how do christians feel about abortion?

[Ariadne_GR]

MASSIVE SARCASM ALERT

And by the same logic, I DON'T find beating people up icky, therefore beating people up is morally acceptable.

I don't get how some video is supposed to change the minds of people who believe in choice. Is watching a video of surgery going to change the mind of someone on whether it is a life-saving procedure or not?

Continuing on the vasectomy angle, big yes to that one. If not abstinence, then sterilisation is best!

 

[Kalevalatar]

Too bad these endless circular argumentations about whether it's a baby, a fetus, an embryo, a proto-human or whatever will do exactly zero, nothing, zilch to reduce the actual number of abortions.

The right to bodily autonomy and medical privacy have been found in the case law attached to the fourth, ninth and fourteenth amendments of the constitution.

If a woman, or a man for that matter, does not have the final say over their own body who should?

I think the real question is, why would a woman who has the final say over her own body and who has decided not to use that body to grow a baby let that body of hers get fertilized in the first place? How come has she allowed something unwanted inside her that then needs to be taken out, especially given that abortion is pretty invasive procedure, too?

And yet, apparently, an eye-popping forty-six percent (46%) of US ladies seeking abortion have impregnated their bodies by not bothering to use contraception at all or by using it inconsistently. Number one reason given for not using contraception was "did not think was going to get pregnant".

Well hello?! What is this, the dark ages? Where do those babies come from? I call this the wishful thinking birth control method and as a modern woman I'm appalled.

Since these women are relying on abortion as their primary birth control method, what can and should be done about it, in order to get rid of those totally unnecessarily abortions and to get this large number of ladies adopt proper use of contraception as their main birth control method? "Okay, no condom, but what the hey, let's do it anyway. If I get pregnant, I can always get an abortion." vs. "Okay, no condom, let's postpone and get one. Because what if I get pregnant and can't get an abortion and I'm not ready for a baby?"

 

[Gadarene]

I don't get how some video is supposed to change the minds of people who believe in choice. Is watching a video of surgery going to change the mind of someone on whether it is a life-saving procedure or not?

It will sway those who think a visceral reaction (or lack thereof) to something has anything necessarily to do with morals. This does not mean their conclusion is correct.

I haven't looked this site up, so anyone reading this should proceed at their own risk, but I have heard of a website called This is My Abortion - which I also hear does contain some graphic imagery (vials of blood/uterine emissions etc) - but it was made to combat the dissected late-term foetus pictures that do the rounds with abortion groups. Suffice it to say, not all abortions look like that - the pro-life side has a bit of a tendency to paint late-term abortion for convenience as the more prevalent kind (I think most of the pictures are generally just documentation of an abortion via the tablets they give you early on), when in reality they are a tiny minority of cases and rarely if ever for convenience.

Again, I haven't checked that site out, so proceed at your own risk!

(I kinda don't like combating a fallacy in this way - turning its own logic against itself, as such responses are still not technically valid arguments in themselves, but often these things persist for so long that they start becoming standard talking points in their own right. Just because most abortions don't look icky in the way pro-lifers claim they do is not a rationale for justifying abortion either! Such arguments are to highlight inconsistency in the defence of what it is you're opposing, not for justifying what you're proposing)

Continuing on the vasectomy angle, big yes to that one. If not abstinence, then sterilisation is best!

Ha, I didn't even think of that! But yes, this is just another reason why I think Christians (and others) will want to steer clear of this "if it looks bad, therefore it is bad" logic - I really don't think they'll like the conclusions if they apply it more widely. And if they are not applying it more widely then the argument is revealed as being little more than special pleading.

 

[Paradoxum]

So if people who are more emotional are less rational, and since women who become pregnant because they were raped are emotional wrecks, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to decide for them selves if they should have an abortion because they are so un-rational.

Alot of people alot of the time aren't all that rational. That doesn't mean they can't make their own decisions.

I don't think you would agree with that. People use there emotions to make decisions all the time. And being more emotional does not always make you less rational.

