While the abortion debate is a tough one, I would like to point out that the most common Sunni position is that abortion is allowed until the 120th day as this is when the soul is breathed into the foetus (and thus it becomes a "person" with rights).
As such miscarriages etc after 120 days gestation (ie midway through the second trimester) get the full funeral service and prayer according to most scholars.
I can't recall any major schools having the soul breathed in prior to 40 days (always lots of minority positions though), think the Shia are at 10 weeks or so (given they don't rate Bukhari), certainly not on insemination.
From a secular standpoint the key question must be again when the offspring has "rights", bearing in mind that you can't really use the concept of a soul in a secular standpoint. Nor can you use the argument of the baby being able to survive for itself outside of the woman's womb (in my humble opinion) as this line of argument would indicate that parents need not have any obligations to exert their efforts/bodily functions to provide food and shelter for newly born babies who could not survive without their care.
It is incredibly difficult, but I think all that can be done on this particular argument is to go with the will of the majority in any given country as to what determines an acceptable cut off for abortion given it is not possible to determine secularly (in my opinion again) when a baby has "rights" while still in the womb, but noting that a secular government typically has a responsibility to protect the rights of those who cannot protect themselves.
Once the offpsring has "rights" according to the populace/government/our laws, the origin of conception cannot have an influence on the permissibility of abortion as the principle that all life that has "rights" has the same value is, I would put forward, an eminently sensible one that must be accepted in a secular society.
So conception is too early to have rights, birth too late, and while Mr Mourdock may believe that life starts at conception, the vast majority of Muslim Scholars (and Muslims) do not.
3. Attacks Iran through air campaign initially targeted at nuclear installations but then expanded with the aim of regime change. Lots of dead Iranians directly and indirectly as nuclear fallout wafts along in the breeze, minimal dead Americans initially (air campaign) until terrorist-style retaliation starts.
An exegesis of the fatwa can also be found on Ayatollah Khamenei's official website here: link to farsi.khamenei.ir by Hojjat al-Islam Ahmad Moballeqi
Guess they must have missed that.
Ron - having breakout capability (ie ability to quickly build nukes if required) is sufficient to achieve the effect of deterrence, no actual building required. Extreme need could trump the fatwa and the principles on which this is constructed, which is why there was by some reports a nascent WMD program to try to provide protection against Saddam's programs. Thus the only real way this fatwa can be rescinded given the strength of proofs employed would be if Iran was threatened with extreme damage or attacked. Funny that.
While the abortion debate is a tough one, I would like to point out that the most common Sunni position is that abortion is allowed until the 120th day as this is when the soul is breathed into the foetus (and thus it becomes a "person" with rights).
As such miscarriages etc after 120 days gestation (ie midway through the second trimester) get the full funeral service and prayer according to most scholars.
I can't recall any major schools having the soul breathed in prior to 40 days (always lots of minority positions though), think the Shia are at 10 weeks or so (given they don't rate Bukhari), certainly not on insemination.
From a secular standpoint the key question must be again when the offspring has "rights", bearing in mind that you can't really use the concept of a soul in a secular standpoint. Nor can you use the argument of the baby being able to survive for itself outside of the woman's womb (in my humble opinion) as this line of argument would indicate that parents need not have any obligations to exert their efforts/bodily functions to provide food and shelter for newly born babies who could not survive without their care.
It is incredibly difficult, but I think all that can be done on this particular argument is to go with the will of the majority in any given country as to what determines an acceptable cut off for abortion given it is not possible to determine secularly (in my opinion again) when a baby has "rights" while still in the womb, but noting that a secular government typically has a responsibility to protect the rights of those who cannot protect themselves.
Once the offpsring has "rights" according to the populace/government/our laws, the origin of conception cannot have an influence on the permissibility of abortion as the principle that all life that has "rights" has the same value is, I would put forward, an eminently sensible one that must be accepted in a secular society.
So conception is too early to have rights, birth too late, and while Mr Mourdock may believe that life starts at conception, the vast majority of Muslim Scholars (and Muslims) do not.
3. Attacks Iran through air campaign initially targeted at nuclear installations but then expanded with the aim of regime change. Lots of dead Iranians directly and indirectly as nuclear fallout wafts along in the breeze, minimal dead Americans initially (air campaign) until terrorist-style retaliation starts.
An exegesis of the fatwa can also be found on Ayatollah Khamenei's official website here: link to farsi.khamenei.ir by Hojjat al-Islam Ahmad Moballeqi
Guess they must have missed that.
Ron - having breakout capability (ie ability to quickly build nukes if required) is sufficient to achieve the effect of deterrence, no actual building required. Extreme need could trump the fatwa and the principles on which this is constructed, which is why there was by some reports a nascent WMD program to try to provide protection against Saddam's programs. Thus the only real way this fatwa can be rescinded given the strength of proofs employed would be if Iran was threatened with extreme damage or attacked. Funny that.