how do christians feel about abortion?

[Mustang56]

Allowed what?

The fetus to use her body

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).

Yes, it's a breed of dog that's known for aggression. When you have sex, there's a strong possibility for pregnancy to occur. That's the designed function of sex, that's why we have sexual organs, to reproduce. I'm not saying it was some God-willed function (I don't believe in God), but it's a function determined by nature.

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.

Who says you have to keep the child? That's what foster care/adoption is for. She can give birth, give the child up because she cannot possibly afford to do so and still keep her lifestyle in tact. No one gives you a break if you decide to outspend your income and become homeless. If she's struggling that much, she shouldn't have sex knowing the consequences. How can irrational decisions like that justify ending a human life that can't choose for itself?

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

And humans have their rights to live. Are you saying a fetus isn't human? By the way, rights are constructs of human society.

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

Again, we're dealing with human rights and laws. Real complicated mess, it isn't just about some defect in her body, it's about another (potential) life.

There are laws of don'ts that are forced on us already. You say it's about her body. It is. It also isn't. It's both. That's why this issue is a big mess. If it was only about her body and her life, she's free to do whatever she wants with it. The dilemma is whether or not she should also be free to do whatever she desires with the fetus when the fetus (human) cannot make a choice.

Abortion isn't the only issue in dealing with human rights for those who cannot choose. Mentally disabled, people in a coma... The debate is whether we ought to play God and decide whether or not to end their lives.

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)

Ethics is the philosophy behind a moral outcome. Ethics steps in to identify the best-action choice. Morality is a code of conduct in an environment of agreed upon 'right' and 'wrong' rules. The two tie together when dealing with abortion; whether abortion is the best-action choice, and if that choice is the best action for the mother and/or the fetus.

 

[Skaloop]

The fetus to use her body

No, she allowed someone to have sex with her, not let a fetus use her body. The two are not the same.

Yes, it's a breed of dog that's known for aggression.

Yes it is. And let's say the dog owner lets their pit bull run wild. Say that pit bull bits someone. Say that that someone is near death from the bites and needs a blood transfusion. And let's say that the dog owner who so recklessly and carelessly let their dog off the leash is the only one around who has a compatible blood type. Is that dog owner forced to donate blood? No. It would of course be moral for the dog owner to donate blood, but it is more immoral to force them to.

When you have sex, there's a strong possibility for pregnancy to occur. That's the designed function of sex, that's why we have sexual organs, to reproduce. I'm not saying it was some God-willed function (I don't believe in God), but it's a function determined by nature.

So? What does pregnancy being a natural function with a strong possibility have to do with the morality of abortion?

Who says you have to keep the child?

Nobody. I wasn't talking about that at all (reading comprehension, bro). I was saying the pregnancy itself would cause hardship.

That's what foster care/adoption is for. She can give birth, give the child up because she cannot possibly afford to do so and still keep her lifestyle in tact.

Foster care and adoption are great except for the situations where carrying the pregnancy to term is itself an extreme burden.

And humans have their rights to live. Are you saying a fetus isn't human?

No, I am not saying that. Nobody is. Have you even read this thread? A fetus is surely human. But so is my toenail. So is a sperm. So is a dead person. The question is not whether they are human, but whether being human makes one a person deserving of the rights we bestow upon persons. And it most obviously does not.

Again, we're dealing with human rights and laws. Real complicated mess, it isn't just about some defect in her body, it's about another (potential) life.

Every time I touch I am destroying billions of potential lives. So no, it's not so complicated. A potential person is not a person any more than an acorn is a tree.

There are laws of don'ts that are forced on us already. You say it's about her body. It is. It also isn't. It's both. That's why this issue is a big mess. If it was only about her body and her life, she's free to do whatever she wants with it. The dilemma is whether or not she should also be free to do whatever she desires with the fetus when the fetus (human) cannot make a choice.

That's not a dilemma. She should always be free to do what she wants with her body. The fetus can't make a choice because it doesn't even have the capacity to make a choice.

Abortion isn't the only issue in dealing with human rights for those who cannot choose. Mentally disabled, people in a coma... The debate is whether we ought to play God and decide whether or not to end their lives.

