why is abortion wrong?

[dandymandy]

Secundulus---

Would you be willing to discuss the morality of elective abortion with this pro-choice new Christian, please?

I have perceived that you are a religious conservative. You posts to others have earned my respect for you. I have checked into the Anglican Church in America site. You fill the bill for my personal agenda: a hard rock to bang my long-held convictions upon to see if they will fracture.

I know a little about you so let me tell you a little about me so you can better phrase your responses:

I was raised in a secular family in America that was severely dysfunctional, racked by alcohol, adultery, and father abandoning his family (though my dad did provide extravagant financial support). I needed to abandon my mother myself at age 16 fearing for my physical safety. I had the independent financial means to do so.

I was living alone in a London hotel room the summer. I needed to continue my education. With the help of an elderly London University professor, I selected a UK boarding school.

The school is a Christian school and I was an atheist. My choice was totally irrational. I think---I know---that Christ nudged me. If I was to survive in a Christian school, I had to walk the Christian walk. My time there was life transforming. I lived with Christ for a year and a half without committing. It was time for me to make an honest god of Christ so I accepted baptism on my 18th birthday, the day I came of age and indisputably independent. With submission comes true sovereignty.

I think that a childhood of trying to please an earthly father who provided but who never showed his face rather set me up to being a daughter of Christ. I live every day with the goal of having that day, my day be a source of joy for Him. Today is the most important day there ever will be. Each day. Every day.

I am Church of England communicant, high church, and liberal. It causes me distress that for a church that is trying to establish communion with the Romans, it is having difficulty remaining one church. There has been reprehensible behaviour by individuals on both sides of the divide. I have my doctrinal positions but I can not envision any resolution to what appear to be stark, naked differences. This causes me great sadness.

My views on abortion have been influenced by my personal experiences. To wit:

1) I volunteered in a nursing home from age 13 to 16. I benefited as much as they from my conversations with the “wrinkles” as I affectionately called them. One resident lost her ability to bear children as a result of a botched illegal abortion. She praised Roe versus Wade to this young teen.

2) My one and only friend I met in the nursing home---Maria. She was two years older than I. We shared everything to do with our life. I learned second-hand the pressure a b/f can put on a girl. When she was 16, I accompanied her to an abortion clinic. I skipped school for three days to be with her as she sobbed her heart out. She slept over in my room for five nights. Legal abortion is no easy choice but it was for the best for her. Two years later, her father drove her out of the house and cancelled her college plans when her birth control pills were discovered. Birth control pills are insignificant compared to abortion.

3) I nursed my father as he lay dying of cancer. (The skills to do so were another benefit of my time in the nursing home---yes, I got into a lot of stuff that a young teen should not do but with short staff what else can be done?) He and I achieved a closer intimacy than father/daughter, I being given a look into my parents’ marriage and how I came to be. He was 43, a virgin; she was 19, his secretary and rapaciously ambitious. Extremely ill-considered activity resulted in my conception which resulted in an ill-considered marriage. Two adults succeeded in utterly destroying themselves and my brother. I am left as the survivor and I will be a survivor the rest of my days. It would have been for the best for all if they had chosen abortion rather than an emergency marriage. Yes, I’m talking about me---that is the depth of my conviction.

….and then….and then…..I underwent a spontaneous abortion a month ago that can be attributed to neglecting myself while on an over-ambitious overseas tour to visit the extended-extended family of my groom. Would I have aborted in any case? I simply don’t know. I have to place this at Christ’s feet and move on with resolution not to do that again.

I’m now a Christian. A recent spontaneous abortion had its emotional impact upon me. I need to re-examine convictions I acquired in my atheist days.

First question:

That “human life begins at conception“----does that necessarily imply that there is in fact a human being in existence momentarily after conception?

A potential human being to be sure. Potential because there are untold fertilised eggs that never implant into the uterine wall….and many that don’t survive after implantation.

Why not human life beginning at intercourse? Why not when boy meets girl?

A foetus that can survive out of the womb (with or without extreme medical intervention) is assuredly a human being. But six months between conception and ability to survive outside the womb is a long time.

Second question:

Upon what foundation the doctrine that a human being exists upon conception?

Third question:

Am I correct that church doctrine of condemning elective abortion stands or falls on the question of whether a newly fertilized egg is in fact a human being?

