whether or not the baby forming inside the mother is considered a human life at any point, because once it's human, taking its life is not just killing it, it's actual murder. And how do we decide if and when the unborn baby is "human?" Once it's able to survive outside the womb? Once it grows recognizable eyes, hands, and toes? When it kicks and sucks its thumb? When it's able to observe, reason, feel, and love? Or . . . is it simply the moment those two cells join together? Where on earth should we draw the line and why?
I posted something in the old "What's your religion" a couple of years ago, before it crashed and burned.
and Republicans want to own reproductive rights of women
Do you honestly think it's about that??
It's because Christians view a "fetus" as a human life, and to abort it is murder. It has nothing to do with "controlling" the reproductive rights of women (and on a side note, why aren't there reproductive rights for men?)*
I think I've posted something like this before, but here goes:
If a parent took their 6-month-old child and bashed it's head against the wall, would you consider that murder?
What about someone throwing their newborn in the dumpster?
Is there some magical "pubic fairy" that gives a baby a soul when it passes through the birth canal? If not, then what is the difference between a full-term unborn child and a newborn baby?
What if someone assaults a pregnant woman, either killing her, or causing her to miscarry? Is that murder of the baby? I think there are legal precedents that have shown it to be murder, I'm not 100% sure.
Assuming that you don't believe in the "pubic fairy" and think that at some point the "fetus" is a human being instead of a growth, at what point do you think so?
When it starts kicking and moving?
- When it has it's own heartbeat?
- When there is a good chance it would be viable outside the womb (about 5 months)?
- When it can feel pain?
- When it has brainwaves?
* Reproductive rights for men (for the sake of argument.)
Why can't the father insist that the baby be kept (and raised by him, if the woman doesn't want it)?
Conversely, why couldn't the man insist on an abortion, or if the woman refuses and keeps the baby, he is released from child support?
What about a man who is using birth control and/or is told the woman is using birth control, but she pokes a hole in the condom or has sabotaged her own birth control? Is the man then forced to make payments for 18 years?