Apples to oranges. The most primary difference being that the mentally disabled and people in a coma do not rely on one single person for their survival, that one single person being the only one even possible of keeping them alive. A mother who has a mentally disabled son can allow others to take over his care. A woman who is pregnant cannot pass on her fetus to someone else. That's a huge difference.

Ethics is the philosophy behind a moral outcome. Ethics steps in to identify the best-action choice. Morality is a code of conduct in an environment of agreed upon 'right' and 'wrong' rules. The two tie together when dealing with abortion; whether abortion is the best-action choice, and if that choice is the best action for the mother and/or the fetus.

And again, who gets to decide what is the best choice for the mother? For her fetus? For her family? For her health? For her employment? For her mental well being? For her physical appearance? For her education? For her lifestyle? For her age? For her finances? For her future?

But still, you clearly don't know the difference between ethics and morals. You know that something can be moral but unethical, right? And something can be immoral but ethical, right?

 

[Mustang56]

No, she allowed someone to have sex with her, not let a fetus use her body. The two are not the same.

Sex is an act. Fetus is a being. The fetus is a direct result of the act.

Yes it is. And let's say the dog owner lets their pit bull run wild. Say that pit bull bits someone. Say that that someone is near death from the bites and needs a blood transfusion. And let's say that the dog owner who so recklessly and carelessly let their dog off the leash is the only one around who has a compatible blood type. Is that dog owner forced to donate blood? No. It would of course be moral for the dog owner to donate blood, but it is more immoral to force them to.

Why is it immoral?

So? What does pregnancy being a natural function with a strong possibility have to do with the morality of abortion?

Because abortion is immoral. You disagree? Define morality.

Nobody. I wasn't talking about that at all (reading comprehension, bro). I was saying the pregnancy itself would cause hardship.

Guess you don't bother reading the full paragraph,

If she's struggling that much, she shouldn't have sex knowing the consequences. How can irrational decisions like that justify ending a human life that can't choose for itself?

Answer me this, "bro". Is it ethical for someone who is in that position in her life to have sex, knowing a pregnancy could ruin everything?

No, I am not saying that. Nobody is. Have you even read this thread? A fetus is surely human. But so is my toenail. So is a sperm. So is a dead person. The question is not whether they are human, but whether being human makes one a person deserving of the rights we bestow upon persons. And it most obviously does not.

If you think your toe nail is a human, you are clueless about what it is to be human.

Every time I touch I am destroying billions of potential lives. So no, it's not so complicated. A potential person is not a person any more than an acorn is a tree.

Sperm by itself isn't human life.

That's not a dilemma. She should always be free to do what she wants with her body. The fetus can't make a choice because it doesn't even have the capacity to make a choice.

Body + Fetus are two different things.

Apples to oranges. The most primary difference being that the mentally disabled and people in a coma do not rely on one single person for their survival, that one single person being the only one even possible of keeping them alive. A mother who has a mentally disabled son can allow others to take over his care. A woman who is pregnant cannot pass on her fetus to someone else. That's a huge difference.

The fetus depends on the mother for its survival. You said the fetus is human. If it is, abortion violates the US constitution by depriving (human) life. (this is regarding abortion in the USA by the way).

And again, who gets to decide what is the best choice for the mother? For her fetus? For her family? For her health? For her employment? For her mental well being? For her physical appearance? For her education? For her lifestyle? For her age? For her finances? For her future?

The fetus is not the mother. The fetus is separate.

But still, you clearly don't know the difference between ethics and morals. You know that something can be moral but unethical, right? And something can be immoral but ethical, right?

What's your point? I already acknowledged they're separate.

By the way it sounds like you're getting antsy with me, if you want to stop debating with me you can. I don't want to cause distress

 

[Ariadne_GR]

I'm just going to lurk, Skaloop is saying it all for me!

*grabs popcorn*

 

[Skaloop]

Sex is an act. Fetus is a being. The fetus is a direct result of the act.

It's an indirect result at best. Since the act is neither necessary nor sufficient for the result.

Why is it immoral?

Because it forces someone to give of their body against their will.

Because abortion is immoral. You disagree? Define morality.