God bless,

 

[Secundulus]

The school is a Christian school and I was an atheist. My choice was totally irrational. I think---I know---that Christ nudged me. If I was to survive in a Christian school, I had to walk the Christian walk. My time there was life transforming. I lived with Christ for a year and a half without committing. It was time for me to make an honest god of Christ so I accepted baptism on my 18th birthday, the day I came of age and indisputably independent. With submission comes true sovereignty.

I believe you totally when you say that Christ was calling you. I have a far different story than yours but believe that Christ called me also. We have to be careful though and not allow this to become a source of pride. Christ certainly called us, but at least in my case, it wasn't because of my own merits. We should be grateful to God that in his mercy he saw fit to use us for some unfathomable purpose that may become evident with time.

I think that a childhood of trying to please an earthly father who provided but who never showed his face rather set me up to being a daughter of Christ. I live every day with the goal of having that day, my day be a source of joy for Him. Today is the most important day there ever will be. Each day. Every day.

I think you have exactly the right attitude. In fact, your statement here is an inspiration to me who often falls short of this goal.

I am Church of England communicant, high church, and liberal. It causes me distress that for a church that is trying to establish communion with the Romans, it is having difficulty remaining one church. There has been reprehensible behaviour by individuals on both sides of the divide. I have my doctrinal positions but I can not envision any resolution to what appear to be stark, naked differences. This causes me great sadness.

I agree. But in the end all each of us can do is try to live our lives in accordance with God's will. We should never doubt that he will have the final victory. That victory has already been won by Christ.

1) I volunteered in a nursing home from age 13 to 16. I benefited as much as they from my conversations with the “wrinkles” as I affectionately called them. One resident lost her ability to bear children as a result of a botched illegal abortion. She praised Roe versus Wade to this young teen.

It would seem to me that Christ was already at work within you before you even knew who he was.

2) My one and only friend I met in the nursing home---Maria. She was two years older than I. We shared everything to do with our life. I learned second-hand the pressure a b/f can put on a girl. When she was 16, I accompanied her to an abortion clinic. I skipped school for three days to be with her as she sobbed her heart out. She slept over in my room for five nights. Legal abortion is no easy choice but it was for the best for her. Two years later, her father drove her out of the house and cancelled her college plans when her birth control pills were discovered. Birth control pills are insignificant compared to abortion.

This is a very sad story. It looks as if she got an abortion more out of fear of her father than out of a desire not to have a baby.

I am a father also and have a daughter just a couple of years older than you. I put a lot of thought into what I would do if that same situation happened with my daughter. We should pray for the father as well as the daughter. I believe that his may have even been the greater sin in rejecting his child.

3) I nursed my father as he lay dying of cancer. (The skills to do so were another benefit of my time in the nursing home---yes, I got into a lot of stuff that a young teen should not do but with short staff what else can be done?) He and I achieved a closer intimacy than father/daughter, I being given a look into my parents’ marriage and how I came to be. He was 43, a virgin; she was 19, his secretary and rapaciously ambitious. Extremely ill-considered activity resulted in my conception which resulted in an ill-considered marriage. Two adults succeeded in utterly destroying themselves and my brother. I am left as the survivor and I will be a survivor the rest of my days. It would have been for the best for all if they had chosen abortion rather than an emergency marriage. Yes, I’m talking about me---that is the depth of my conviction.

I think you are wrong in your conviction. Whether or not you had been born, your father would probably have had cancer anyway. If you had not been born, he would have died alone. But you were there, you gave him comfort in his time of greatest need. You gave him joy where there would otherwise have been only loneliness. I think you underestimate the impact you have already had on the lives of others.

….and then….and then…..I underwent a spontaneous abortion a month ago that can be attributed to neglecting myself while on an over-ambitious overseas tour to visit the extended-extended family of my groom. Would I have aborted in any case? I simply don’t know. I have to place this at Christ’s feet and move on with resolution not to do that again.

My wife had an ectopic pregnancy that resulted in the loss of a child and nearly resulted in the loss of her life. This happened before we were married. Sometimes I wonder (perhaps irrationally) if this might not have happened if we had first been married. Like you, I have left it at Christ's feet and do not dwell upon it. Since then she had two children that continue to give me headaches (LOL).

First question:

That “human life begins at conception“----does that necessarily imply that there is in fact a human being in existence momentarily after conception?

A potential human being to be sure. Potential because there are untold fertilised eggs that never implant into the uterine wall….and many that don’t survive after implantation.

