Abortion is not acceptable for any reasons at all

[Ave Maria]

Abortion is not acceptable for any reasons at all, not even for the life of the mother. Why is this? Because you cannot do an evil deed to bring about a good end. It's as simple as that.

That said, there are situations where a medical procedure can be done which results in the death of the baby but which is not morally evil. An example of this would be a woman who finds out that she is pregnant and then during the pregnancy discovers that she has uterine cancer which must be operated on or she will die. If that woman has surgery to remove the cancerous uterus which results in the death of the baby then that is not morally evil because the intention was not to kill the baby but to save the life of the mother.

Likewise in the case of an ectopic pregnancy if a woman has surgery to have the affected fallopian tube removed which will, of course, result in the death of the baby then that is not morally evil either because the intention was not to kill the baby but to save her life.

The difference between this and a direct abortion is the fact that in a direct abortion, the intention is to kill the unborn baby. A direct abortion is an abortion either willed or as a means. Abortion is willed as a means when the instrument is to end the pregnancy or kill the unborn baby.

I really don't know how to explain this further and so I will offer a couple of links:

What's the difference between direct and indirect abortion? | Catholic Answers

Can a pregnant woman undergo chemotherapy if it will harm her child? | Catholic Answers

God bless,
Ave Maria (Holly)

 

[TheDag]

I find the answer in the link to be confusing. It says ending a life to save a life is acceptable but then says ending a life to save a life is always a direct abortion and therefore wrong. It seems contradictory to me.

It is an interesting view and certainly opens up some areas to be grey rather than black & white. It would be interesting to hear reasoning for cases of rape. I have no idea of what percentage of rape cases produce a pregnancy but I would imagine it would be small considering the things that need to go right for a pregnancy to happen. I have also heard the claim that the majority of women raped who become pregnant actually keep the child. However it would be interesting to hear your view and the popes view on if abortion is acceptable in those cases. My opinion is that it is. Of course my belief is that the Jewish belief and therefore the traditional Christian belief of biblical times is that life begins at the first breath due to Adam's life starting when God breathed life into him. There is some debate as to when the first breath is taken as to if it is after birth or in the womb.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

If a woman was in hard travail [such that her life is in danger], the child must be cut up while it is in the womb and brought out member by member, since the life of the mother has priority over the life of the child; but if the greater part of it was already born, it may not be touched, since the claim of one life cannot override the claim of another life.

Again, the fetus is not a person when in the womb, but here the fetus becomes a person once the head or greater part of the body has emerged. It follows that when the Talmud in Sanhedrin 72b states that you are not permitted to murder one person in order to save another, the law is simply inapplicable to the fetus, because the fetus is not a person. Furthermore, the Talmud does allow dismemberment of a partially emerged child when the motherís life is endangered, thus according final priority to the life of the mother over the life of the child. These discussions turn on the technical Talmudic concept of rodef. The term for a potential murderer is rodef, a "pursuer" or, in contemporary parlance, a stalker, one who pursues another in order to kill him. Under normal circumstances, a rodef may be killed if this is the only way in which the life of the intended victim can be saved. Two conflicting viewpoints about the applicability of the rodef principle to the fetus are offered by commentators. Some commentators believe that when it is the child who threatens the mother, then the law of rodef applies, even though the rodef is a minor and so not responsible for his or her actions. Others believe that the motherís life is not being pursued by the child, but by "heaven," that is, the mother is dying as a result of natural causes, hence, the childís life cannot be made forfeit on the grounds of rodef, but there is still acknowledgement that the motherís life is to be saved at the expense of the child's life.


Abortion is not a sin until the baby breaths. Jewish Law is very clear but even so many christans in 1 century also follow this law of the baby has less importance than the mother

Even if the pregnant woman was killed they will not wait for the baby to be born

It also states if the mother's life is in endanger she can abort the baby even when the baby head has be shown


(Sanh. 72b) and moreover, "such is the way of the world" (Maim., Yad, Roẓe'aḥ 1:9) and "one does not know whether the fetus is pursuing the mother, or the mother the fetus" (TJ Sanh. 8:9, 26c). However, when the mother's life is endangered, she herself may destroy the fetus – even if its greater part has emerged – "for even if in the eyes of others the law of a fetus is not as the law of a pursuer, the mother may yet regard the fetus as pursuing her" (Meiri, ibid.).

 

[Purge187]

I think abortion should be allowed in instances of rape where the mother obviously had no choice in the matter.

Some may say that God intended for children to be conceived in these cases, but by saying that, you'd be implying that He intended the sexual assault to happen as well.