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
   1. some other group, such as a religion, or
   2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

That's one I picked because it turned up near the top of a Google search. Notice how it talks about specific conditions, and about individuals and their behaviour. You yourself have admitted that abortion is acceptable in certain specified conditions, therefore you yourself have admitted that abortion is moral.

Guess you don't bother reading the full paragraph,

Yes, I did. My statement still stands unless you can point out exactly how it doesn't. Of course she doesn't have to keep the child... once she gives birth. But she still has to carry it until she gives birth. That in itself can be a hardship.

Answer me this, "bro". Is it ethical for someone who is in that position in her life to have sex, knowing a pregnancy could ruin everything?

Yes. Thought you were gonna trip me up with that one, didn't ya? Well, no. My answer is yes. It is ethical for a woman to have sex, whatever her situation (apart from where her professional ethics (that's another part where ethics differ from morals) prohibit it).

If you think your toe nail is a human, you are clueless about what it is to be human.

You didn't say "a human" you said "human". You are clueless if you can't comprehend the difference.

Sperm by itself isn't human life.

Why not?

Body + Fetus are two different things.

Yes, but the fetus requires her body. She is under no obligation to provide the use of her body, any more than you are under obligation to house homeless people or donate your organs.

The fetus depends on the mother for its survival. You said the fetus is human. If it is, abortion violates the US constitution by depriving (human) life. (this is regarding abortion in the USA by the way).

Again, "human" =/= "human being", nor "person". If you really want to grant full human rights to fetuses, then you need to investigate every single miscarriage as a potential homicide. You need to prosecute women who eat fennel while pregnant (it being a known abortifacient) as murderers.

The fetus is not the mother. The fetus is separate.

That doesn't answer the question. Who gets to decide what is in the mother's best interest?

What's your point? I already acknowledged they're separate.

You said they tied together. Perhaps I misunderstood.

By the way it sounds like you're getting antsy with me, if you want to stop debating with me you can. I don't want to cause distress

I'm not antsy at all. This is just how I am when in an engaging discussion. I am far from distressed, and certainly don't want to stop debating.

 

[Kalevalatar]

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.

Indeed, when we really do stop to consider the concepts of willingly had sex vs. had sex against her own will, it does get really iffy.

The majority of the world's abortions, after all, do take place in less developed countries with poor human rights and especially poor women's right. In these countries, women tend not to own their own bodies and do not have the right to say no, especially to their own husbands. So we are not talking about just "conventional" rape but also and especially nonconsensual sex in a marriage.

With this comes 19 million unsafe illegal abortions. Every year about 70 000 women die as a consequence and 8 million ladies get medical complications. Not only are we talking about an untold, unacceptable amount of needless human suffering and individual tragedies, the medical bills of these botched back-alley abortions place a huge economic burden on these poor third world countries.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

I know how Obama feels about it.
He voted three times to allow abortions to continue after the fetus was accidentally born.

Now I don't know what I would do if I had to choose between my wife and the baby. I'd probably choose my wife. But iwhen it is not a life and death situation, all we have to gain from an abortion is convenience.

 

[Gadarene]

I know how Obama feels about it.
He voted three times to allow abortions to continue after the fetus was accidentally born.

Now I don't know what I would do if I had to choose between my wife and the baby. I'd probably choose my wife. But iwhen it is not a life and death situation, all we have to gain from an abortion is convenience.

Even though that whole point that was "against" Obama was over a form of abortion that is overwhelmingly used in emergencies, and not for convenience.

It's a shame to see that some people still haven't corrected a basic mistake in their thinking even over the course of four years.

 

[Paradoxum]

I know how Obama feels about it.
He voted three times to allow abortions to continue after the fetus was accidentally born.

Now I don't know what I would do if I had to choose between my wife and the baby. I'd probably choose my wife. But iwhen it is not a life and death situation, all we have to gain from an abortion is convenience.

Convenience is the only thing?

 

[Mustang56]

We could go on for weeks about this and neither of us will be swayed. So that being said, I'm going to end it here on my behalf. However, I'm interested to hear what's YOUR criteria for morality? What makes something moral and immoral?

I'd appreciate it if you could reference a systematic formula/criteria for what makes something moral, especially for you, rather than just using Google to answer for you.

