-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
why is abortion wrong?
- Thread starter dandymandy
- Start date
- Status
Thank you for sharing the video of Gianna Jessen, Lavenderbees. She does make a compelling case against abortion.
However, she does make some assumptions which, given her life story, are understandable, but still patently false. Mainly, that all aborted children are "hated" by their mothers (at the least).
I have told this story on CF before, but I can't remember if it was on this forum or not -- forgive me if you've heard it before.
I have dear friends who, a few years ago, were expecting their first child with great anticipation. They carefully selected a midwife and were gradually organizing their nursery. All of their friends and family were so excited for this couple, because we knew they would be fantastic parents. It was the most anticipated child of both families in years, being the first to be born in this generation.
At the 20-week ultrasound, however, they sadly learned that their child had a fatal heart defect. They sought second and third opinions. It was the most severe heart defect possible. While in utero, the baby would develop and grow otherwise normally, but after birth, when it could no longer depend on its mother's body to sustain it, it would die without significant intervention. Surgical intervention would only give it a "frankenstein" heart that would never be able to sustain its life for long. Its life would be confined to the NICU while undergoing many surgeries to prolong its life which would never last beyond infancy.
My friends, nominal Quakers, never had a religious reason to avoid abortion, but if they could have avoided ending this pregnancy they most assuredly would have. They wanted this child more than anyone can express. After a couple heart-wrenching weeks, they finally decided that, because of the love they had for their child, they could not bear to bring it into the world only to suffer a very painful death.
So they arranged for the procedure to terminate the pregnancy -- basically an induction of labor. Their midwife attended the delivery in the hospital, and when their son was delivered, they spent time with his body. They took pictures, chose his name, and had his tiny hand and footprints imprinted in clay. They arranged to have his remains buried in a family plot in the meetinghouse cemetery. They grieved their son's death as deeply as any parent would for their child.
As sad as they were, they decided to try again for another child. And a year later their second son was born, healthy and vibrant. My friend, still heartbroken after losing her first child, was poignantly aware that if they did not end that pregnancy, she would not know the joy of birthing and parenting her second son. And that son will know the story of his older brother, as his pictures are still hanging in his room and in the house.
While the arguments to allow nature to take its course in such circumstances sounds reasonable, there are many instances where we use medical intervention to block nature's course because, in fact, nature is quite cruel sometimes. While not every family would choose the course of action that my friends did, I strongly feel removing parents' rights from making such a choice is wrong. Nothing is more personal, nothing is more profoundly difficult. And so to accuse such people who choose abortion as "hating" their children is deeply hurtful and could not be further from the truth.
Yes, there are people out there who abuse the accessibility of abortion, and this, I agree, is morally outrageous. But this is the price we pay for liberties of any kind. The better course of action, I feel, is to work with such people to prevent pregnancy from the beginning so as to limit those kinds of abortions. I also find that people who want to outlaw abortion for even cases of rape or incest -- where the mother had no control over whether or not she would conceive -- are trying to force these would-be mothers to face a situation that clearly not every woman is capable of facing. I can't imagine the emotional trauma this would cause to people, and it would certainly force some to do damage to themselves (and their unborn children) to escape this frightening scenario.
One other point. It is comforting to people to have a clear, definitive moment of "humanhood" in the unborn zygote/embryo/fetus. I believe there is no such moment, and this is the moral difficulty of this whole dilemma. I believe that humanhood is a developed status. DNA itself only identifies the species of the organism. It does not define the personhood of that organism. Thus it is indeed a greater loss, truly, to lose a pregnancy in the later stages than in the earlier stages. It does not diminish the value of a spontaneous or intended abortion at, say, 10 weeks -- but ending a pregnancy at 23 weeks is a much more difficult circumstance. We would not likely have a funeral for a 10-week-old fetus, but we might have one for a 23-week-old fetus.
Just some thoughts.
However, she does make some assumptions which, given her life story, are understandable, but still patently false. Mainly, that all aborted children are "hated" by their mothers (at the least).
I have told this story on CF before, but I can't remember if it was on this forum or not -- forgive me if you've heard it before.
I have dear friends who, a few years ago, were expecting their first child with great anticipation. They carefully selected a midwife and were gradually organizing their nursery. All of their friends and family were so excited for this couple, because we knew they would be fantastic parents. It was the most anticipated child of both families in years, being the first to be born in this generation.
