Is abortion ever acceptable?

[JoeP222w]

It is still termed a spontaneous abortion.

If a child dies in the womb as an act of God and not of man, there is no sin. If a man intentionally ends the life of a child in the womb it is murder.

 

[Jon Osterman]

Allow me to answer: They are both of equal worth in God's eyes, and therefore I do not have a right to choose between them.

However, given that this is a question about a train/trolley running over someone, I suppose if I had to choose, I would choose the girl. Not because she is somehow worth more than the murderer, but because she has a longer life ahead of her than him, and therefore ought to be given a chance at doing some good in the world.

Isn't this a bit hypocritical? You say you have no right to choose but then choose anyway? Which is it? What is the right course of action? Are you claiming that "God's eyes" doesn't provide the correct choice? Are you saying that your view trumps God's?

If I wasn't restricted by this asinine and utterly ridiculous philosophical word problem, however? Totally save both of them by getting the train to stop and/or involving someone else. Or cutting them from the track. Or any number of ways besides the ones listed in the problem.

Actually, this is exactly the sort of decision that doctors have to make every day. And it is not useful to say that "they are both equal in God's eyes" because that doesn't make the decision that has to be made. When you are on the ground, in real life, if you don't make a decision, neither of them survive and you have made a moral failure.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Some pro-lifers say that abortion is okay in the case of rape or incest. But this logic doesn’t make sense because they believe life begins at conception. To kill an unborn baby who is the product of rape or incest is like killing a 2-year-old because his father was a rapist or pervert.

I’m pro-choice so I feel like determining the right or wrong of such a thing is only done in a case where I’m the person in that situation. If somebody else is in that situation, whatever they do or don’t choose as long as they are the ones choosing, they will have my unconditional and unyielding support, love, and prayers.

 

[AnnaDeborah]

I’m pro-choice so I feel like determining the right or wrong of such a thing is only done in a case where I’m the person in that situation. If somebody else is in that situation, whatever they do or don’t choose as long as they are the ones choosing, they will have my unconditional and unyielding support, love, and prayers.

How far does your pro-choice extend?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Ok then maybe you can explain how it is slavery and why the child in the womb is given a death sentence and the rapist does not.

It is simple. The contents of the womb are human of course, are alive of course, but are not yet a person - not yet a soul - and therefore it is not a murder to terminate the pregnancy.

 

[Jason Sanders]

Isn't this a bit hypocritical? You say you have no right to choose but then choose anyway? Which is it? What is the right course of action? Are you claiming that "God's eyes" doesn't provide the correct choice? Are you saying that your view trumps God's?

I never claimed my view or my choice was the right one: neither is right, but in the hypothetical scenario you provided, only one can be saved. Ergo, you are forcing me to make a choice between two equally bad options, so rather than do nothing I would, at the very least, do the thing that is capable of generating the most good.

Actually, this is exactly the sort of decision that doctors have to make every day. And it is not useful to say that "they are both equal in God's eyes" because that doesn't make the decision that has to be made. When you are on the ground, in real life, if you don't make a decision, neither of them survive and you have made a moral failure.

It is useful because it is true: and, as I said, the word problem is asinine in its restrictions and doesn't actually present a real-world example of such utilitarian ethics being put to the test.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

How far does your pro-choice extend?

To the point I described above...?

 

[AnnaDeborah]

To the point I described above...?

What would you say to the woman who decided immediately after giving birth that she didn't want the baby? Is it ok to destroy the child at that point?

 

[Jon Osterman]

What would you say to the woman who decided immediately after giving birth that she didn't want the baby? Is it ok to destroy the child at that point?

We have laws against that, and I don't think anyone here is advocating that. So this is a straw man.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

What would you say to the woman who decided immediately after giving birth that she didn't want the baby? Is it ok to destroy the child at that point?

I would say that, having given birth, if she doesn’t want the baby that is certainty her right, and the doctors will assist her in helping the child be adopted.

 

[AnnaDeborah]

We have laws against that, and I don't think anyone here is advocating that. So this is a straw man.

But this whole thread is a straw man on that basis, since abortion is permitted in most countries now. We have been discussing whether or not it is acceptable from a Christian viewpoint, and that should not change based on changing laws.

I believe that we are human from the point of conception. Therefore, any abortion which is not to save life is wrong. Someone who does not believe we are human from the point of conception has to base their belief on a different foundation. If a foetus' right to life is purely based on whether or not the mother wants it, then logically, there must be a cut-off point at which the mother no longer gets to decide whether or not it can live. Or you could have a mother deciding that her teenage son no longer has the right to life. I am just interested to know what your cut off point would be, and why you would choose that point.

