Using logic and reason to oppose abortion...

[questioner4]

Okay, even though I've been questioning my faith for over a year, I am still firmly pro-life - although I believe 'traditional' pro-lifers go about it the wrong way. I believe thast abortion is wrong, because I oppose discrimination on all grounds. I believe it is being discriminatory to deny basic human rights to the smallest humans, simply because they are still dependant on the mother. It really would be nice to hear people oppose abortion on grounds other than the Bible.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Are you a 'non-traditional pro-lifer'? If you are Christian and pro-life, can you think of any non-Biblical reasons to oppose abortion?

[McCulloch]

We demand that Christian, Jewish and Islamic Fathers be informed either before the unwanted bloody abortion takes place on their wives or daughters or after the bloody abortionists have commited their adulterous or pedophile crime. If the bloody abortionists won't inform us on their own, we demand that the government notify us either before or after our Christian, Jewish or Islamic wives and daughters are scheduled to be given abortions against our will.

I am having problems understanding how this demand would work.
Would the doctors be given lists to check of Christian, Jewish and Islamic wives and daughters?
Doctor: "Sorry miss, your father put you on the list of Christian daughters. You cannot receive the procedure without his permission."
Patient: "But I am 42 years old and don't believe in his God!"
Or maybe all patients doctors would have to administer an oath of disbelief to patients who request abortions without husband's or father's permission.
Doctor: "Do you solemnly swear that you are completely godless and are an enemy of all that is righteous, so help you God?"
Patient: "I do."
Doctor: "Ok then, lets get on with it."

[McCulloch]

I'm arguing from the POV of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights in the Amercan Constitution which states that our Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

As I have pointed out before, the constitutional right to freedom of religion, which is similarly protected in both of our countries, is not and has never been absolute.
Under the freedom of religion protection, religious organizations are protected from persecution of hate laws and are allowed to discriminate against women. On the other hand, arson and polygamy are not protected expressions of religious faith. I have yet to determine the principle being used by our various lawmakers to determine which activities which would otherwise be considered criminal, are given constitutional protection. Perhaps lawmaking is like sausage making; we all like having laws and sausage, but none of us really wants to look too closely at the process involved. But I think that we can agree that in a well ordered society, there has to be limits on the freedom of religion.
On that point, I believe that any woman who believes that women should be submissive to their husbands in all things (Ephesians) and that their husbands have proprietorial rights over their pregnancies (I missed the biblical reference supporting this ) should be completely free to exercise her belief in that religion. No doctor should prevent or impede such a woman from obtaining the permission of her husband before performing an abortion.

[Cephus]

Since Christian, Jewish and Islamic marriages constitute the establishment of religious institutions, Christian, Jewish and Muslim men have the right to deny secular medical practitioners the right to kill our unborn children. If married Christian, Jewish and Muslim men want the unborn children of their marriages slaughtered, then they have the right to choose any medical doctor they please. On the other hand, no secular medical doctor of any faith has the right to adultery or abortion with their Christian, Jewish or Islamic spouse without their written consent though.

There's no such thing as religious marriage in the US. Every marriage is a secular marriage in the eyes of the government. When you go to get your marriage license, that's a secular marriage. It doesn't matter how many aisles you walk down or how many churches you go to, that's not the marriage, that's just the ceremony. The marriage, the only one that makes a damn bit of difference to the state, took place when you plopped down your money and bought the license.

[jcrawford]

We demand that Christian, Jewish and Islamic Fathers be informed either before the unwanted bloody abortion takes place on their wives or daughters or after the bloody abortionists have commited their adulterous or pedophile crime. If the bloody abortionists won't inform us on their own, we demand that the government notify us either before or after our Christian, Jewish or Islamic wives and daughters are scheduled to be given abortions against our will.

I am having problems understanding how this demand would work.

The first state legislation to be drafted, proposed and passed on behalf of married men would require insurance companies who provide medical coverage to workers in employee health plans to stipulate that no abortions will be covered for the wives of male employees unless said worker is first notified of the abortion clinic's intent to kill his unborn child.

Until such legislation is passed on behalf of married men, Christians, Jews and Muslims may regard unwanted abortionists, their advocates and their political representatives as domestic terrorists who are perpetrating domestic violence on the unborn babies of married Christian, Jewish and Muslim Men without their legal consent or political representation.

[jcrawford]

As I have pointed out before, the constitutional right to freedom of religion, which is similarly protected in both of our countries, is not and has never been absolute.

Neither is a medical doctor's right to kill the unborn children of married Christian, Jewish and Muslim men absolute. As as matter of historical fact, the right of Nazi doctors to abort Jewish babies didn't last very long. What right do secular abortionists have to kill the unborn babies of Christian, Jewish and Muslim men without their informed consent?

I have yet to determine the principle being used by our various lawmakers to determine which activities which would otherwise be considered criminal, are given constitutional protection.