At the 20-week ultrasound, however, they sadly learned that their child had a fatal heart defect. They sought second and third opinions. It was the most severe heart defect possible. While in utero, the baby would develop and grow otherwise normally, but after birth, when it could no longer depend on its mother's body to sustain it, it would die without significant intervention. Surgical intervention would only give it a "frankenstein" heart that would never be able to sustain its life for long. Its life would be confined to the NICU while undergoing many surgeries to prolong its life which would never last beyond infancy.
My friends, nominal Quakers, never had a religious reason to avoid abortion, but if they could have avoided ending this pregnancy they most assuredly would have. They wanted this child more than anyone can express. After a couple heart-wrenching weeks, they finally decided that, because of the love they had for their child, they could not bear to bring it into the world only to suffer a very painful death.
So they arranged for the procedure to terminate the pregnancy -- basically an induction of labor. Their midwife attended the delivery in the hospital, and when their son was delivered, they spent time with his body. They took pictures, chose his name, and had his tiny hand and footprints imprinted in clay. They arranged to have his remains buried in a family plot in the meetinghouse cemetery. They grieved their son's death as deeply as any parent would for their child.
As sad as they were, they decided to try again for another child. And a year later their second son was born, healthy and vibrant. My friend, still heartbroken after losing her first child, was poignantly aware that if they did not end that pregnancy, she would not know the joy of birthing and parenting her second son. And that son will know the story of his older brother, as his pictures are still hanging in his room and in the house.
While the arguments to allow nature to take its course in such circumstances sounds reasonable, there are many instances where we use medical intervention to block nature's course because, in fact, nature is quite cruel sometimes. While not every family would choose the course of action that my friends did, I strongly feel removing parents' rights from making such a choice is wrong. Nothing is more personal, nothing is more profoundly difficult. And so to accuse such people who choose abortion as "hating" their children is deeply hurtful and could not be further from the truth.
Yes, there are people out there who abuse the accessibility of abortion, and this, I agree, is morally outrageous. But this is the price we pay for liberties of any kind. The better course of action, I feel, is to work with such people to prevent pregnancy from the beginning so as to limit those kinds of abortions. I also find that people who want to outlaw abortion for even cases of rape or incest -- where the mother had no control over whether or not she would conceive -- are trying to force these would-be mothers to face a situation that clearly not every woman is capable of facing. I can't imagine the emotional trauma this would cause to people, and it would certainly force some to do damage to themselves (and their unborn children) to escape this frightening scenario.
One other point. It is comforting to people to have a clear, definitive moment of "humanhood" in the unborn zygote/embryo/fetus. I believe there is no such moment, and this is the moral difficulty of this whole dilemma. I believe that humanhood is a developed status. DNA itself only identifies the species of the organism. It does not define the personhood of that organism. Thus it is indeed a greater loss, truly, to lose a pregnancy in the later stages than in the earlier stages. It does not diminish the value of a spontaneous or intended abortion at, say, 10 weeks -- but ending a pregnancy at 23 weeks is a much more difficult circumstance. We would not likely have a funeral for a 10-week-old fetus, but we might have one for a 23-week-old fetus.
Just some thoughts.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
J
JasonV
Guest
I am a proponent of "Harm Reduction". I believe that abortions are not the best option, but it's better to allow access to good facilities than to have back-alley abortions where more harm will be done.
Upvote
0
If I may interject here; I agree completely with Secundulus on this (one of the few issues we agree on). Peter Singer has argued that because a child is not "self-aware" until the age of 3 (or thereabouts) it should be permissable to 'kill' them until that age. He recognises that the pro-life argument of when biological life begins is too strong to attack hence he has to argue that the determining factor is "self-awareness".
Incidently: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ementia-sufferers-may-have-a-duty-to-die.html
Upvote
0
So am I, we should ban abortions to prevent irreparable harm from happening to unborn infants.
Upvote
0
Timothy
Mad Anglican geek at large
- Jan 1, 2004
- 8,055
- 368
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Just to throw a question into the mix: Can we say there's an ethical difference between abortion when the life of the mother is at risk or the child will be born in no condition to survive (such as the story told about the child with incurable heart defect) and abortion by choice because the pregnancy was unchosen?
Upvote
0
Ah...so beautifully written. With practice and maturity, I hope someday to be able to write as well.
You write of terminating a foetus that is already doomed. This is entirely different than elective abortion of an unwanted foetus---the present area of the focus in my spirtual path. In the situation you describe, in my humble opinion, ethics affirmatively point toward termination though I respect the convictions of others who differ.
I think in any case that parents in such a situation face a heart-rending decision and that it is incumbant upon us as Christians to support them rather than to judge.
