"I am saying where there is disagreement among religious scholars, and there isn't science to back up your position, then butt out."
From your other posts, I would have guessed that religion would have no bearing whatsoever on your opinions. Are you saying that if there were religious unity on the point you would accept it?
On the issue of science, you should know that Roe was flawed from a scientific standpoint on the day it was issued. Science has only widened the gap.
The claim that early in the pregnancy the unborn is a "mass of cells" is disingenuous at best from a scientific veiw. There is exactly zero doubt concerning what that "mass of cells" will manifest.
The state of the pro-choice argument has moved past that argument because it is ultimately unpersuasive. If you look at the current thinking on the point, you will find a much less scientific approach.
The current argument concedes that the product of egg and sperm will result in a human child. The argument, in its most forcefull iteration claims that until the child draws a breath, the mother has the "right" to abort because it is her body. The right is based in law, independent of science, recognizing a zone of privacy pretaining to the woman.
The problem with it, strictly from a legal perspective, is that Roe and following cases contradict other areas of law which do recognize the unborn as human. Example, a pregnant woman can choose to abort at 6 months without consequence if a doctor is involved. That same woman can be prosecuted for murder if she uses crack coke causing a miscarriage. Her boyfriend could be prosecuted if he kicked her in the belly causing a miscarriage. So, if the law were changed back to pre-Roe, would you accept it as the will of society?
"Tibbs- My problem with religious people is thtat they're always trying to force their belief on you. "
The anti-abortion/pro-life case can be made solely on the basis of ethics, without recourse to religion. The fact that the largest pro-life groups are associated with religion does not mean that the advocates are forcing their religious beliefs on you. Secularism is also a belief system. Is it any better to force it on others?
From your other posts, I would have guessed that religion would have no bearing whatsoever on your opinions. Are you saying that if there were religious unity on the point you would accept it?
On the issue of science, you should know that Roe was flawed from a scientific standpoint on the day it was issued. Science has only widened the gap.
The claim that early in the pregnancy the unborn is a "mass of cells" is disingenuous at best from a scientific veiw. There is exactly zero doubt concerning what that "mass of cells" will manifest.
The state of the pro-choice argument has moved past that argument because it is ultimately unpersuasive. If you look at the current thinking on the point, you will find a much less scientific approach.
The current argument concedes that the product of egg and sperm will result in a human child. The argument, in its most forcefull iteration claims that until the child draws a breath, the mother has the "right" to abort because it is her body. The right is based in law, independent of science, recognizing a zone of privacy pretaining to the woman.
The problem with it, strictly from a legal perspective, is that Roe and following cases contradict other areas of law which do recognize the unborn as human. Example, a pregnant woman can choose to abort at 6 months without consequence if a doctor is involved. That same woman can be prosecuted for murder if she uses crack coke causing a miscarriage. Her boyfriend could be prosecuted if he kicked her in the belly causing a miscarriage. So, if the law were changed back to pre-Roe, would you accept it as the will of society?
"Tibbs- My problem with religious people is thtat they're always trying to force their belief on you. "
The anti-abortion/pro-life case can be made solely on the basis of ethics, without recourse to religion. The fact that the largest pro-life groups are associated with religion does not mean that the advocates are forcing their religious beliefs on you. Secularism is also a belief system. Is it any better to force it on others?
