Being personally against abortion, but you shouldn’t force your beliefs on others.
A woman can do whatever she wants with her body and the government shouldn’t interfere.
My personal favorite – abortion is a woman’s issue so men shouldn’t have the right to tell a woman she can’t have an abortion.
Women will still have abortions even if they are illegal, so let’s keep it legal and safe.
The primary problem with all of these arguments is that they do not address the primary question as it relates to abortion – when does life begin? Because if that is settled all of these other arguments are trivial. If life begins at conception, and the taking of a life is murder then…
Protecting life shouldn’t be regulated to just personal belief. Nunez asks, “Would you be personally against committing murder but in favor of allowing others to do so? No of course not.”
With the second argument – it is about the child, not the mother’s body. If life begins at conception then the government can tell a woman not to murder her child.
The third argument – again if life begins at conception it doesn’t matter who is making the argument.
The fourth argument – Nunez points out, “so we’d allow safe murder?”
Again all arguments related to abortion need to be brought back to the fundamental question – when does life begin? If life begins at conception then any argument I can bring for abortion simply does not matter. That includes an argument for federalism since the right to life is foundational. There is nothing we can say or do that would justify abortion.
HT: Wintery Knight
Modified from the original post at Caffeinated Theology