I never said abortion should be outlawed. I said that under certain criteria it may be considered immoral, and that it ought to be permissible (moral because of the consequence). I never once said it SHOULDN'T be permissible. I'm saying it's immoral depending on the situation.

It ought to be outlawed, it is immoral (just as hate speech ought to be, but forcing someone to not be able to express themselves also seems immoral since it may be against their will) You can't really argue that it's a moral action to abort just for the inconvenience (don't want to raise a kid, want to be single and still have care free casual sex) of it all. If it were, imagine if ALL women would do the same. It's impossible because we wouldn't exist.

That's one of the more common criteria to determine if an action is moral is according to Kan't categorical imperative formula, that if the action were to be willed by everyone, how would the world be and would there be contradictions (which in this case there is).

You could also view it from a utilitarian perspective, thinking of the consequences and the greater good. There may be happiness from the abortion, but what of the fetus' happiness? It doesn't have it, nor can it experience it, therefore we ought to act in its best interest. It could grow up one day to be someone of great value to society.

Either way, abortion is not moral. Is it necessary? Sometimes.

The distinction that needs to be made clear in this issue is regarding the value of human life of the fetus. It's not solely about sex, not about the emotional/financial problems with an unwanted pregnancy. It's about the fetus itself. If women developed some sort of curable defect when having sex that isn't a being of life, no one would have a problem removing it. It's when you remove a fetus that would grow into a human being into our society when our laws fall upon it (making it clearly human) that poses problems.

Not to mention you degrade the value of sex and human life when abortion becomes socially acceptable.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

Convenience is the only thing?

Yes, I believe if your life doesn't depend on it, then the only reason a person would abort is because they don't want the baby. I am aware that rape and incest are terrible. I couldn't imagine what a woman would go through. But if the mother's life is not in jeopardy, why would she have an abortion. It all comes down to how much the mother wants the baby. The way the laws are set up, one can decide to abort simply because they don't want the baby even though their life does not depend on it. At that point it becomes an issue of convenience.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

Even though that whole point that was "against" Obama was over a form of abortion that is overwhelmingly used in emergencies, and not for convenience.

It's a shame to see that some people still haven't corrected a basic mistake in their thinking even over the course of four years.

Who cares if it is an emergency. Once that baby is accidentally born, no more harm can come to the mother. The damage would be done. At that point it becomes an issue of whether or not the mother wants the baby. Yes, an abortion should happen if the mother's life depends on it. But the whole point would be to get the baby out. Once it is out, there is no sense in killing it. You would only kill a baby at that point because it would be convenient to the mother.

 

[selfinflikted]

Yes, I believe if your life doesn't depend on it, then the only reason a person would abort is because they don't want the baby. I am aware that rape and incest are terrible. I couldn't imagine what a woman would go through. But if the mother's life is not in jeopardy, why would she have an abortion. It all comes down to how much the mother wants the baby. The way the laws are set up, one can decide to abort simply because they don't want the baby even though their does not depend on it. At that point it becomes an issue of convenience.

Nevermind nine months of pregnancy, right? Sharing ones body and resources is simply a minor inconvenience.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

Nevermind nine months of pregnancy, right? Sharing ones body and resources is simply a minor inconvenience.

Enduring a pregnancy is not valid reason for an abortion. Simply having an abortion because you don't want to be pregnant is totally selfish. That's disgusting. Now if those 9 months will kill the mother, than she should have her choice: die or have the baby. A mother can have many children after an abortion. Perhaps it is better to have more children than to die and only have one. Perhaps even that will damn me one day. I don't know. Did I address that correctly?

 

[selfinflikted]

Enduring a pregnancy is not valid reason for an abortion.

Says the man who can't ever get pregnant.

Simply having an abortion because you don't want to be pregnant is totally selfish.

Not donating blood or spare organs to people who will die without it/them is totally selfish. Should the law compel you to do so?

That's disgusting. Now if those 9 months will kill the mother, than she should have her choice. Die or have the baby. A mother can have many children after an abortion. It is better to have more children than to die and only have one. Did I address that correctly?

My point is, no one should be required by any law to give their body up to support the life of someone else against their will. Making abortion illegal does just that, in my opinion.