 

[TomZzyzx]

I think abortion should be allowed in instances of rape where the mother obviously had no choice in the matter.

Some may say that God intended for children to be conceived in these cases, but by saying that, you'd be implying that He intended the sexual assault to happen as well.

Why should the child pay (with it's life) for the crime of the father?

 

[willlowbee]

It is decidedly contrary to the argument for pro-life to decree a woman must be murdered by an nonviable baby or fetus and a god's will, in order that that murdered mother to then be posthumously remembered as pro-life.

When such a circumstance occurs in pregnancy complications that deny any chance of viability, it is God's will. This can only be true when people argue under other circumstances as well that God is sovereign and therefore all things happen according to his will and plan. Which is also that what is spelled out in the scripture.

When that non-viable baby then threatens the life of its mother one must concede, when they claim abortion to save a mother when a baby is already as good as dead in utero must be forbidden by law, that either: 1.) the murder of the mother is God's will also when abortion opponents argue the mother must die along with her baby instead of having an abortion. And this then would make God a premeditated murderer given what we've already discussed is scriptural regarding his sovereign will and planning, being that he is omniscient, all powerful and omnipresent so as to know the predestined outcome of that non-viable pregnancy.
2.) The anti-abortion zealot is anti-life when they would rather both mother and baby die because an abortion that would preserve life and thus represent a consistent platform of proactive life advocacy, is denied.

The anti-abortion under any circumstances platform is inhumane and un-Godly. It is murder! Which is a violation of the 6th commandment.

I read advocacy for murder arguments like this one in the OP and I remember this:

Baby born to Salvadoran woman denied abortion diesJune 4, 2013
AN SALVADOR, El Salvador The baby born to a Salvadoran woman who had been denied an abortion has died.
The girl had been born without a brain and Health Minister Maria Isabel Rodriguez says she died five hours after Monday's C-section.
Officials refer to the 22-year-old mother only as Beatriz for privacy reasons.

Of all the thread dialog that went on here at CF about this issue of this woman, her health, and the tragic choice she was being asked to make, not one thread to my knowledge was ever posted reporting this update!

But I guess as long as the baby was delivered so as to indicate there was one more human being on earth for a few moments, that's all that matters.

It was God's will that the mother risk dying so the baby absolutely did once it was delivered!
That is not a proactive platform for the sanctity of life!
That is the proactive platform for the enslavement and murder of women.
And this tragic report is but one more example as to why America is blessed to have legal abortion available for women in this country. Because in El Salvador their legal policy dictates exactly what this thread proposes!

Women's lives are not important! Fetus lives are not important! Pregnancy is important!
Even when the fetus is dead in utero, or near dead without a brain to speak of. Even when the mother stands to die if she carries to term. She is just the vehicle! And therefore expendable.
It's not about pro-life!
It's about pro-population and the criminalizing of choice.

And God has nothing to do with that.

 

[TheDag]

Why should the child pay (with it's life) for the crime of the father?

Untill you can provide a satisfactory answer as to why the traditional Jewish view and therefore the traditional Christian view which was accepted up until the late 1970's and also advocated by many prominent Christians like Billy Graham and J I Packer is wrong then this question makes no sense. Fact is the traditional view was that a fetus is not a life.

 

[discussmith]

Dag you say "until a satisfactory answer" but I believe with you as the judge it will never exist, but let me say this about your justification for your opinion based on tradition. Tradition had it that women were just too ignorant to be involved in politics and thus were not allowed to vote until they uprised and organised and protested otherwise. Oh, and here's a good one. Tradition had it that the black weren't persons either.

 

[discussmith]

Willowbee your righteous indignation over the story of a tragic and useless loss of one mother being forced to keep an impossible pregnancy leading you to speak that it is nothing but an "enslavement and murder of women". With this one single example you justify abortion on demand for any reason. How is it then that a study in England between 1969 and 1990 showed that the percentage of abortions done for the health and welfare of the mother was .004% and that the number of abortions done for convenience in the US is 85% to 87%? Of the 50 million plus abortions done in the US assuming 50% were female who really is the enslaver and murderer of women? But then again you like Dag and Saya say "they aren't really people." Yah I heard that somewhere before.

 

[TheDag]

Dag you say "until a satisfactory answer" but I believe with you as the judge it will never exist, but let me say this about your justification for your opinion based on tradition. Tradition had it that women were just too ignorant to be involved in politics and thus were not allowed to vote until they uprised and organised and protested otherwise. Oh, and here's a good one. Tradition had it that the black weren't persons either.

