Rambi, I presume we all agree that the question of "ensoulment" (living) is a religious question, not a moral question, is that correct? Thus using the gory term "kill a baby" when discussing a fetus that has not been ensouled, is not really "fair".
By the way, my authority on the time when life starts comes from the Bible, Genesis, 2:7.."Then the Lord G-D formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." Quite clearly, after man was formed, he was not alive, only after he took his first breath he becomes a "living being".
Now, I realize that some religious sects disregard completely the holy scriptures and their dictum on when life starts, and that is their constitutional right, but forcing their beliefs on other religious sects that happen to believe in the holy scripture's exactitude as to the question of "when life starts", would be infringing on the constitutional rights of such said other religious sects.
Thus you can talk about termination of pregnancy and argue various treatment of various trimesters, the termination of that pregnancy by a hot bath post sex (if it works), or the taking of special herbs, if they work, or that pill (it works), or even surgical intervention (but please, no coat hangers, too many young girls died hopelessly trying this approach), you can even argue the moral grounds for you opinion, but calling it "killing" is nothing short of ridiculous, since you cannot kill something which is not alive.
By the way, termination of pregnancy is also forbidden by the bible, but that sin is against the dictum of "thou shall multiply", another sin against the same dictum is male (not female) masturbation. So, as far as I can see, the severety of the sin of abortion is on the same level as the sin of male masturbation. I presume you would recommend policing all those youngsters and assure they do not commit that sin against the dictum "thou shall multiply".
Zeev |
