Is abortion ever acceptable?

[S.O.J.I.A.]

It could happen.
Child bearing is very stressful on the heart.
What if a heart problem develops? Cancer?
I know a woman, young, who developed cancer while pregnant and decided to continue with the pregnancy. She died 6 months after the baby was born.

If a woman gets an abortion to save her life,,,isn't this detouring from God's plan since it is HE who gives life and takes it?

Just putting the question out there. I don't know what I would have done. I also agree with the poster who spoke about the husband and other children already living having to be considered.

this would be a very rare situation where both the life of the child and the mother are in immediate danger.

this can't be compared to those who murder their children in the womb for the sake of convenience.

 

[SPF]

We know for sure it is unjust to force a raped woman to carry the child resulting from that rape.

You didn’t answer my question.

If it just so happens that the unborn innocent baby does have a soul, is it just to kill the innocent baby because of “how” it came into this world?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So what would you say to the rape victim that wanted to abort after the baby reaches viability?

Viability is a fluid concept. The time may come when we can artificially support a fertilized egg from the moment it is formed. But if a woman waited until after the first half of her pregnancy to make that decision I would suggest she waited to long.

Many people, in a desire to have babies, arrange for eggs to be fertilized in a clinic and then the resulting zygotes are transferred into the potential mother's womb. Often several such fertilized eggs are prepared and kept frozen so that if one doesn't "take" the next can be tried. So there we have frozen, fertilized eggs now stored and no longer needed . . . the woman conceived before all the spares were used up. (notice the biblical use of the word "conceived" there, as opposed to the modern, unscriptural assertion that conception occurs when the sperm unites with the egg.)

Maybe you think such procedures are deplorable. Never mind that. What should be the ethical thing to do with those frozen fertilized eggs? How long should they be retained in the frozen state before being discarded?

 

[SPF]

Viability is a fluid concept. The time may come when we can artificially support a fertilized egg from the moment it is formed. But if a woman waited until after the first half of her pregnancy to make that decision I would suggest she waited to long.

Many people, in a desire to have babies, arrange for eggs to be fertilized in a clinic and then the resulting zygotes are transferred into the potential mother's womb. Often several such fertilized eggs are prepared and kept frozen so that if one doesn't "take" the next can be tried. So there we have frozen, fertilized eggs now stored and no longer needed . . . the woman conceived before all the spares were used up. (notice the biblical use of the word "conceived" there, as opposed to the modern, unscriptural assertion that conception occurs when the sperm unites with the egg.)

Maybe you think such procedures are deplorable. Never mind that. What should be the ethical thing to do with those frozen fertilized eggs? How long should they be retained in the frozen state before being discarded?

Congratulations on the giant red herring.

I’m still waiting for an objective, non arbitrary argument for why there exists such a thing as a difference between a human being and a human person.

Who has the authority to draw the line in the sand and determine when it is? Some people argue 1st trimester. Some 2nd, others 3rd. Some argue a beating heart, or the ability to feel pain, or neural activity. Some argue anytime in the womb (hence partial birth abortions) and so on.

So many opinions on when a human being suddenly becomes a human person. The only thing clear about the subjective argument is that everyone making it is only doing it so they can morally justify an otherwise immoral act.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Congratulations on the giant red herring.

I’m still waiting for an objective, non arbitrary argument for why there exists such a thing as a difference between a human being and a human person.

Human being is a vague term. Try using "Human Body".

Who has the authority to draw the line in the sand and determine when it is? Some people argue 1st trimester. Some 2nd, others 3rd. Some argue a beating heart, or the ability to feel pain, or neural activity. Some argue anytime in the womb (hence partial birth abortions) and so on.

The ones who speak of the functioning brain are the winners.

So many opinions on when a human being suddenly becomes a human person. The only thing clear about the subjective argument is that everyone making it is only doing it so they can morally justify an otherwise immoral act.

What if it is immoral to stop a woman from her right to an abortion in the first half of her pregnancy? Sorry, you are once again attempting to settle this issue by mere pronouncement.

 

[redleghunter]

Because we don't know when the Lord puts a soul into a person, I am against most abortions. However, in the case of rape, I know for sure it is a great injustice to the woman to force her to carry the child.

Where’s the Justice in allowing another human being be killed for not doing anything other than live?

 

[redleghunter]

And you just what, shrug your shoulders and punish an innocent woman twice.

Please explain the justice of the premeditated killing of the unborn child.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Please explain the justice of the premeditated killing of the unborn child.

Simple. If it takes place before the brain was developed enough to function, there was nobody home in there.

 

[redleghunter]

God is beyond time and views every person from conception to death all at once. To Him, those who we see developing from small beginnings to full capacity of manhood or womanhood are all such from always. It is that same case with Jesus. Just as my little toe, vestigial remnant of a previous species as it is, is still part of me, so my beginning as a single cell is a part of me viewed from eternity. But if someone cloned a small toe and then killed it, they would not have killed a person, and if a single fertilized cell dies . . . as millions spontaneously do anyway . . . a person did not die. No person ever was there, yet.

Would you please address what I actually asked. Did Jesus have a human soul at conception. If not when did He get one.

 

[redleghunter]

Simple. If it takes place before the brain was developed enough to function, there was nobody home in there.

What evidence do you have of this and at what stage of development is “someone home?”