People may use their emotions to make decisions, but that doesn't mean that is the most reasonable thing to do. I do think emotions make you less reasonable. I think I make better arguments when I'm not annoyed. Emotions make people exaggerate, jump beyond the evidence, think as if emotions correspond to the right or wrongness of an action, etc.

 

[Desk trauma]

Since these women are relying on abortion as their primary birth control method, what can and should be done about it, in order to get rid of those totally unnecessarily abortions and to get this large number of ladies adopt proper use of contraception as their main birth control method?

Better education about and availability of contraception cannot hurt but I am not really that concerned with the number of abortions just as I am not concerned with the number of gastric bypass surgeries, vasectomies, or breast alteration surgeries. Our bodies are our own, the medical choices of others are exactly none of my business.

 

[vortigen84]

The right to bodily autonomy and medical privacy have been found in the case law attached to the fourth, ninth and fourteenth amendments of the constitution.

If a woman, or a man for that matter, does not have the final say over their own body who should?

This is a red herring.

It's the body of the foetus, not just the body of the woman, that is the issue.

Human rights for humans. A woman's life should not be considered "more equal" than that of a foetus, because both are humans.

For some people, they want to talk human rights but then they want to start adding extra qualifiers like "sentience." No. If it's a member of the human race, if its species is human, then it should be treated as a human because it is.


Pro-lifers: "All humans are equal..."
Pro-choicers: "...but some humans are more equal than others."

 

[Paradoxum]

It's the body of the foetus, not just the body of the woman, that is the issue.

Sure.

Human rights for humans. A woman's life should not be considered "more equal" than that of a foetus, because both are humans.

Has anyone said the woman's life is more equal than the fetus's? It just sounds like you are saying that just to make some scary false comparison.

Also, what you say seem similar to saying all animals (humans are animals) lives are equal, because they are all animals. I assume you would have a problem with that though?

For some people, they want to talk human rights but then they want to start adding extra qualifiers like "sentience."

Just because something is labelled one way, that doesn't mean that is what it is. I mean, 'human rights' having the word 'human' in it doesn't matter. We could called them 'natural rights' or rights of 'personhood' if we wanted.

No. If it's a member of the human race, if its species is human, then it should be treated as a human because it is.

Just like if something is an animal (humans are animals) then it should be treated like an animal? So humans should be treated like any other creature?

Pro-lifers: "All humans are equal..."
Pro-choicers: "...but some humans are more equal than others."

Can you explain how this is a fair comparison? I'm not sure you actually understand the position of many 'pro-choicers', because if you did you might realise why the comparison doesn't make much sense.

Just to give one example; some 'pro-choicers' don't say that all humans are equal. Some might not think the fetus is human, in the some sense of the word.

 

[selfinflikted]

wiremu.white,

Let me ask you a question: If someone needed an organ transplant to live, do you think the law should compel the citizens to give up a spare organ so that this someone could live? Or, do you think it should be a choice given to people whether to donate or not?

 

[EndlessSerenade]

I'll give my opinion on abortion. I think abortion is wrong in principle BUT I wouldn't call it "murder" as a given. I want to really briefly go off topic but only because this will help get my point across.

"It is forbidden to kill; therefor all murderers are punished unless they
kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire"

There's a lot of truth in this quote. Now I know and understand this quote is about war and not abortion but this brings me to something. We don't consider people defending our countries murderers, or the police men who happened to kill in a situation where lives were threatened murderers.. and I sort of want to emphasize on the war part. Now I'll get back to the matter of abortion. Is it really "murdering"? If that's considered murdering then how come killing in war does not make a murderer? I'd say what I suspect makes the difference - intention. Take a close look at why the abortion is performed and the intentions behind it. The intentions behind it will dictate a murderer or not in my eyes. A women who knows in heart she won't be able to offer a child a quality life and makes a decision out of sincerity to get a abortion , is that intention noble? Who's getting placed at the highest importance? Where's the emphasis? I'd say very well the unborn babies. However let's take a look at a "repeat offender" who uses abortion as a method of back up birth control and does it out of selfishness because she's sexually promiscuous and fails to change her ways to be more responsible... whose interests are now taken as the most important? The unborn baby who is aborted or the mother who just doesn't want to take responsibility and now looks for a convenient solution to fit her lifestyle? I'd question such a woman and her intentions.

