Abortion and the Bible

Interesting article on Huffington Post by Dr. Joel Hoffman that explains that the bible really doesn't say anything about abortion.  I had never seen, read,  heard of any direct references against abortion in the bible, and always wondered where the right-wingers came up with their arguments that the bible (or Christ) advocated against abortion.  Apparently it doesn't exist!  I think it comes down to the "Thou Shalt not Kill" argument, and the belief that a fetus is a person.  That argument is not presented anywhere in the bible.  However, early theologians in the year 138 began to make the interpretation that abortion is killing. (see this link).  The Church continued to evolve that theology throughout the years, and then later St. Thomas Aquinas took that a step further with his interpretation that birth control was also "killing" a baby, and thus a mortal sin.   All of that theology, of course, was made with the thought that the church wanted their followers to have as many babies as possible to help spread their religion.  More children represented more wealth for families at the time, so these theologies fit right in with the desires of the Pope and the church leaders to expand.

I don't have anything against people who believe that abortion is murder, and then not getting an abortion because of it.  However I do object to people who want to force their beliefs on everyone else.  If a Moslem woman believes she should cover her body with a chador, that is fine.  However if her husband forces her to do it, that should be illegal.  If a Muslim majority in a city, state, or country believe women should wear chadors, and forces all women, Muslim or not,to do so, it violates a woman's individual right.  Similarly, if someone wants an abortion, they should be able to get one, and not be stopped by a minority or majority of people professing their religion, and forcing their beliefs on everyone else.

Yes, I have heard the argument that anti-abortionists give that they don't want "their money" to pay for someone else's abortion.  They argue that if "their money" were used, it would be the same thing as performing the abortion themselves. The anti-abortionists then say that if any taxpayer money is involved, it ends up being some of "their money" being used, so no taxpayer money should be used.  Having money "used" is a very "gray area" --if the taxpayer money pays the doctor who performs the abortion?  Or if taxpayer money paid for the facility where the abortion is performed?  Or if taxpayer money developed medications used for the abortion procedure?  I may not want "my money" provided to churches that I don't believe in through tax exemptions and deductions.  Is that "my money?"

Gallup Poll -- Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

It appears from the latest Gallup Poll that there are more people in the US who consider themselves "Pro-Choice" than "Pro-Life"   I was surprised to see that somehow in the mid-1990s the so-called "pro-life" group actually outnumbered the pro-choice.  I wonder how that happened?  I suspect it was the influence of the "moral majority" group who really did a lot of marketing for their cause.
It is clear to me that the "pro-life" group is simply trying to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of the US citizens --and the world, if they could do it.  They believe that a fetus somehow has been bestowed a "soul" and is as much a human as any other human.  There is no science behind that belief, so it is driven by religion.
It is hard for me to understand why the Republican Party could stand generally for "Pro-life" when they are also "Pro Death Penalty" and "Pro Guns."  They generally claim they believe in the US Constitution, freedom of religion, and free markets.  But they, for some reason want to restrict women from having abortions, restrict Gays from marriage,  and restrict states from putting limits on guns.
One of the overarching problems of mankind is the continued increase in population in the world.  The growth of population increases the pressure on the limited resources of the world.  Yes Malthus was proven somewhat wrong, and the world was able to find food to survive a huge increase in population.  But at what cost?  There have been huge costs to the environment which simply cannot go on forever.
The world needs to get human population under control.  I believe we can do it.  China has shown it is possible, but there are less harsh ways to achieve population control by using other incentives.  The US needs to take a leadership role and control our population and accept immigrants until we can get those other countries to get their population controlled.  To do so, we need to dis-incentivize having more babies by eliminating tax deductions for babies, gradually increase costs to raise children by reducing subsidies for child care, medical care, and school to bare minimum for national health.  We also need to provide free medical help for birth control (such as pills, devices or sterilization) and abortion when necessary.