 

[AnnaDeborah]

I would say that, having given birth, if she doesn’t want the baby that is certainty her right, and the doctors will assist her in helping the child be adopted.

But what if she feels she can't cope with the thought of her rapist's child being in existence? If you believe she had the right to kill the foetus up to the moment of birth, why can't she kill the newborn child?

 

[Jon Osterman]

I believe that we are human from the point of conception.

You believe this to be true. But why should anyone else care? If you believe this, then obviously you should not have an abortion, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of people disagree with you, which is why abortion is legal. You are living in a society where you need to respect the rule of law and the democratic process for making laws. To impose your will on the majority would not be morally correct.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

But what if she feels she can't cope with the thought of her rapist's child being in existence? If you believe she had the right to kill the foetus up to the moment of birth, why can't she kill the newborn child?

If the question of why somebody can get an abortion but not kill a newborn is one that you struggle with, I encourage you to search yourself for the answer. As I wasn’t one who was talking about the death of newborns or the right to “kill a fetus up to the moment of birth,” I’m not one who can help you out.

 

[Archivist]

What would you say to the woman who decided immediately after giving birth that she didn't want the baby? Is it ok to destroy the child at that point?

In the US citizenship begins at birth, so no that could not happen legally.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Or you could have a mother deciding that her teenage son no longer has the right to life. I am just interested to know what your cut off point would be, and why you would choose that point.

One can certainly point out that during the first half of the pregnancy the brain has simply not developed enough to support the ability to be a person.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

But what if she feels she can't cope with the thought of her rapist's child being in existence? If you believe she had the right to kill the foetus up to the moment of birth, why can't she kill the newborn child?

Not to mention the fact that sometimes we are talking extremely young here, such as perhaps a 13 year old child made pregnant by rape. The mere fact of proceding to birth at such an age is an additional assault upon the child.

 

[AnnaDeborah]

You believe this to be true. But why should anyone else care? If you believe this, then obviously you should not have an abortion, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of people disagree with you, which is why abortion is legal. You are living in a society where you need to respect the rule of law and the democratic process for making laws. To impose your will on the majority would not be morally correct.

You are missing the point. This thread is not about trying to force a change in the law, but about our views of whether abortion is ever acceptable. My moral view is based on the Bible's claim that we are human from conception. I am interested in what others, who do not hold these views, base their views on. If you believe life only begins once a foetus is viable outside the womb, then your view has to move as advances in medical science lower the age at which a foetus is viable outside the womb. So on this basis, you could abort a foetus at a particular stage as 'not fully human', yet 20 years later, a foetus at the same stage and in the same condition would be viable and therefore human.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You are missing the point. This thread is not about trying to force a change in the law, but about our views of whether abortion is ever acceptable. My moral view is based on the Bible's claim that we are human from conception.

And your claim is simply not accepted. First of all, the Bible doesn't ever say that. Second of all, you use two definitions for the word "human" there, and try to make conclusions as if they were the same. That's a logical fallacy.

Here, let me illustrate that fallacy. I can prove my house is better than heaven! It's quite simple, really. First of all, let us concede that nothing is better than heaven. Then, let us concede my house is better than nothing. Clearly the conclusion follows immediately. But its all a word game over the meaning of "nothing".

You are playing that game with the word "human". You assert the zygote is "human" which we all agree it isn't carrot or a kitten and then you assume that means it is a person as a consequence, which does not follow. It could easily not be a person yet, merely on a road that, if completed, would lead to it being a person.

There is no bible verse to support your view unless you read into that bible verse, first, your own interpretation.

 

[Archivist]

And I have already answered that a description of how God brought into being the first human life cannot be compared with the birth of every infant since that point. The same passage that describes God breathing into Adam also talks about him being formed from the dust of the ground as a fully adult human.

Except, as I am sure you are aware, that is not the only place where the Bible links breath and life.

Job 33:4: "The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life."

Isaiah 42:5: "Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it."

No. The 'evil' was the act of rape that resulted in the pregnancy. Destroying the child would merely be another evil on top of the first.

Yes, the act of rape is evil. Telling a woman that she she must carry the fetus of her attacker to term is just as evil. Some in this thread have said that would make her a murderer. Where is the compassion for her?