I think the question to ask is, what is a human being. Modern science tells us this. A human being is a life that possesses human DNA. Now, this life may be young and not able to survive on its own, or it may be as it is after birth and able to survive independently, or it may be old and in a nursing home and unable to survive without life support. But all of these persons have one thing in common and that is a complete set of human DNA. This is what defines us and what sets us apart from all other creation.

In earlier times, before the advent of modern science, this point might have been, as it was, debated. But modern science has put this question to rest. A fetus is not an undeveloped frog nor is it an undeveloped fish. It is a human being that will continue to grow into a mature human being and does not have any potential to grow into anything else. The only difference between that one day old embryo and you or I is that we can live independently and it cannot. At the same time, the only difference between a person on life support and you and I it that we can live independently and he/she cannot.

Why not human life beginning at intercourse? Why not when boy meets girl?

I think I answered this above in defining human life as the moment that sperm and egg unite to form a complete set of human DNA. However, this question does give rise to the answer of why God's morality says that man and woman should abstain from intercourse until they are prepared to take responsibility to care for and raise the life that they create.

A foetus that can survive out of the womb (with or without extreme medical intervention) is assuredly a human being. But six months between conception and ability to survive outside the womb is a long time.

What is the difference between the fetus at one day and at nine months other than age? Does age define a human being? Does a person become non-human when the grow sick or old and have to go on life support? In my mind, at least, I cannot see any difference.

Second question:

Upon what foundation the doctrine that a human being exists upon conception?

From a scriptural standpoint, we can look to the following.

"Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother’s breasts. Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother’s womb." (Psalm 22:9-10, NASB95)

"Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."" (Jeremiah 1:4-5, NASB95)

God knows us and has formed us from the moment of conception. I think that modern science only confirms this. Is a fetus the same as an infant? Is an infant the same as a teenager? Is a teenager the same as an adult? Is an adult the same an an elder on the point of death?

During all these stages, a person may look different, and have a different capacity to survive independently, But they all, at every stage, share the same innate humanity.

Third question:

Am I correct that church doctrine of condemning elective abortion stands or falls on the question of whether a newly fertilized egg is in fact a human being?

For this I will quote the catechism of the Catholic Church. I am Anglican, but as you may have read on the link I gave, my Bishops have endorsed this Catechism.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2271

God bless,

It has been a privilege to me to post here because in your story I see the light of Christ shining throughout. I will add you to my prayers this evening that you will find continued success on your walk with Jesus.

 

[dandymandy]

By your leave, I let your earlier responses be unanswered. This is not a debate I am trying to win in the conventional sense. Rather I am trying to ’win” insight. And so what I wrote before was to give you “advantage”, so to speak. Advantage to answer me most effectively.

….except….

Secundulus wrote
My wife had an ectopic pregnancy that resulted in the loss of a child and nearly resulted in the loss of her life. This happened before we were married. Sometimes I wonder (perhaps irrationally) if this might not have happened if we had first been married. Like you, I have left it at Christ's feet and do not dwell upon it. Since then she had two children that continue to give me headaches (LOL).

Our dear God might be stern but He is not vindictive. Rather, He is a parent imposing rules for our own good. And just what ends would He be accomplishing by imposing an ectopic pregnancy, pray tell? Nope, it just doesn’t compute.

On Judgement Day, God might possibly have something to say to you regarding the pre-marital sex. In which case He no doubt will say something similar to me. You and I both took our partners as spouses---that’s what matters to Him.

You know, church weddings are a recent historical development. Marriage at its barebones essentials is private promise in the presence of God, public declaration, documentation in some form, and cohabiting as husband and wife. Blessing by a clergyman is a nice gesture but entirely a frill. In pre-literate days, marriage documentation was the existence of offspring.

On to my questions…..

I am in a quandary. While you did give considerable time and effort to my post, I cannot buy into your presentation. Rather than challenge you point-by-point let me just say…..

My first question: You have provided your view but you failed to persuade me.

My second question: You have simply failed to make your case, in my opinion.

It occurs to me that there is one central premise that stands between us---this teaching that life begins at conception.

So I ask that you address yourself to my third question that sortta fell through the cracks.

Am I correct that church doctrine of condemning elective abortion stands or falls on the question of whether a newly fertilized egg is in fact a human being?

Thank you ever so kindly for the time and effort you have invested in me. I regret that I am unconvinced by the arguments you offer.

God Bless,

 

[Secundulus]

So I ask that you address yourself to my third question that sortta fell through the cracks.