Now why do I say abortion is still wrong in my eyes. Well to me you're taking away a potential human life. End of story. Whether you don't think of a fetus as a human being or not, it's irrelevant. Bottom line, you're taking away the potential life. Doesn't matter if it's 2 weeks old, 8 weeks old etc. removing a perfectly growing fetus (which is the beginning point of ALL human lives, yes you there were also a fetus) stays just that, removing a potential life. I find it quite sickening how distastefully people speak of a human fetus, as if it's nothing... you don't consider yourself as nothing right? So why do you think of your developing stages as a human being is less significant? The part where you're actually growing into a little person with its own heartbeat, DNA and whatnot. People who take that for granted are indirectly taking their very own lives for granted because showing a lack of respect for a fetus indicates a lack of respect for development which shows a lack of respect for you very own human existence because you too had to be developed to become the human being you are today.

I can't pass judgement on anyone's life and their actions but I can however decide for myself that I think abortion is wrong and that I won't ever have one.

 

[selfinflikted]

I can't pass judgement on anyone's life and their actions but I can however decide for myself that I think abortion is wrong and that I won't ever have one.

Well said.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'll give my opinion on abortion. I think abortion is wrong in principle BUT I wouldn't call it "murder" as a given. I want to really briefly go off topic but only because this will help get my point across.

"It is forbidden to kill; therefor all murderers are punished unless they
kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire"

There's a lot of truth in this quote. Now I know and understand this quote is about war and not abortion but this brings me to something. We don't consider people defending our countries murderers, or the police men who happened to kill in a situation where lives were threatened murderers.. and I sort of want to emphasize on the war part. Now I'll get back to the matter of abortion. Is it really "murdering"? If that's considered murdering then how come killing in war does not make a murderer? I'd say what I suspect makes the difference - intention. Take a close look at why the abortion is performed and the intentions behind it. The intentions behind it will dictate a murderer or not in my eyes. A women who knows in heart she won't be able to offer a child a quality life and makes a decision out of sincerity to get a abortion , is that intention noble? Who's getting placed at the highest importance? Where's the emphasis? I'd say very well the unborn babies. However let's take a look at a "repeat offender" who uses abortion as a method of back up birth control and does it out of selfishness because she's sexually promiscuous and fails to change her ways to be more responsible... whose interests are now taken as the most important? The unborn baby who is aborted or the mother who just doesn't want to take responsibility and now looks for a convenient solution to fit her lifestyle? I'd question such a woman and her intentions.

Well I disagree with your reasoning, but the conclusion seems ok. People should be responsible, but I don't think we should take away their freedom and rights if they aren't.

Now why do I say abortion is still wrong in my eyes. Well to me you're taking away a potential human life. End of story. Whether you don't think of a fetus as a human being or not, it's irrelevant. Bottom line, you're taking away the potential life. Doesn't matter if it's 2 weeks old, 8 weeks old etc. removing a perfectly growing fetus (which is the beginning point of ALL human lives, yes you there were also a fetus) stays just that, removing a potential life.

Well it's great that you hold such a reasonable view. So many people on this website hold such unexamined views on abortion. That said, I can see that a fetus is a potential person, but I don't think it follows that killing it is wrong. Or at least, isn't any worse that killing an animal for food. We kill actual life, and potential life, all the time and think it is acceptable.

I find it quite sickening how distastefully people speak of a human fetus, as if it's nothing...

Do people think it is absolutely nothing, or just less than a person?

you don't consider yourself as nothing right? So why do you think of your developing stages as a human being is less significant?