I doubt they have any principles other than Darwinist, Marxist and Freudian principles. They certainly don't seem to like Christian, Jewish and Islamic principles or law.

[jcrawford]

There's no such thing as religious marriage in the US. Every marriage is a secular marriage in the eyes of the government. When you go to get your marriage license, that's a secular marriage. It doesn't matter how many aisles you walk down or how many churches you go to, that's not the marriage, that's just the ceremony. The marriage, the only one that makes a damn bit of difference to the state, took place when you plopped down your money and bought the license.

Yes, I know that's how secular supremacists like to look at marriage in their states, but if secular supremacists won't recognize monogamous Christian, Jewish and Islamic marriages, and draft legislation protecting the unborn children of Christian, Jewish and Muslim men in such religious marriages, why should Christian, Jewish and Muslim men pay taxes to a state or city government which recognizes homosexual marriages but not Christian, Jewish and Islamic marriages? No taxation without representation, you know. No imams, priests, pastors or rabbis in government, no religious representation for Christian, Jewish and Muslims Fathers. No religious representation by Holy Fathers - no secular taxes on Holy Christian, Jewish and Muslim Fathers.

If the government can't discriminate on the basis of sex or gender, it certainly can't discriminate against inter-racial or inter-religious marriages on the basis of either race, sex or religion.

The governor's race is heating up in New York state over the issue of abortion. For the latest developments in abortion politics and the politics of partial birth killings:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2564656

[preacherman122]

well look at the laws of OUR country if you kill a pregnant women it counts as a double murder. but if you have a abortion which is basically murder it is okay . BUT nobody says anything about it EXCEPT some of the chritians and some non christens . but really not many people are against it .now these are just some things that say that our country has lost ITS morals. the people who do have apportions are inmature why not HAVE THE BABY? YOU DON'T HAVE TO KEEP IT GIVE IT TO AN ORPANAGE OR SOMETHING ANYTHING BESIDES KILLING IT. IF YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE A RESONSABILITY

[Cephus]

Yes, I know that's how secular supremacists like to look at marriage in their states, but if secular supremacists won't recognize monogamous Christian, Jewish and Islamic marriages, and draft legislation protecting the unborn children of Christian, Jewish and Muslim men in such religious marriages, why should Christian, Jewish and Muslim men pay taxes to a state or city government which recognizes homosexual marriages but not Christian, Jewish and Islamic marriages? No taxation without representation, you know. No imams, priests, pastors or rabbis in government, no religious representation for Christian, Jewish and Muslims Fathers. No religious representation by Holy Fathers - no secular taxes on Holy Christian, Jewish and Muslim Fathers.

If you don't like the way things are run here, why don't you go start your own country. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[McCulloch]

Yes, I know that's how secular supremacists like to look at marriage in their states, but if secular supremacists won't recognize monogamous Christian, Jewish and Islamic marriages, and draft legislation protecting the unborn children of Christian, Jewish and Muslim men in such religious marriages, why should Christian, Jewish and Muslim men pay taxes to a state or city government which recognizes homosexual marriages but not Christian, Jewish and Islamic marriages? No taxation without representation, you know. No imams, priests, pastors or rabbis in government, no religious representation for Christian, Jewish and Muslims Fathers. No religious representation by Holy Fathers - no secular taxes on Holy Christian, Jewish and Muslim Fathers.

Monogamous Christian, Jewish and Islamic marriages are fully recognized by our secular states. The unborn children of all marriages are fully protected against any harm done to them unless the one who is pregnant wishes. Christian, Jewish and Muslim men are fully represented in various levels of government. Christian, Jewish and Muslim holy men have the same rights as any others to stand for office and to vote.
Why don't you try your little tax revolt? April is coming up. Let us know how it goes.

[jcrawford]

Yes, I know that's how secular supremacists like to look at marriage in their states, but if secular supremacists won't recognize monogamous Christian, Jewish and Islamic marriages, and draft legislation protecting the unborn children of Christian, Jewish and Muslim men in such religious marriages, why should Christian, Jewish and Muslim men pay taxes to a state or city government which recognizes homosexual marriages but not Christian, Jewish and Islamic marriages? No taxation without representation, you know. No imams, priests, pastors or rabbis in government, no religious representation for Christian, Jewish and Muslims Fathers. No religious representation by Holy Fathers - no secular taxes on Holy Christian, Jewish and Muslim Fathers.

If you don't like the way things are run here, why don't you go start your own country. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

I'd much rather stay and fight for men's religious and reproductive rights here, thank you. White male abortionists have no right to kill the offspring of married Black Muslims and Christians here and are entitled to financial reparations from white supremacists like mike bloomberg, bill and hill clinton, and eliot spitzer who fight for the right of white male abortionists at the expense of Black Muslim and Christian families.