Am I correct that church doctrine of condemning elective abortion stands or falls on the question of whether a newly fertilized egg is in fact a human being?

Thank you ever so kindly for the time and effort you have invested in me. I regret that I am unconvinced by the arguments you offer.

God Bless,

Yes, the doctrine is founded upon the belief that human life begins at conception. Since it is human life, and we are morally commanded not to murder human life, it follows that abortion is immoral from the moment of conception.

Catechism of the Catholic CHurch
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2271

The Church of England agrees with this premise and states it thus:

​

The theological basis of this is that the foetus is God given life, with the potential to develop relationships, think, pray, choose and love. So as the 1983 Synod Resolution put it:
[FONT=Gill Sans MT,Gill Sans MT][FONT=Gill Sans MT,Gill Sans MT]All human life, including life developing in the womb, is created by God in his own image and is, therefore, to be nurtured, supported and protected.
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/science/abortion/abortion.pdf
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[JasonV]

Since when did theology determine the beginning of life? Further, I fail to see how either the Roman catechism, or one church in Anglicanism constitutes valid proof?

 

[Secundulus]

Since when did theology determine the beginning of life? Further, I fail to see how either the Roman catechism, or one church in Anglicanism constitutes valid proof?

Then look at the science. It is not a statement of theology to say that life begins at conception. It is a statement of objective fact.

 

[JasonV]

Then look at the science. It is not a statement of theology to say that life begins at conception. It is a statement of objective fact.

I agree, but what type of life? When does conscious life begin?

 

[Secundulus]

I agree, but what type of life?

It is human.

When does conscious life begin?

I don't know. But what difference does it make? Are some people more equal than others?

Are we obligated to protect human life only when it is conscious? If not, do we have the right to terminate people in comas.

 

[JasonV]

It is human.

Human'ish perhaps. I don't agree with your assessment that simply possessing human DNA makes something human.

I don't know. But what difference does it make? Are some people more equal than others?

Are we obligated to protect human life only when it is conscious? If not, do we have the right to terminate people in comas.

Perhaps capable of consciousness is a better term here. At any rate, I'm not trying to take over the conversation, so I'll let the OP have her thread back.

 

[dandymandy]

I agree, but what type of life? When does conscious life begin?

Far from hijacking the thread, your posts are very much to the point---in my opinion.

In fact, absent any further participation, I was done with this thread---Secundulus in a round-about way answered my third question in the affirmative.

Secundulas gave me the insight when he asked whether those who are helpless due to disease or trauma are fully human beings.

Considering the Terri Shiavo case (google if you need to): I think it was obscene that her body was kept alive all those years when her brain was clearly dead. Others might disagree and those who disagree will disagree with where I take this.

The essence of being human is personality (unique-ness) and self-awareness, I think. (Of course there is the soul but as a new Christian, I haven't figured out exactly what that is yet---so yes, I acknowledge but I set it aside.)

Those qualities reside in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain. If no prefrontal cortex, (or damaged beyond any prospect of recovery), no personality or self-awareness is possible. This is the rationale of declaring a state of brain death.

There is something terribly confusing to me that Christians who speak of spirituality will give such (what I think) undue attention to the physical body. Though I don't know what the soul is, I think I'm on safe grounds to say it has left the body or is entrapped in a body that is being kept alive to no avail.

Fast forward to a baby-in-progress---embryo or foetus. Without the structure for self-awareness, I cannot call it a human being---I cannot---not yet. It is certainly a pre-coursor to a human and as such is deserving of some degree of respect---most certainly the right to have an alcohol-abstaining mother---as well as other rights.

It is perfectly reasonable to declare that life begins with the completion of intercourse---then is when God-devised biological processes take over without any further willful involvement of the parents---but clearly there is no human being in existence immediately after [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]---but a particular sperm is destined to be the "chosen one" in the eye of God.

My personal judgment is that a human being comes into existence when the structure is in place for self-awareness, whether or not self-awareness is actually present. This is about six months after conception.

I add a month for moral safety, and I say that a human being exists,in the full sense of the term, at five months into gestation but not earlier.

UK law has a five-month cut-off except for special circumstances. Whether the legislators followed the same line of thought as I have, I do not know.

The Biblical guidance (lately cited verses notwithstanding) is that a foetus aquires human status and full protection at quickening---the first movements. This occurs around the fifth-month of gestation as well.

