Abortion

[Followers4christ]

Thou shall not Kill fith commandment.It dose not matter if you kill your unborn baby or you kill Your boss.Murder is murder.

.REVALATION 21:8 "But the cowardly,the unbelieving,the vile.the MURDERERS,the sexually immoral,those who practice magic arts,the idolaters,and all liars there place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfer this is the second death."
Why not allow abortion for rape pregnancies?

We must approach this with great compassion. The woman has been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support and help. But she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now ask her to be a party to a second violent act -that of abortion? Unquestionably, many would return the violence of killing an innocent baby for the violence of rape.

12:15"love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth".

 

[invisible trousers]

murder != kill

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Thou shall not Kill fith commandment.It dose not matter if you kill your unborn baby or you kill Your boss.Murder is murder.

Well that's just silly. We kill animals all the time. That's not murder. Even more, killing other humans isn't always murder. In short, killing does not equate to murder. Killing a human doesn't even equate to murder.

Why not allow abortion for rape pregnancies?

We must approach this with great compassion. The woman has been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support and help. But she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now ask her to be a party to a second violent act -that of abortion? Unquestionably, many would return the violence of killing an innocent baby for the violence of rape.

You, however would return the violence of rape with the violence of forcing the woman to bear the rapist's child. I cannot think of a more hideous torture to force a woman to undergo. We shoudln't ASK her to have an abortion - she should be PERMITTED to, if she wants to.

 

[Followers4christ]

Murder is when a person(human) kills another person not an animal so yes killing a human does equate to murder.

The violent act isn't saving the baby from getting killed by the woman the violent act would be the woman killing the baby.Basically you suffer the violence of rape then take it out on the baby that didn't do anything that doesn't seem right now does it?The woman usually lives from child birth but the baby wouldn't if you abort it.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Murder is when a person(human) kills another person not an animal so yes killing a human does equate to murder.

No, wrong. Murder is one a human kills another person illegally. Killing someone in war, in self defense, etc., is not murder. So killing a human does not equate to murder.

The violent act isn't saving the baby from getting killed by the woman the violent act would be the woman killing the baby.Basically you suffer the violence of rape then take it out on the baby that didn't do anything that doesn't seem right now does it?The woman usually lives from child birth but the baby wouldn't if you abort it.

The reprehensible act is forcing the woman to carry her rapist's baby. The woman suffers the violence of rape then you subject her to further torture that doesn't seem right now does it?

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Please let me wade in with an orthodox Jewish view if I may!

I quote from a book I have on the (orthodox!) Jewish approach to various medical issues by Rabbi Dr. J. David Bleich:

"Judaism regards the killing of an unborn child to be a serious moral offense. An abortion may be performed only for the gravest of reasons, and even then, only subsequent to consultation with a competent [orthodox] rabbinic authority...The life of the mother takes precedence over that of the unborn child. Thus, when 'hard travail' of labor endangers the life of the mother, an embryotomy may be performed in order to save her...The fetus' right to life is subordinate to that of the mother, and hence the life of the unborn fetus may be sacrificed in order to save her...The performance of an abortion may be warranted for purposes of preserving maternal health as well as maternal life. No [orthodox rabbinic] authority permits an abortion which is non-therapeutic in nature. There are early rabbinic authorities who expressly declare that ritual laws such as Sabbath observance and fasting on Yom Kippur are suspended in order to preserve the life of the fetus. Suspension of such significant religious observances is clearly incompatible with indiscriminate license to destroy fetal life. Both the argument that a prospective mother may seek an abortion for any reason because denial of this right would interfere with her 'right to privacy' as well as the argument that the decision to abort is entirely a matter between a woman and her physician must be rejected as incompatible with Jewish teaching...Judaism teaches that man does not enjoy unrestricted proprietary rights with regard to his own body, much less so with regard to the body of an unborn child...The Talmud teaches that embryo is endowed with a soul at conception. Moreover, the Sages taught: 'There are 3 partners in the generation of man - the father, the mother and God.' Accordingly, a decision to terminate pregnancy is not one which is within the exclusive domain of the mother...It is well established that the quality of life to be anticipated if the fetus is carried to term is not, in itself, a sufficient reason for the performance of an abortion...Physical or mental abnormalities do not affect the human status of the individual or his right to life...Most authorities rule that termination of pregnancy resulting from rape is not permissible. However, the immediate post-coital contraceptive measures undertaken prior to fertilization of the ovum present a different but complex Jewish-law question. Immediate removal of the sperm by means of a suction device...would be warranted."

