Is abortion ever acceptable?

[torch621]

Some pro-lifers say that abortion is okay in the case of rape or incest. But this logic doesn’t make sense because they believe life begins at conception. To kill an unborn baby who is the product of rape or incest is like killing a 2-year-old because his father was a rapist or pervert.

The answer is abortion is never OK, absolutely never.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I apologize if I came across as probing. However you have not substantiated your claims.

Well, I have claimed the bible doesn't speak about abortions. That's a supported claim.

 

[kiwimac]

The Bible never mentions abortion. God never speaks of it nor do the prophets nor Jesus himself. Thus we conclude that God is unconcerned.

 

[redleghunter]

Well, I have claimed the bible doesn't speak about abortions. That's a supported claim.

Do you think that the non use of “abortion” means the Law allowed it?

Or applying a bit of exegesis shows such was not even thought of or supported given the culture and command not to take innocent life.

 

[redleghunter]

The Bible never mentions abortion. God never speaks of it nor do the prophets nor Jesus himself. Thus we conclude that God is unconcerned.

Really. Is God unconcerned with nuclear war?

God is unconcerned with the human trafficker who forces people into sexual slavery?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Do you think that the non use of “abortion” means the Law allowed it?

Or applying a bit of exegesis shows such was not even thought of or supported given the culture and command not to take innocent life.

Well you read out of it what you place in it, and that's the opposite of exegesis.

 

[SPF]

Yes, people have rights.

can you demonstrate from the NT exactly what rights I have? How do you contrast that with Paul’s declaring himself a slave to Christ?

And even if we were to base abortion as truly a rights issue, then the right to the innocent (innocent in the laws eyes), unborn human would trump.

Consider drinking alcohol. The law in America restricts it to 21 and older. This is done to protect both those under 21 and others around them. A person over 21 is not allowed to drive intoxicated. This is done to protect them and people around them.

We have speeding laws. There’s nothing inherently wrong with driving X mph, but different areas have different speed limiting laws to protect the drivers and those around them.

If abortion truly were about the rights of the innocent, then the unborn, innocent baby’s right to life ought to trump a females right to pursuit of happiness.

We all agree that our rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness can be temporarily suspended or even permanently revoked.

Shouldn’t a human’s right to life supersede another persons right to pursuit of happiness?

A person is a being that is intelligent enough to recognize itself apart from others and handle abstract thinking.

a newborn baby can do neither of those. And where in Scripture can a case be made for a distinction between a human being and a human person?

This supposed difference between a human being and human person with a human person being the one with moral value and worth and the human person being the one without any moral value and worth is bankrupt. It’s an argument that is subjective and arbitrary. The supposed line between the two is arbitrarily determined by the person making the argument.

We know this true because people making the line put it all over the place. There’s no objective way to create the line. But that should be obvious because it’s made up.

The only reason people try and create a difference between a “human being” and a “human person” is so that they may perform some action against the “human being” that we as people would otherwise consider immoral.

 

[devin553344]

SCOTUS had to slice and dice the Constitution to find zones of privacy:

The Constitution does not list a right to privacy. The Court has held, however, that Bill of Rights protections of free speech, assembly, and religious exercise (First Amendment), along with freedom from forced quartering of troops (Third), unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth), and forced self-incrimination (Fifth) create “zones of privacy.” Further, the Ninth Amendment’s protection of unenumerated rights could be said to protect privacy. These “zones,” the Court held, are places into which the government cannot unreasonably intrude. Roe claimed that the law robbed her of her right to privacy as protected by the combination of Bill of Rights amendments, and of her liberty as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.o...supreme-court-cases-elessons/roe-v-wade-1973/
​

What's interesting is "Roe" Norma Leah McCorvey Nelson, never procured the abortion she sought out. She had the kid. She also later became a Pro Life advocate and devout Roman Catholic.

OK I think I understand, wasn't she claiming she was raped and wanted the abortion, but really wasn't raped, her friends told her to state it, cause her state didn't allow abortions except for danger to the mother.

So if I get this right, they can't ask her if she was raped cause it's a right to privacy? Which means all women have the right to get abortions and not prove they were raped?

 

[Archivist]

I’m personally more concerned with discussing what is morally right and wrong, which is not determined by the law.

As a Christian, I filter my beliefs about morality through Scripture, not what the law permits. Otherwise, as abortion is legal, we wouldn’t be having this discussion because the law permits abortion for convenience sake, which I find morally wrong.

So for me, I see Scripture declaring that human beings are unique among God’s creation and possess inherent moral worth and value. We know human life begins at conception. Therefore, I see human beings as creatures created in the image of God, possessing inherent moral value from their earliest moments of life.

Yes I also concerned about right and wrong. Scripture tells me that slavery is wrong. Requiring a rape victim to carry the fetus to term against her will is indentured servitude.

 

[dreadnought]

We don't. The question is what right does any human being have to determine the life of another? That's the question.

No, there are two questions, one of them being whether or not to force a woman to carry a child she didn't ask for.

 

[dreadnought]

can you demonstrate from the NT exactly what rights I have? How do you contrast that with Paul’s declaring himself a slave to Christ?

