Why is abortion wrong?

[jayem]

I work in health care and have known a number of women who've had elective abortions. It's not such an easy way out. It's a difficult and emotionally trying decision. I've never known anyone who just flippantly traipses down to the clinic, has her D & C, and then gets her nails done. I've also known a few women who have had very cogent medical reasons for an abortion, and this is a terribly hard decision. These women wanted to have babies, and it's devastating when intercurrent illness or complications force them to consider abortion. I'll grant that terminating a healthy pregnancy for purely elective reasons is morally questionable. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I think it's morally wrong to espouse white supremacy, but I don't think it should be illegal to belong to the Aryan Nations or Ku Klux Klan. Abortion is something that has to be reduced by voluntary means. If you can use moral arguments to convince women not to have abortions, then that's great. But as bad as abortion may be, I think trying to use the police power of the state to criminalize it would be a worse evil.

 

[dnich163]

Don't agree with the issue posed here.

I believe abortion to be wrong.The act of abortion is not right, the sinner to be treatedwith compassion as we all would want for ourselves.

I don't agree that sex ( or making love ) is only for reproduction. It is also an act of complete love for the other man/woman in your life.

David

 

[BInC]

Why? This is just begging the question, by already presupposing that abortion isn't acceptable; being question-begging, it's vacuously circular.

In other words, it provides no reason against abortion, but rather is an empty restatement of the position that abortion is wrong.
[/size][/color][/font]

It is all about consequences. God made humans so that sex produced a child. I do believe that sex is not only for reproduction but also to show love to a husband/wife. However, if you do not want a baby, don't have sex. Abortion is wrong becuase God said thou shall not kill. Abortion is wrong because people want a way to feel the pleasure and then not have to take care of the kid, wich is selfish. It is wrong because it interferes with God's idea of how things should work. Part of the reason sex is considered as a bond in a marriage is not just because the people get so close with it, but because it is an agreement of mutual responsibility. Also, it literally creates a person who is part of both of them. The two become one in the flesh. Having sex but stopping the child from being born not only kills a human being but prevents God's plan, the joining of two individuals into one.

edit: I just read jayem's post and I can see the reason for an abortion for medical reasons. If you just found out during the pregnancy that the mother and the baby would both die, I can understand. But if you knew beforehand, then you should not have created the child in the first place. I think I will have to consider this further.

 

[Blissman]

I fail to understand how the pleasure of sex is exclusively for procreation. A woman is not fertile every day. If you had sex, but it did not result in a birth, would that mean that every time that you had sex when the woman (or the man) was infertile was 'wrong' (had sinned)? Are couples supposed to stop having sex after menopause? As far as I know, the urge to have sex is an instinct.

 

[tcampen]

Those who advocate sex for procreation exclusively clearly have a less than memorable bedroom life. And those who think abortions are comprised primarly of "loose" women casually using the procedure as a form of birth control are equally missing out on reality. This issue is so much more complex than that. I do not advocate abortions, but recognize the necessity of them for some people in certain circumstances. I'd prefer there were never another abortion again, and oppose them after a certain point in the pregnancy, but I also wouldn't force a woman to carry a child to term when she simply is not prepared to do so. (The "if she's old enough to have sex, then she shoulda....." just doesn't fly regardless of how many times its repeated.) It's about reasonableness, not dogma.

 

[Vegan Charity]

This is a topic that I do not like to talk about, but I'll put in my thoughts...

First, I want to start off with 2 questions:

1. Is the right to life so fundamental that it should be preserved at all costs?

2. Should the Government be obligated to raise taxes sharply if it will save lives in a 3rd world country?

If you answer "yes" to the first question, and "no" to the second, I would have a hard time not calling you a hypocrite.

The point I am trying to get across is the fact that while it may sound cynical, the right to life is not above all other things. For instance, I could hardly imagine many people who would be willing to sell their house, their car, cash in life insurance, max out all credit cards, empty bank account, sell everything they own just to save one life. It is very pessimistic, but its the truth.