Thus, normative (i.e. orthodox) Judaism absolutely rejects abortion as a means of birth control. I certainly object to government funding for abortions that are non-therapeutic in nature.

Jewish law says that once the mother has begun to give birth, her life no longer takes precedence over the fetus & thus killing the fetus, even if ostensibly to save the mother, would, at this stage, be cold-blooded murder & thus absolutely forbidden. I can't imagine that any orthodox rabbi would ever sanction an abortion if the mother has begun to give birth or if the doctors said that the fetus is viable, regardless of the mother's wishes.

We completely reject vigilante violence against doctors, nurses, etc. who are involved in abortions (as well as inciting to violence against them) & to bombing clinics. Opposition to non-therapeutic abortions must be carried out within the bounds of the law.

Howzat?

Be well!

ssv

 

[jesusfreak3786]

I've said this before, and it usually gets ignored...but pregnancy is such an intrinsically female thing, I don't believe any male is qualified to even have an opinion on the morality of abortion. Certainly, it should be legal. And it should be each woman's choice as to whether or not to abort.

That is a horrable way to see it, the male is the dad, of the life in the female, if that female is perectly suited to have a kid phsycly she shouldn't have the right to kill a child with a loving parent. Abortion should be completely illigal, no one in the light of morality should have the choice to end a life, ever. Although everyone does have that choice, just like a murder-rapest, or pedofile has the choice to do what they do, but it's not accepted, and abortion shouldn't be either.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

My opinion on the matter will be abundantly obvious from my faith icon.Rob

 

[Ave Maria]

Abortion should be illegal.

 

[levi501]

Do people have a right to kill those who enslave them in order to gain freedom or must they remain in servitude?

 

[WhatIsTruth]

I don't like it being legal...but.. Like someone else ( I think it was Jerusha Girl) said. It has unfortunately become a necessary evil.

Though I would really like for one of you people who are against abortion to sit there adn tell a rape victim they had to keep the pregnancy that resulted from the rape...that's so insensitive.

However it just seems to me that all these people claim to be pro-life, and then are for the death penalty and feel war is okay....Whatever..

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Though I would really like for one of you people who are against abortion to sit there adn tell a rape victim they had to keep the pregnancy that resulted from the rape...that's so insensitive.

And I would like you to tell an human child that you are going to kill him by ripping his body apart because of what his father did.

However it just seems to me that all these people claim to be pro-life, and then are for the death penalty and feel war is okay....Whatever..

Not I. I am strongly against the death penalty in most modern societies, as it ceases to be absolutely necessary for the protection of society from a dangerous criminal. I feel that war is always a tragedy, and should be used only as an absolute last resort, and where to good acheived is greater than the evil committed. Casualties and suffering ought to be kept to a minimum--sometimes this requires war to end death and suffering and this also applies to the tactics used in war.

Rob

 

[In A Perfect World]

And I would like you to tell an human child that you are going to kill him by ripping his body apart because of what his father did

You can try telling him, I just think he won't understand

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

You can try telling him, I just think he won't understand

And if the mother has very serious mental difficulties, she too may not fully understand her situation. Is she less human because of it? Is the wilful killing of her, and innocent, any less an abominable murder because she does not realise it?

Rob

 

[WhatIsTruth]

And I would like you to tell an human child that you are going to kill him by ripping his body apart because of what his father did.

I don't think you understand what I mean.

