Abortion, right or wrong?

[Lucretius]

Now you are interpreting the unchangeable Word of God. Wouldn't the Gospels who heard God be more accurate in their interpretation of God's message than you? Why do many find it convenient to simply believe in some sections of the Bible, and then interpret the rest the way they see fit?

 

[Adam81]

There is nothing to say that you need to be baptised to go to heaven if you die as a baby, or if you die while in the womb. Infant baptism (christening) did not come about until well after the time of the new testament when the mortality rate was high and people of the catholic faith believed that if you die without being baptised, then you go to hell.

The 'original sin' doctrine is not a part of the bible, and is merely one interpretation of a few verses.

Jesus spoke about faith like a child is good. He only baptised adults (adults in NT time were probably age 15 up), people who were able to make a choice about what they believed in.

But to condemn babies that die before or just after they were born just goes against the grain of what we know God to be, particularly when they have done nothing wrong - they don't have the capacity to hate or be selfish.

 

[Lucretius]

Why would the unchangeable Word of God need to change? Please tell me this. I mean, if God inspired this, then why would he suddenly change his mind?

 

[Amurphycat]

I believe abortion is wrong in every case, except to save the mother's life, or if a minor child is raped and a pregnancy results. The minor is more important in a case such as that. Abortion for convenience is clearly wrong.

The bigger issue here is not getting rid of Abortion

But gettin rid of the original Idea for abortion

It is silly to cut something of at the end of a problem. Much better to get it before it starts.

I am not for abortion, but I think that we need to stop other things first.

Abortion is a result of a previous problem. Abortion is not the problem, is the the one that procededs it.

Obviously Convenience is clearly wrong.

 

[Adam81]

Lucretius, I am not sure what you mean...
The beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church is not identical to what is shown in the Churches of the New Testament (ie Saints vs no Saints, Christening vs adult baptism etc). My demoniation, Churches of Christ (Disciples of Christ in the USA I think), has a saying that it is a church of the NT.
While I disagree with some of the doctrines of the Catholic church, I still respect their beliefs as fellow Christians.

And Amurphycat, that is a very good point, which partially goes to another thread, about sex before marriage.
If we remove the need for abortion that we can (unwanted pregnancies), then hey presto, one more major problem is pretty much solved!!

 

[Adam81]

Oh, and one more thing, is the help that is needed for mothers after abortion. One of the Google ads (?) I saw just as I sent my last post was about depression and hurt after abortions. Just as more help needs to be given to mothers after birth, particularly if its a difficult birth, even more is needed after abotion.

 

[Lucretius]

abortion shouldn't really be banned because a religion or religions want it to… America was not founded on religion, and religion should be kept out of policymaking that has no effect on religion itself.

 

[Snow Angel]

I think abortions are wrong.The lord giveth life,the lord taketh a way.
people can say what they want,but after the sperm mixes ,the baby starts
growing,and if you don't think so wait 9 months and see.but then I think the bible
saids any kind of birth control is wrong.God Bless:

 

[Adam81]

This thread is not just a religious look at abortion, but also all the points of abortion.

And I don't think the bible says that birth control is wrong, as they didn't have birth control in biblical times, so this is yet another grey area.

 

[Lucretius]

A fetus becomes a person when it becomes an independent life force. While it is connected to the mother, she can do whatever she wants with it; it's in her possession.

How can abortion NOT be part of God's will? God is all-encompassing, correct? He is all? How can something not be part of God's will? Is there something outside of everything?

 

[Adam81]

Which makes me need to rephrase what I said - birth control (aside from abstinence) isn't mentioned in the bible.
I certainly must agree that nothing is wrong with birth-control, however, I would rather educate youngsters for them to choose abstinence than hand out contraceptives.

 

[Screamin'Eagle]

no, how is murdering moral? now birth control i have no problem with, as long as its just preventing contraception not killing a helpless baby.

 

[tjboie2001]

There is nothing wrong with birth control. But to kill a human being that is just down right wrong. I have to little girls of my own and I would never ever think of doing that wht so ever. My husband and I are against aboration 100%.

 

[Katydid]

I believe that abortion is not murder, at least through most of the pregnancy. It is about as "alive" as the skin cells on your arm. Ill post a link as soon as the boards let me, when I have 15 posts.

I haven't read all the posts yet, but here is my take on this statement.

No more than your arm, but if I cut off your arm, am I not killing something, namely, your arm. Not to mention the fact that according to the law, if I cut off your arm I go to jail, if you abort a baby, you are justified. If you cut off your OWN arm, you get locked up for being insane, yet you abort a baby, and you are congradulated for being so brave.