 

[redleghunter]

We observe, scientifically, that a single cell is not a single person. Sometimes, for example, a single cell will split and grow into two persons instead of one. Hey, what happened to the idea that the soul present at conception? Sometimes two cells having different genetic origin . . . perhaps alternate fathers . . . stick together and grow to form a single person. We call such a rare event a "chimera". These events prove your conception = person idea to be false. The merger of egg with sperm is only PROBABLY going to result in one person.

Please explain the process of soul splitting.

I gather from your assertions above Jesus was not human at some point during His development in Mary’s womb.

How do you settle this with the Incarnation?

Meaning your subjective philosophical determination of brain activity does not square with the Christian teachings of the Incarnation. One critical piece of the Incarnation is Jesus was/is just as human as we are.

Therefore you cannot find solace in Biblical and Christian doctrine as you deny the humanity of Jesus Christ.

 

[redleghunter]

John the Baptist did the leaping in the second half of the pregnancy.

You still have not defined what type of brain activity and at what stage of development this magically occurring personhood begins.

 

[redleghunter]

Human being is a vague term. Try using "Human Body".

No it’s not. It’s a defined scientific term.

 

[SPF]

The ones who speak of the functioning brain are the winners.

I hope you see the irony here in that this unsupported, naked declaration is a perfect example of “mere pronouncement”. You haven’t supplied anything ever in anything you’ve written that would suffice as a supported argument.

What if it is immoral to stop a woman from her right to an abortion in the first half of her pregnancy? Sorry, you are once again attempting to settle this issue by mere pronouncement.

If I need to, I can requote the dozens of resources I’ve provided which demonstrate that scientifically we know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

P1 - A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

Next, as Christians, I hope we st least stand on common ground in our belief that we are unique among all God’s creation and that humans possess the Imago Dei. We are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

P2 - All human beings, regardless of their age possess inherent moral worth and value.

The conclusion that these two premises drive at is obvious. The developmental period of a human being lasts 25 years. Yet at no point during our 25 year development are we not a human being.

No where I’m Scripture can you find support for the notion that we must be X old, or be X smart, or live under X conditions to be created in the image of God.

Therefore, it logically follows that at the very least the 98% of abortions which are committed for convenience sake, are immoral.

Also, the other obvious truth that we can derive from this is that our moral worth and value as humans comes from God, and therefore, the “how” in which we began our existence has no bearing upon our moral worth and value.

Therefore, the human being whose existence was sourced from loving parents is no more valuable than the human being whose existence was sourced from rape. Both human beings are equally valuable, equally created in the image of God, and are equally innocent.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Would you please address what I actually asked. Did Jesus have a human soul at conception. If not when did He get one.

I have already done that. I'm sorry you don't understand it.

 

[redleghunter]

I have already done that. I'm sorry you don't understand it.

I’m sorry but you have established only assertions without laying out evidence to support your claims.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I hope you see the irony here in that this unsupported, naked declaration is a perfect example of “mere pronouncement”. You haven’t supplied anything ever in anything you’ve written that would suffice as a supported argument.



If I need to, I can requote the dozens of resources I’ve provided which demonstrate that scientifically we know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

P1 - A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

Next, as Christians, I hope we st least stand on common ground in our belief that we are unique among all God’s creation and that humans possess the Imago Dei. We are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

P2 - All human beings, regardless of their age possess inherent moral worth and value.

The conclusion that these two premises drive at is obvious. The developmental period of a human being lasts 25 years. Yet at no point during our 25 year development are we not a human being.

No where I’m Scripture can you find support for the notion that we must be X old, or be X smart, or live under X conditions to be created in the image of God.

Therefore, it logically follows that at the very least the 98% of abortions which are committed for convenience sake, are immoral.

Also, the other obvious truth that we can derive from this is that our moral worth and value as humans comes from God, and therefore, the “how” in which we began our existence has no bearing upon our moral worth and value.

Therefore, the human being whose existence was sourced from loving parents is no more valuable than the human being whose existence was sourced from rape. Both human beings are equally valuable, equally created in the image of God, and are equally innocent.

Once again your mere pronouncements don't bend reality your way.

Look at the creation of Adam. First came the molding of his body. Then came the breath of life into the body. If somebody had marred the body before the breath of life Adam could have been made anew with no harm done.

Look at what happens when development goes wrong. Tragically, some infants form without a cerebral cortex. No possibility of thinking can exist there. There is no soul present in such a case. Abortion would be an innocent way of handling such a case.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I’m sorry but you have established only assertions without laying out evidence to support your claims.

The evidence of twins from a single fertilization was presented. It proves mere fertilization does not set the number of souls to come. The evidence of chimera births was presented. It proves the mere fertilization does not set the number of souls to come. Your own assertions are the ones without evidence.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You didn’t answer my question.

If it just so happens that the unborn innocent baby does have a soul, is it just to kill the innocent baby because of “how” it came into this world?

If such a soul exists, and perishes without having a birth, what is the eternal fate of such a soul?

 

[redleghunter]

The evidence of twins from a single fertilization was presented. It proves mere fertilization does not set the number of souls to come. The evidence of chimera births was presented. It proves the mere fertilization does not set the number of souls to come. Your own assertions are the ones without evidence.

What exactly is the scientific evidence only one soul is present?

Romans 9: NASB

10Not only that, but Rebecca’s children were conceived by one man, our father Isaac. 11Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad, in order that God’s plan of election might stand,12not by works but by Him who calls, she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”c 13So it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (NASB)

Seems God had if all sorted out with Jacob and Esau.

So either you have evidence human beings are soulless up to a certain point or the point fails. And this still evokes the question of Christology.