And even if we were to base abortion as truly a rights issue, then the right to the innocent (innocent in the laws eyes), unborn human would trump.

Consider drinking alcohol. The law in America restricts it to 21 and older. This is done to protect both those under 21 and others around them. A person over 21 is not allowed to drive intoxicated. This is done to protect them and people around them.

We have speeding laws. There’s nothing inherently wrong with driving X mph, but different areas have different speed limiting laws to protect the drivers and those around them.

If abortion truly were about the rights of the innocent, then the unborn, innocent baby’s right to life ought to trump a females right to pursuit of happiness.

You have the right to expect people to obey the Lord's commandments, if you do the same.

 

[SPF]

Requiring a rape victim to carry the fetus to term against her will is indentured servitude.

And your solution is to literally kill the innocent human being that resulted from the horrible action. The innocent human that did nothing wrong and is equally created in the image of God as you are. Your solution is to kill the unborn baby.

That’s nothing short of a heinous position to hold.

 

[SPF]

You have the right to expect people to obey the Lord's commandments, if you do the same.

Really, that is your response? That I have the right to an expectation? Either you haven’t actually thought your comments out, or you have and have no idea how to respond so you just said something absurd.

 

[dreadnought]

Really, that is your response? That I have the right to an expectation? Either you haven’t actually thought your comments out, or you have and have no idea how to respond so you just said something absurd.

I have the right not to be harassed by another person, assuming I am harassing no one.

 

[Archivist]

And your solution is to literally kill the innocent human being that resulted from the horrible accident. The innocent human that did nothing wrong and is equally created in the image of God as you are. Your solution is to kill the unborn baby.

That’s nothing short of a heinous position to hold.

No, a truely heinous position is your belief that rape is a “horrible accident”.

 

[SPF]

I have the right not to be harassed by another person, assuming I am harassing no one.

Scripture, I think says that we will be persecuted for being followers of Christ. I think Scripture also says that the world is our enemy. It also says that we are slaves to Christ, and that we are commanded to honor God with our bodies. It also says that the greatest form of love is to lay your own life down for another.

You have not yet provided any Scripture to support this whole “rights” concept.

No, a truely heinous position is your belief that rape is a “horrible accident”.

No, your position that it is acceptable to literally kill another human being when they are completely innocent and have done nothing wrong is heinous. Much more heinous than auto-correct from my iPhone.

I don’t know how you can justify that other than to assert that the unborn do not possess inherent moral worth and value.

 

[Tree of Life]

Some pro-lifers say that abortion is okay in the case of rape or incest. But this logic doesn’t make sense because they believe life begins at conception. To kill an unborn baby who is the product of rape or incest is like killing a 2-year-old because his father was a rapist or pervert.

I believe that the only instance when abortion might be "on the table" would be in an instance when the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. This is an incredibly tragic and complex ethical scenario and I would never want to have to make the decisions that need made in a case like this. I think that this situation is so complex that couples should be able to prayerfully decide what to do.

But I don't see any ethical justifications in any other scenario.

 

[Archivist]

No, your position that it is acceptable to literally kill another human being when they are completely innocent and have done nothing wrong is heinous. Much more heinous than auto-correct from my iPhone.

I don’t know how you can justify that other than to assert that the unborn do not possess inherent moral worth and value.

Yes, blame auto-correct. Do you lack the ability to proofread? I suspect that you said what you really mean, that rape is nothing but a horrendous accident.

You are talking to me about moral worth when you believe that an innocent pregnant woman can be forced into slavery for nine months.

 

[eleos1954]

Life does not begin at conception, we know that for a fact. Even before conception, an egg is human life, so is sperm. What if life begins when God provides a human spirit? When does that happen? Many believe that the Bible indicates that happens when we draw our first breath, I'm not sure I'm totally comfortable with that interpretation either.

Life does not begin until fertilization from the sperm to the egg. The sperm by itself is not human life .... the egg by itself is not human life. They both have the "potential" but separately are not life. It takes the two to start the pro-creation process the Lord put in place

When does it happen? It happens when the egg and the sperm come together and the egg is imbedded in the womb. How do we know that? The body recognizes "the beginning of life" at fertilization in the mothers womb and the placenta begins forming ..... there is no other reason for the placenta to form .... unless the body recognizes there is "life" that is going to need "life support" of which will be provided by the placenta.

 

[SPF]

Yes, blame auto-correct. Do you lack the ability to proofread? I suspect that you said what you really mean, that rape is nothing but a horrendous accident.

You are talking to me about moral worth when you believe that an innocent pregnant woman can be forced into skavery for nine months.

I just can’t understand why a Christian would think that it’s morally acceptable to kill an innocent human being who has done nothing wrong.

What if the rape victim decided to carry the child, but then once the child was 6 months old realized that they really looked like their attacker and decided that it wasn’t going to work and that they didn’t want the baby to live - would it be acceptable to kill the baby then?

I don’t understand why people think that just because a human resides in a womb that they don’t have any moral worth and value.

And I’m sure you just forgot to proofread and that you meant “slavery” and not “skavery”