 

[tjboie2001]

I haven't read all the posts yet, but here is my take on this statement.

No more than your arm, but if I cut off your arm, am I not killing something, namely, your arm. Not to mention the fact that according to the law, if I cut off your arm I go to jail, if you abort a baby, you are justified. If you cut off your OWN arm, you get locked up for being insane, yet you abort a baby, and you are congradulated for being so brave.

This is true. People think that just because the baby is not fully grown that it is not a human life well they are wrong. As soon as that egg is fretilized it is a new life that has just started.

 

[Katydid]

Because "personhood" is an epiphenomenon of the human brain, it should be clear that if there is no fully functional brain, then there is no personhood

This means that any child born with downs (missing a chromosme) is not a person because they have a brain that doesn't "fully function", also, anyone with brain damage, alzhiemer's, senility, hey, what about people with epilepsy that have radical brain surgery to remove parts of it, or what about manic depressives, as their brain doesn't fully function, or at least not properly. You see where I am going. I disagree with this persons definition of a person, therefore, I can't agree with his argument.

 

[Katydid]

Rights are not allocated based on potentialities, but rather realities.

One note, making blanket statements is never (haha) a good idea.

Actually a murderer it there is the POTENTIAL for rehabilitation, is given the right to remain living. 15 year olds who have the POTENTIAL for gaining a driver's license, will be given a permit. There are thousands of Potentials that get rewards. As I said, blanket statements are usually wrong.

 

[Katydid]

Without the use of the mothers womb and the nutrients from her blood, it doesn't have the potential to become a person.

and a newborn infant is completely reliant on the mother and father, I guess infants aren't really people either. Without someone to feed the baby, the baby is not autonomous as you put it.

namely, the right to enslave the body of another person and inject it with hormones against her consent.

Are you telling me that when someone murders another person and ends up in jail, that they are enslaved against their consent (they are) and that we shouldn't have the right to do that. Think about this, if I ever found a woman, who chose abortion because she honestly had NO CLUE that sex leads to pregnancy, then I wouldn't hold it against her. But women who CHOOSE the circumstances that lead to this "slavery" then choose the consequences of their own actions.

every person enjoys the right to liberate themselves from such a violation with at least the minimum force necessary,

I am sure you are correct, but do they have the RIGHT to liberate themselves. For instance, that same murderer, does he have the RIGHT to liberate himself from prison just because he doesn't like the consequences of his actions? Same question for the woman seeking an abortion.

 

[Katydid]

It appears that the concerns of the Pro-life advocates suddenly evaporate after the child is born. The welfare of the baby is every bit as important as that of the fetus. Why aren't the Pro-lifers in the vanguard of those proposing programs concerning daycare, affordable housing, child care programs, etc. to make carrying a child full-term a viable option?

How do you know what we are or aren't involved in?

 

[Lucretius]

and a newborn infant is completely reliant on the mother and father, I guess infants aren't really people either. Without someone to feed the baby, the baby is not autonomous as you put it.

Does it HAVE TO FEED DIRECTLY OFF OF THE MOTHER? No. It can independently sustain its body functions. It does not NEED nutrients from the mother's blood. True, being raised by parents makes a baby dependent on them; but once it is out of the womb, it can sustain it's self and thusly should be the rightful responsibility of the parents.

Are you telling me that when someone murders another person and ends up in jail, that they are enslaved against their consent (they are) and that we shouldn't have the right to do that. Think about this, if I ever found a woman, who chose abortion because she honestly had NO CLUE that sex leads to pregnancy, then I wouldn't hold it against her. But women who CHOOSE the circumstances that lead to this "slavery" then choose the consequences of their own actions.

I am sure you are correct, but do they have the RIGHT to liberate themselves. For instance, that same murderer, does he have the RIGHT to liberate himself from prison just because he doesn't like the consequences of his actions? Same question for the woman seeking an abortion.

You cannot compare murder to abortion. A murderer is a PERSON. They have the same rights as other people, but when they commit murder, they are doing a moral wrong. Law helps punish people for their moral wrongs. Usually morality is based on what society percieves is correct; but it is always objective. Getting rid of a fetus is not a human life. It is a potential human life, but it is nutritionally dependent on the mother. Old people who are on life support are still people. Fetuses are neither people, nor self-sustaining beings. I believe both are needed in order to qualify as a person.

The difference between my belief and yours is that you want to restrict choice (make people adhere to your moral views) whereas mine is to allow choice. I find mine more morally correct.