 

[Skaloop]

Enduring a pregnancy is not valid reason for an abortion. Simply having an abortion because you don't want to be pregnant is totally selfish. That's disgusting. Now if those 9 months will kill the mother, than she should have her choice: die or have the baby. A mother can have many children after an abortion. Perhaps it is better to have more children than to die and only have one. Perhaps even that will damn me one day. I don't know. Did I address that correctly?

What if she's a single mom, and she'd lose her job due to the pregnancy? How would she care for her existing kids? Is it disgusting and selfish to get an abortion when to not get one would mean she wouldn't be able to care for her kids?

 

[trientje]

Making up scenarios as to whatever situation a woman might find herself in is ridiculous. The question here is this: Is abortion morally right. And if you are an atheist your morality is based on each individual atheist and if you are a Christian your morality is based on God's word. This will never be settled but only continued to be debated on.









Atheism isn't a religion, it's a personal reltionship with reality.
Christianity isn't a religion, it's a personal relationship with Jesus

 

[Boondock_Saint]

What if she's a single mom, and she'd lose her job due to the pregnancy? How would she care for her existing kids? Is it disgusting and selfish to get an abortion when to not get one would mean she wouldn't be able to care for her kids?

You can't get fired for being pregnant in America, you silly Canadian.
Yes. It is a disgusting thought that one would have an abortion because life would be easier with out the child. That is disgusting.

 

[snowfam]

We could go on for weeks about this and neither of us will be swayed. So that being said, I'm going to end it here on my behalf. However, I'm interested to hear what's YOUR criteria for morality? What makes something moral and immoral?

I'd appreciate it if you could reference a systematic formula/criteria for what makes something moral, especially for you, rather than just using Google to answer for you.

I never said abortion should be outlawed. I said that under certain criteria it may be considered immoral, and that it ought to be permissible (moral because of the consequence). I never once said it SHOULDN'T be permissible. I'm saying it's immoral depending on the situation.

It ought to be outlawed, it is immoral (just as hate speech ought to be, but forcing someone to not be able to express themselves also seems immoral since it may be against their will) You can't really argue that it's a moral action to abort just for the inconvenience (don't want to raise a kid, want to be single and still have care free casual sex) of it all. If it were, imagine if ALL women would do the same. It's impossible because we wouldn't exist.

That's one of the more common criteria to determine if an action is moral is according to Kan't categorical imperative formula, that if the action were to be willed by everyone, how would the world be and would there be contradictions (which in this case there is).

You could also view it from a utilitarian perspective, thinking of the consequences and the greater good. There may be happiness from the abortion, but what of the fetus' happiness? It doesn't have it, nor can it experience it, therefore we ought to act in its best interest. It could grow up one day to be someone of great value to society.

Either way, abortion is not moral. Is it necessary? Sometimes.

The distinction that needs to be made clear in this issue is regarding the value of human life of the fetus. It's not solely about sex, not about the emotional/financial problems with an unwanted pregnancy. It's about the fetus itself. If women developed some sort of curable defect when having sex that isn't a being of life, no one would have a problem removing it. It's when you remove a fetus that would grow into a human being into our society when our laws fall upon it (making it clearly human) that poses problems.

Not to mention you degrade the value of sex and human life when abortion becomes socially acceptable.

The criteria for morality is God's word. The bible is the only perfect moral standard anyone through freewill is entitled not to believe that and if that is their choice then Almighty God will judge them. Christians should love all mankind the aborted baby as well as the mother and the doctor that phisically committed the murder, this love at no point involves loving or condoning sin. This principal is very simple to understand weather you believe in God or not.

 

[snowfam]

Making up scenarios as to whatever situation a woman might find herself in is ridiculous. The question here is this: Is abortion morally right. And if you are an atheist your morality is based on each individual atheist and if you are a Christian your morality is based on God's word. This will never be settled but only continued to be debated on.

Atheism isn't a religion, it's a personal reltionship with reality.
Christianity isn't a religion, it's a personal relationship with Jesus

Atheism denies reality. You could go no farther than agnostic and even have a hope a calling it reality.

Athesim says there is no God, id like the first atheist who gets a chance to prove that to send me the evidence. It tends to be on the imossible side to prove somthing isn't. Prove that you are not a criminal.