I think this applies in Canda too
(imgur.com)
Comments (24)
sorted by:
The exact same logic could be used to argued for the legalization of murder. After all, "Thou shalt not kill" is a Christian value, and how dare a supposedly secular government impose Christian customs on its non-Christian citizens, right?
People object to abortion because they see the baby as a human being who's as entitled to not be murdered as any other human being. You don't need to be religious to agree that killing innocent people is bad.
I was not aware that there has been a huge, centuries-long debate about the legality of murder.
Thou Shalt Not Kill is not an exclusively Christian value. The fact that it is a generally recognized principal in organized religions accounts for the lack of debate.
If that was strictly true we wouldn't be discussing this, would we?
"Thou Shalt Not Kill" shows up in all the major religions and is a secular value as well. Christians can't claim it as exclusively theirs.
WHat does the Christian bible say about abortion, specifically?
It says "Thou Shalt Not Kill".
What are you even bringing up religion for? The question of whether it's right or wrong to murder people doesn't require religion to answer it.
I assume you're an atheist. So am I. Is it wrong to kill a human being just because they're an inconvenience to you? Yes or no.
So, nothing about abortion. No guidance on when life begins.
Not much use in this debate, is it?
What a stupid argument.
What does the bible say about shooting people with a 9mm?
Nothing. But it says "Thou shalt not kill" which covers shooting people with a 9mm, as well as abortion.
Now, yes or no: Is it wrong to kill a human being just because they're an inconvenience to you?
Abortion is thousands of years old. Don't be silly. https://www.24grammata.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Malcolm-Potts-and-Martha-Campbell-24grammata.com_.pdf
And, after all, the bible does sanction killing, even of innocents.
So hanging your hat on "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty simplistic.
OK. Thou Shalt Not Kill.
How seriously do you take that? Thou Shalt Not Kill Anything?
Or just Thou Shalt Not Kill The Things That I Think It Means.
I'm not here to convince you.
Morals are culturally based - what's abhorrent in one culture is common in another - and they can vary within cultures.
Given its history there is clearly no single right answer to the question of abortion. It's more a question of how far one person's morals apply to someone with a different standard.
Religion comes up pretty frequently in these debates and it's important to remember we don't live in a theocracy.
Are you looking to adopt or contribute substantially to the care and raising of the child? Or are you one of those "Not my job but she has to give birth to the baby" folks.
What are you, personally, prepared to do to support the unwanted children that won't be aborted?
As if the cost of an abortion was the same as the cost of raising a child. You aren't giving this a lot of thought, are you?
"Because the costs associated with childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care greatly exceed the costs of abortion, public funding for abortion neither costs the taxpayer money nor drains resources from other services."
https://www.aclu.org/other/public-funding-abortion
There are 400,000 children in foster care. There seems to be something wrong with your wait list.
If you're dissatisfied with Canada's healthcare system I don't know what to tell you. Should there be a fee structure for healthcare that's required because of lifestyle choices? Maybe you don't want to pay for the healthcare for smokers, drinkers, obese people, and the like. Abortion involves a fetus, so it's not quite the same thing, but money looms large in your argument and it doesn't seem to be a great leap to objecting to healthcare for people who don't make enough of an effort to take care of themselves.
I repeat: not exactly the same question, but a financial one, and arguably morally similar.