Why would I think what I once was, was equal to what I am now? Everything I am, is made out of the food I eat. That doesn't mean food is morally equivalent to a person. The right to life is based on what something is, not what something will be.

The part where you're actually growing into a little person with its own heartbeat, DNA and whatnot. People who take that for granted are indirectly taking their very own lives for granted because showing a lack of respect for a fetus indicates a lack of respect for development which shows a lack of respect for you very own human existence because you too had to be developed to become the human being you are today.

If you are saying that I could have been aborted, then I agree. I could have been and I am ok with that. I love that I am alive, but I am not arrogant enough to think that the world owed me existence before I (my conscious self) even existed. I'm glad that I had life, but that doesn't mean I had any greater right to it than a lower animal.

I can't pass judgement on anyone's life and their actions but I can however decide for myself that I think abortion is wrong and that I won't ever have one.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but I hope you also don't mind me disagreeing with you.

 

[trientje]

If a woman, or a man for that matter, does not have the final say over their own body who should?

OK, here is my opinion on who started and what started this "a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body". Margaret Sanger said, "No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body." this concept is fundamental for women. This attitude has its roots in the women's rights movement and the humanist philosophy that rejects the regard for the will of God.

Our moral standards come from different places. I learn moral standards from God. Your standards is totally subjective and a matter of any person's own rationale. that being said, I am a citizen of this country so therefore I'm subjected to the laws of this land. Regarding abortion, it is a legal and a moral issue and I believe that legislation cannot create morality. I don't think that Government should be involved in abortion issues. I do not want the government to take my tax money to pay for some woman's abortion. Now, regarding the amendments you cited, please expound.

 

[Desk trauma]

I do not want the government to take my tax money to pay for some woman's abortion.

On a federal level there is already a barrier to tax funds going towards funding abortion called the Hyde amendment. A handful of states use state taxes to pay for abortions, you can check at the link, if you object to that you will need to take it up with your state level representatives.

Now, regarding the amendments you cited, please expound.

Fourth amendment, ninth amendment, fourteenth amendment.

I would post cases but the articles link to the major ones and I am only barely coherent at this point.

 

[Mustang56]

I believe abortion is immoral if the female willingly has sex. She is therefore consenting to the possibility of pregnancy (even if protection is used, it can not be 100% guaranteed to prevent conception).

If the woman was impregnated against her own will, that's when it gets really iffy. On one hand you can defend that she did not will for this to happen so it's acceptable to abort, but one must consider if the fetus has any rights just as we believe in human rights.

If the abortion is necessary (or highly recommended) for the mother's life, then I think it should be permissible.

 

[Skaloop]

I believe abortion is immoral if the female willingly has sex. She is therefore consenting to the possibility of pregnancy (even if protection is used, it can not be 100% guaranteed to prevent conception).

Why? People willingly do lots of things, but when things don't go according to plan, they don't lose their bodily integrity. That a safety measure fails is even less of a reason to do so.

If the woman was impregnated against her own will, that's when it gets really iffy. On one hand you can defend that she did not will for this to happen so it's acceptable to abort, but one must consider if the fetus has any rights just as we believe in human rights.

Why does it matter whether it's against her will or not? If I'm in a car accident, does treatment depend on whether I caused it or someone else did it?

If the abortion is necessary (or highly recommended) for the mother's life, then I think it should be permissible.

Who decides what is necessary (or highly recommended) for the mother's life? Isn't the mother the only one who can really determine that?

 

[If Not For Grace]

To me it's murder....plain and simple

Depends. While I believe life begins at conception and that abortion is morally wrong, I do not believe it to be murder at least not in Most cases.

Murder requires hate or "malice of forthought" at best. Abortion is usually done in fear or in reaction to a previous act and not as malice. Usually there is a sceniaro of a teen age girl who made the mistake of sex outside marriage often with another teen age boy who does not want to pay for this mistake the rest of their lives with a child they don't want and cant see how they can raise it. OR there is a woman invovled perhaps with a Married Man- or Rape or reason to fear physical or mental deformaity (drugs, etc). Whole different set of circumstances than "hate". Is the taking of a life always murder, no-we are told to turn the other cheek, yet we allow for self-defense (what about rape or in cases where the mother's life is at risk?). We support our troops in ware, the police kill, we have the death penalty in many states..Should all these people be tried for murder? I think not..