I am searching for the Bible verse---it is in Exodus, I think. Words to the effect that the killing of a foetus is murder in that case that it is "fully formed".

English Law which traditionally has been Bible-based, has quickening and "fully formed" being the operative threshholds as far back as 1250, and likely before.

We each have to examine our consciences, pray, read our Bible, and thoughtfully deliberate with others if we are Protestants. Final authority for our beliefs (correct or in error) rests with each of us Protestants. Indeed, if I do follow church authority and if that authority is in error, I am still accountable--I embraced that teaching and I am accountable.

God bless,

 

[JasonV]

I think you're spot on dandymandy.

 

[Secundulus]

Something to consider is what is the Christian understanding of the soul. It is a gnostic thought that the soul and body exist separate from one another. The Jewish understanding which became the Christian understanding is that the body and soul are a unitary whole.

That is the whole theological basis for the Christian belief that at the resurrection the body and soul are reunited to form the complete human being for eternal life.

If a human is a unitary body and soul then it makes no sense to assume that a human being exists for a while without a soul and then gains one at some specified time in the womb.

 

[Secundulus]

Considering the Terri Shiavo case (google if you need to): I think it was obscene that her body was kept alive all those years when her brain was clearly dead. Others might disagree and those who disagree will disagree with where I take this.

Terry Schiavo was being kept alive artificially and was allowed to die naturally.

An aborted fetus is living naturally and is being killed artificially. Using Terry Shiavo as an example of where nature should be allowed to take its course does not lead to a logical support for the artificial killing of other life.

 

[JasonV]

Something to consider is what is the Christian understanding of the soul. It is a gnostic thought that the soul and body exist separate from one another. The Jewish understanding which became the Christian understanding is that the body and soul are a unitary whole.

Making an assumption that the Gnostic Christians were wrong, and the Proto-Orthodox were right is not something I'm willing to concede.

 

[dandymandy]

Something to consider is what is the Christian understanding of the soul. It is a gnostic thought that the soul and body exist separate from one another. The Jewish understanding which became the Christian understanding is that the body and soul are a unitary whole.

My intution suggests that if the soul is attached to anything, it would be to the mind. For what purpose otherwise is there concern over heaven or hell?

Of course there are many teachings in Christianity that are counter-intuitive.

That is the whole theological basis for the Christian belief that at the resurrection the body and soul are reunited to form the complete human being for eternal life.

Huh? Now this goes beyond counter-intuitive. I no longer grasp what it is that is being said. Unitary whole and being re-united simply does not compute.

If I do not understand what you are saying, then I can neither agree nor disagree.

If a human is a unitary body and soul then it makes no sense to assume that a human being exists for a while without a soul and then gains one at some specified time in the womb.

Neither does it make sense to assume that the soul can exist without the body. For sure, the body ceases to exist upon death and decomposition.

Secundus, I copped out from answering your first post. There was much that simply didn't make sense---Bible verses that 1) clearly referred to a baby who had undergone birth 2) indicating that God knew His prophet before being "formed in the womb" (plausibly years before)---these verses to prove that a being with full human status comes into existence upon conception.

The best take I have is that we assign different meanings to everyday words.

The time has come for us to agree to disagree because there is a serious problem in communication.

Please, by all means continue posting on this thread---It is not my thread but everybody's thread. Just understand why I shall leave it to others to answer you.

God bless,

 

[lavenderbees]

why is abortion wrong?

Although you addressed the first post to Secundulus, since you have now opened up the thread to everyone else,

Please, by all means continue posting on this thread---It is not my thread but everybody's thread. Just understand why I shall leave it to others to answer you.

I wanted to post the following in answer to the question in the title of this thread:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8B1nKGIAeg

 

[JasonV]

Interesting story there lavenderbees.

 

[Aymn27]

Making an assumption that the Gnostic Christians were wrong, and the Proto-Orthodox were right is not something I'm willing to concede.

lol..you do have a point here! I would interject that basing the "personhood" of a fetus on theological argumentation is erroneous - given that not all society, and certainly not even those withing Christianity, are on the same page with "Christian" beliefs. I suggest checking out this site www.l4l.org - it is put together by a pro-life AETHEIST Libertarian...therefore removing the "religious" baggage from the debate...

 

[Secundulus]

Interesting story there lavenderbees.

Surely a girl who survived an attempted Murder has more than an interesting story.

 

[JasonV]

Surely a girl who survived an attempted Murder has more than an interesting story.

You may be right. "And don't call me Shirley."