Quite so, the emotional health issues, secular ethics, and faith-driven ethics of elective abortion become more weighty as the pregnancy proceeds.
God bless,
Upvote
0
You will receive differing answers according to whom you ask.
I interpret the stance of the Roman Catholic Church to indicate there are no ethical differences in the cases you cite:
My answers:
1) Absolutely permissible for a mother to choose to live if to do so means aborting her foetus. Permissible as well for her to choose to preserve the life of her foetus and birth a baby if to do so means her life is lost---e.g. forgoing chemotherapy.
2) Absolutely permissible to abort in the instance that Finella outlines. Permissible to give birth, as well. Morally impermissible to employ technology upon a birthed baby to prolong life if the prospect of life at some minimal quality does not outweigh the rigors of treatment.
3) Elective abortion for reason of unwanted pregnancy is problematical even for me. Depends.
Earlier abortion is better. The earlier, the better. Beyond five months, cannot be justified. Absolutely justified before the blastocyst implants (i.e. "morning after" pill is permissible)
Circumstances of pregnancy drives my opinion. Rape, incest, underage sex justify an abortion prior to five months.
Age of mother drives my judgement. A 16 y/o has greater justification than a 26 y/o.
The God-conferred stewardship the woman demonstrates with her body is to be considered. A first abortion is an ethical remedy for a mistake, immaturity, accident, whatever. Subsequent abortions point to a deeper seated moral poverty---whether in the context of secular ethics or of religious ethics.
For whatever it is worth, those are my answers....
God bless,
Upvote
0
J
JasonV
Guest
I have to question your understanding of harm reduction. The idea is not to ban an unhealthy activity (it's already been done and failed in most cases) but to offer a means to reduce the overall harm that will be done whether something is legal or not.
That's why they give out clean needles to junkies, to reduce the overall harm.
Upvote
0
T
TheCub
Guest
Life begins when one's body obtains a soul, and that is at conception. Abortion is murder.
Upvote
0
GreyWolf
Regular Member
I was just reading this thread without commenting, and I thought I'd mention this site that I ran into a while back.
http://www.clinicquotes.com
It has a lot of abortion information including a collection of quotes from abortion clinic workers that are very revealing. There is a section at
http://www.clinicquotes.com/providers on killing.htm about what abortion providers say about the fetus/unborn baby.
Also a section of scientists' quotes at
http://www.clinicquotes.com/science life quotes.htm
about when life begins.
Pretty interesting stuff.
http://www.clinicquotes.com
It has a lot of abortion information including a collection of quotes from abortion clinic workers that are very revealing. There is a section at
http://www.clinicquotes.com/providers on killing.htm about what abortion providers say about the fetus/unborn baby.
Also a section of scientists' quotes at
http://www.clinicquotes.com/science life quotes.htm
about when life begins.
Pretty interesting stuff.
Upvote
0
What we must all remember is that our most important goal in life is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. One way we glorify God is by living in obedience to Him and His Word as it is found in the bible.
Pro-choice? There are really only two choices; 1. Obey God; or 2. Disobey God. Abortion is murder...no matter which light you look at it in. Abortion is absolutely wrong; even if it is to end the child's life prior to its imminent death shortly after birth.
Pro-choice? There are really only two choices; 1. Obey God; or 2. Disobey God. Abortion is murder...no matter which light you look at it in. Abortion is absolutely wrong; even if it is to end the child's life prior to its imminent death shortly after birth.
Upvote
0
L
lavenderbees
Guest
Exactly. Why not give the child a chance? I always ask myself that question whenever people say that it is OK to abort a 20 week foetus because the doctor said it would probably die anyway. I always remember the following (true) story:
A married couple went for their 20 week scan at the hospital. The sonographer, an elderly female gynaecologist, told them that she had found "renal agenesis" on both sides - i.e. both kidneys - in their 20 week old foetus. She recommended a "termination of pregnancy" because their child could not possibly survive after birth with this condition.
The couple walked away, distraught with anguish. They came back to the hospital the following day for the termination of pregnancy. This was carried out quickly. The couple went home.
One week later that lady doctor who had recommended the termination, went into the Consultant's secretary's office and said to the secretary:
"What happened to the histology (post mortem) report on that 20 week old foetus with renal agenesis?" The secretary replied: "The couple refused a post mortem." To which the doctor replied:
"So we'll never know for sure......"
Gave me the creeps. I was against abortion before she said that but after hearing those words, I was absolutely disgusted with the medical establishment and gave up my job in that "abortuary", which had been posing as a respectable hospital.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