It seems to me you of the pro-life persuasion think its so easy to just keep a child that is the fruit of an act like that. That it should be second nature. What would you do if a girl was raped and it was incest? Would you still want her to keep the child? It just seems to me that pro-life people care nothing for the well-being (especially the mental well-being) of the mother....Whether or not she keeps the child.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

It seems to me you of the pro-life persuasion think its so easy to just keep a child that is the fruit of an act like that. That it should be second nature. What would you do if a girl was raped and it was incest? Would you still want her to keep the child? It just seems to me that pro-life people care nothing for the well-being (especially the mental well-being) of the mother....Whether or not she keeps the child.

Apologies...some pro-lifers may well, in their zeal to defend the unborn, pay little or no attention to the plight of the mothers (especially those in difficult circumstances), but I for one certainly do think that the well-being of the mother and father and entire family is extremely important. To be truly pro-life is to say that the well-being of all humanity is extremely important. I just don't believe that any circumstance justifies the murder of an innocent child even if it has supposed benefits for the mother.

In the same way I do not think that massacaring whole sectors of the human population to increase the amount of resources available per person is an acceptable option, even if it would get rid of poverty.

Rob

 

[Code-Monkey]

A fetus has no rights. It is not a legal entity recognized under the law. As the fetus approaches viability, the state can (and does) take steps to protect it, but it still doesn't have rights that override the womans.

Surely the "law" doesn't make it right or wrong, does it? If the state came out tomorrow and said all fetuses from the moment they're conceived are now fully people and have rights, does the fact that a law was passed and some 100-200 people decided something make it right?

I agree that I don't think the unborn child's rights override the womans. I just don't think similarly that the woman's rights should be able to override the child's. Our difference is simply that i consider the child a person and you don't yet.

 

[Code-Monkey]

No, but it does give the basic outlines of how society is allowed to conduct itself. So even if you or somebody else feels that abortion is morally wrong, the law says that if it's morally wrong or not, it's not your place to decide what another person does.

It is not the law's job to decide morality.

I agree. But the law is some group's morality being forced on everyone else. That's just the nature of laws. They suggest what is and is not acceptable human behavior, which is what a moral law does. So it's not our laws that dictate morality, it's some groups morals that dictate what laws they pass.

It is physically impossible for there to be "equal rights" in this situation since the fetus is inside of and part of the mother. As soon as you give the fetus rights, that means you take away rights from the woman. At no point should a person lose rights to their own body.

So do you believe that all efforts should be made to remove the fetus from the woman's body without damaging it? Wait, that's right, you said the fetus would not be it's own person, so it wouldn't matter if it's rights are being violated or taken away since you don't believe it has rights in the first place.

 

[Code-Monkey]

Something that just occurred to me that I wasn't real comfortable with was with respect to the idea that "it's a part of the woman's body so she should have the only say in the matter." just a few thoughts with respect to that...

1. It did take 2 people to get to that point, so it seems somewhat logical that both should have a say in it.
2. If it man truly has no say in the matter, then I think he should be exhonerated from any obligations. This seems to imply (to me) that the man should not be asked for child support. It wasn't his decision to have a child.

(btw - the idea of a guy not owning up to his responsibility in raising and supporting a child is disgusting to me. But it seems almost a logical conclusion that he shouldn't be required to IF he truly had no say in the matter.)

 

[Electric Sceptic]

If it man truly has no say in the matter, then I think he should be exhonerated from any obligations. This seems to imply (to me) that the man should not be asked for child support. It wasn't his decision to have a child.

(btw - the idea of a guy not owning up to his responsibility in raising and supporting a child is disgusting to me. But it seems almost a logical conclusion that he shouldn't be required to IF he truly had no say in the matter.)

The fact is that the man truly has NO say in the matter. A pregnant woman can abort or not abort; the man gets no say whatsoever (unless she allows for his input - but her decision is the one that counts). And yes, this means that the man should not be asked for child support. If he has no authority over whether or not the child will be born, he should have no responsibility for the decision that it be born.