I also do not believe one sin to be greater than another, in other words abortion would be no more of a sin than to steal, or commit adultery etc.

Also most people (at least here on this forum) seem to be of the opinion that "innoccent babies" go to heaven upon death. If this is so It almost seems the mother gurantees her child a spot in heaven which is one of those beauty for ashes ideas, but I digress-and this idea is best left for another thread.

My point is this-IF we did a better job of instilling morals in society (our children) . IF we were faithful in our marriages and not such a sexually centered society, IF we practiced what we preached we would be more concerned with raisiing the children we have than worring about a decision someone might make in the future. Abortion is the battery end of a charge of assault and battery. The way to prevent it is to prevent the assault..then there would be no battery charge.

Where are all the orphanages, adotpion centers and volunteers to help with the same. If we call ourselves christian, we should have at least as many of these as we do "clinics" that perform abortions. When was the last fundraiser for an orphanage, or unwed mother, that was held in your church?

If we had prepared for the flood, the devestation after would be much less. Let us concentrate on the matters before hand..I believe this would net us all the much greater reward.

 

[Mustang56]

Why? People willingly do lots of things, but when things don't go according to plan, they don't lose their bodily integrity. That a safety measure fails is even less of a reason to do so.

We're not talking about her body. It's about the fetus, another body not of her own but inside hers.

EDIT: Also when I said immoral, that doesn't translate to (this shouldn't be allowed by law). No one, not even pro-choice advocates would agree that abortion is a 'good' thing. No one celebrates an abortion. It's a moral dilemma. Sometimes people make immoral choices but they're allowable choices by law. You couldn't possibly ration that having sex with/without a condom without the intent to procreate, then to abort is moral.

Why does it matter whether it's against her will or not? If I'm in a car accident, does treatment depend on whether I caused it or someone else did it?

You're comparing apples and oranges. Treatment is a positive liberty right we share in modern societies (gov't has obligation to take care of you if you're involved in an accident, at least to stabilize the condition of your life temporarily, ambulances don't come to watch you die on the pavement)

Who decides what is necessary (or highly recommended) for the mother's life? Isn't the mother the only one who can really determine that?

Doctors obviously, based on their professional examination. That being said, I didn't say abortion should be forced on the mother even if her life depended on it. I just said it ought to be permissible. She can choose not to abort. But what if the mother is in a situation where if she doesn't abort, the fetus and her dies? Is it moral to let her die with the fetus?

 

[Skaloop]

We're not talking about her body. It's about the fetus, another body not of her own but inside hers.

A fetus that is using her body. Nobody is required to let others use their body.

EDIT: Also when I said immoral, that doesn't translate to (this shouldn't be allowed by law). No one, not even pro-choice advocates would agree that abortion is a 'good' thing. No one celebrates an abortion. It's a moral dilemma. Sometimes people make immoral choices but they're allowable choices by law. You couldn't possibly ration that having sex with/without a condom without the intent to procreate, then to abort is moral.

Yes, I could.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Treatment is a positive liberty right we share in modern societies (gov't has obligation to take care of you if you're involved in an accident, at least to stabilize the condition of your life temporarily, ambulances don't come to watch you die on the pavement)

Abortion is a form of that positive liberty right treatment.

Doctors obviously, based on their professional examination.

A doctor might be able to determine what is necessary medically, but not physically, financially, or emotionally. That part is her call.

That being said, I didn't say abortion should be forced on the mother even if her life depended on it.

Of course it shouldn't. That would violate her choice.

I just said it ought to be permissible. She can choose not to abort. But what if the mother is in a situation where if she doesn't abort, the fetus and her dies? Is it moral to let her die with the fetus?