I said traditional view not tradition. Much like the traditional Christian view is that Jesus is the Son of God the traditional view is that life begins with the first breath because Adam only came to life when God breathed breath into him. So that is the biblical justification for the belief. You however are following a tradition that only came into existence in the late 70's or early 80's.

 

[discussmith]

Potato - Pototo. Like I said, Traditional view or whatever it's not biblical truth. Traditional view was the world was flat and was the center of the universe. Another church traditional view?

 

[TomZzyzx]

Untill you can provide a satisfactory answer as to why the traditional Jewish view and therefore the traditional Christian view which was accepted up until the late 1970's and also advocated by many prominent Christians like Billy Graham and J I Packer is wrong then this question makes no sense. Fact is the traditional view was that a fetus is not a life.

How's this for a satisfactory answer, this so called "traditional view" is not based on biblical truth.

Since the bible is silent on abortion, I base my views on science, logic, reason and human rights.

Until you can provide a satisfactory answer as to why killing an innocent human being is not immoral then maybe you might have an argument for the pro-choice view.

 

[TheDag]

Potato - Pototo. Like I said, Traditional view or whatever it's not biblical truth. Traditional view was the world was flat and was the center of the universe. Another church traditional view?

So according to you the bible is wrong. You believe Cain could not be wrong in murdering his brother. After all the only thing to say it was wrong at the time is traditional views. Not only did the bible not exist then neither did any form of scripture. See where your stuck in the mud thinking gets you. If you don't care to distinguish between the two that is your choice.

By the way the traditional Jewish view is entirely scriptural and supported by scripture from the bible. Care to try again?

 

[Conscious Z]

Abortion is not acceptable for any reasons at all, not even for the life of the mother. Why is this? Because you cannot do an evil deed to bring about a good end. It's as simple as that.

I think that calling abortion "evil" in this argument is begging the question. You cannot say "Abortion is wrong because you cannot do a wrong thing to get a good end." That is a textbook begging the question fallacy.

However, I suggest you reconsider the idea that one cannot morally do a suspect thing in order to achieve a greater good. Imagine Anne Frank is hiding in your attic -- do you out her to the Nazis when they come knocking, or do you lie? You would of course be morally obligated to lie.

Thus, it actually isn't "as simple as that."

 

[TheDag]

I think that calling abortion "evil" in this argument is begging the question. You cannot say "Abortion is wrong because you cannot do a wrong thing to get a good end." That is a textbook begging the question fallacy.

However, I suggest you reconsider the idea that one cannot morally do a suspect thing in order to achieve a greater good. Imagine Anne Frank is hiding in your attic -- do you out her to the Nazis when they come knocking, or do you lie? You would of course be morally obligated to lie.

Thus, it actually isn't "as simple as that."

Although interestingly Anne Franks sister who also hid people from the Nazis never lied and she credits not ending up in a concentration camp like Anne did to remaining truthful. When the Nazis came and asked she actually told them where she was hiding the Jews and the soldiers ignored it! Just a thought.

 

[Conscious Z]

Although interestingly Anne Franks sister who also hid people from the Nazis never lied and she credits not ending up in a concentration camp like Anne did to remaining truthful. When the Nazis came and asked she actually told them where she was hiding the Jews and the soldiers ignored it! Just a thought.

That isn't exactly useful because one wouldn't be able to foresee that the Nazis would ignore such information. It would still remain prudent, I believe, to lie. Either way, I was giving a hypothetical example....my point is not dependent on the details of my example being historically accurate.

 

[TheDag]

That isn't exactly useful because one wouldn't be able to foresee that the Nazis would ignore such information. It would still remain prudent, I believe, to lie. Either way, I was giving a hypothetical example....my point is not dependent on the details of my example being historically accurate.

I was more just throwing that in there as something interesting rather than refuting a point or anything like that.

 

[AFPatriots]

Can we all agree that even from Hillary, this is totally sick?

http://americafirstpatriots.com/new-low-even-hillary-rotten-clinton-tells-view-allow-abortion-day/

 

[Archivist]

Although interestingly Anne Franks sister who also hid people from the Nazis never lied and she credits not ending up in a concentration camp like Anne did to remaining truthful. When the Nazis came and asked she actually told them where she was hiding the Jews and the soldiers ignored it! Just a thought.

I'm not trying to take the thread off topic, but this in untrue. Anne Frank's sister did not hid people from the Nazis. Margot Frank hid in the Annex with Anne and their parents.

 

[Archivist]

Oh, and Margot was, with the rest of the family, arrested by the Nazis and died in a concentration camp.

Unfortunately the person who betrayyed the Franks never confessed. Guess he was too much of a coward to admit his guilt.