Is it moral? Sure. Provided she has the choice.

 

[Mustang56]

A fetus that is using her body. Nobody is required to let others use their body.

The big debate around abortion is whether the fetus has inalienable rights like all other humans in our society, because if it does, then abortion would violate human rights.

And depending on the situation (willingly vs unwillingly), she allowed that to happen to herself (willingly had sex). There are obligations in life. You can't expect to walk a Pitbull without a leash and assume that cannot possibly yield bad consequences. The dog may attack someone. You're ultimately held liable because of your actions creating the scenario in the first place; that although you may not have willed the result, you willed the action which put these things in motion with possible foresight to the consequence.

Another scenario I can think of is you're feeding a child who you know is allergic to peanuts some peanuts. The child becomes extremely ill and may die. Guess who's going to be held accountable? You. Even if you didn't will for the child to become sick, you knew it was possible. Same with sex, the consenting partner should acknowledge the risk of becoming pregnant, even if it's minimal with contraception.

Yes, I could.

You don't understand the definition(s) of morality then. If you do, I'd love to hear it from your perspective so that I can better understand your reasoning. If you think it is moral, you're thoughts on morality probably relate close to Immanuel Kant (ethics philosopher) since he regards that the actions, not consequences, determine a moral action. But having casual sex isn't moral to begin with. I'd love for you to explain how it is if it doesn't involve the intention of procreation.

Abortion is a form of that positive liberty right treatment.

No it's not. It's a choice the mother makes, the government doesn't come in and abort for her.

A doctor might be able to determine what is necessary medically, but not physically, financially, or emotionally. That part is her call.

That's right, again I assert that abortion shouldn't be forced on her.

Is it moral? Sure. Provided she has the choice.

Again, you don't seem to understand the definition(s) of morality. Come back and debate with me when you will actually have an understanding of ethics because that's what abortion is about.

 

[Skaloop]

And depending on the situation (willingly vs unwillingly), she allowed that to happen to herself.

Allowed what?

There are obligations in life. You can't expect to walk a Pitbull without a leash and assume that cannot possibly yield bad consequences.

The dog may attack someone. You're ultimately held liable because of your actions creating the scenario in the first place; that although you may not have willed the result, you willed the action which put these things in motion with possible foresight to the consequence.

Even if you have the pit bull on a leash, and the leash unexpectedly breaks, must you bear all the bad consequences? (I also like how you consider children to be consequences on par with a vicious dog attack).

You don't understand the definition(s) of morality then. If you do, I'd love to hear it from your perspective so that I can better understand your reasoning.

A woman is a single mother of 4, working multiple jobs to provide for them. In this economy, finding a new job would be near impossible. She is the sole supporter of her family and cannot rely on anyone else. She is unable to get maternity leave. She has sex with a condom, but unbeknownst to her it breaks. She becomes pregnant again. To carry the pregnancy to term would mean the loss of her jobs, which would leave her and her 4 kids destitute and homeless. Having an abortion would allow her to continue to work and care for her kids. Having an abortion in such a situation would be absolutely moral. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. There's a rationale for abortion being legal. It's kinda complex and specific though. The real rationale forcing anybody to let another use their body is immoral. So allowing them to choose not to let another use their body is moral.

No it's not. It's a choice the mother makes, the government doesn't come in and abort for her.

The government doesn't come in and force anyone to vote, either, but it's still a right to choose to do so.

That's right, again I assert that abortion shouldn't be forced on her.

I kinda don't see how that applies to what I said, so I'm going with what I think you meant.

I don't either. Nor do I think that not being able to have an abortion should be forced on her.

Again, you don't seem to understand the definition(s) of morality. Come back and debate with me when you will actually have an understanding of ethics because that's what abortion is about.

Oh, I'm not the one equating morality with ethics. You know they are different things, right champ? Abortion is certainly a moral issue, but it's not an ethics issue unless you're a doctor (or in certain circumstances a lawyer, psychiatrist, psychologist)