It may sound cynical, but in the same way, I see abortion as "a necessary evil".

1. One reason why I feel that way is because I think it is absolutely immoral to force a woman to become a parent against her will. I cannot stress that enough.
   
   
2. Another reason why it is a necessary evil is because of the fact that I find it absolutely immoral to deny anyone of a legal medical service (especially on the grounds of religion).
   
   
3. Abortion is not murder. Abortion is not genocide. Abortion is not eugenics.
   
   
4. Most people are concerned for the welfare of the baby, however they neglect to let that mentality carry over to the woman.
   
   
5. Abortion and adoption are not mutually exclusive solutions to unplanned parenthood.
   
   
6. Pregnancy is not a punishment to bestowed upon a woman. Keep in mind that the ultimate punishment for a neglectful parent is removal of the child. If you fail your duty, we remove your duty: we do not enslave you to your duty.
   
   
7. I know a way where 99% of all abortions can be prevented, at the same time it puts no undue burden on the woman. I call this the "birthcontrol pill".
   
   Contrary to popular belief, promotion of contraception is not an invitation for people to engage in sex anymore than promotion of insurance is an invitation to engage in reckless driving.
   
   
8. In terms of Abortion and the Government:
   
   When you compare facts to facts, the simple fact is the government cannot compel you to give up your organs to serve the "elite". The government cannot compel you to become a soldier. The government CANNOT compel you under any circumstance to become a parent. When the government starts making choices for you, what that is NOT called is "freedom", it is called "fascism".
   
   
9. The question comes down ultimately: If a woman is pregnant, who are we to say "you are forbidden to do anything about your pregnancy, you will be a parent". To tell this to a woman who has been become pregnant against her will (through rape) or against her intent (through failed contraception) is unjust and immoral.
   
   
10. If one solution to abortion is "stop having sex," then I disagree. This is not a choice. The government is limited by the undue burden clause, and I absolutely garauntee you that "not having sex" is an undue burden. Since we have the technological means available to have sex and avoid pregancy, by what right can the government force upon us this undue burden? To protect a potiential citizen? No... the whole point of undue burden is that they can't pass laws that are an undue burden for any reason. Why not take away everything you make over minimum wage and use it to feed the starving in the rest of the world? Doesn't the life of a person trump the government's limits? The answer is no.
    
    
11. I would recommend that counselling for pregnant women seeking abortions must be done on a case-by-case basis. The raped young teen who is pregnant much against her will and is definitely in a state of shock is NOT ANYWHERE in the same universe as the $50 trollop from the red-light district who is in for her fifth D&C. Who they talk to and the courses of action to be taken will also vary significantly. Abortion is only an OPTION, not a mandatory solution.
    
    However, if it does get down to the decision that an abortion is the right course of action, for whatever reason, it still should be done in a real hospital by a proper doctor. And that means it must be available as a legal medical treatment. Which the rabid pro-life camp is campaigning to not allow. And I oppose their position accordingly.
    
    
12. An argument I do not like is the one that sounds like "making babies is the natural intent for sex".
    
    Ask yourself this: does jumping out of an airplane equate to choosing the possiblity of death by falling? If you answer yes, then when a person's parachute fails to open, should we call it a suicide? No, of course not - it was just an an accident.
    
    There is no question that jumping out of airplanes exposes you to a risk of death, but that is not the same thing as choosing. Pregnancy is not the moral consequence of sex, it is merely the physical consequence, and the whole point of technology is to allow us to avoid physical consequences we don't like.
    
    Jumping out of an airplane is a death sentence, if it weren't for parachutes. Having sex is a pregnancy sentence, if it weren't for birth control. Now if your parachute fails to open, you are not assigned intent; but if you become pregnant, suddenly you are. Huh?
    
    
13. Even having unprotected sex does not equate a choice to get pregnant, most people have yet to understand that.
    
    Consider: if you go out in the rain, without a raincoat or an umbrella, you will very likely catch a cold. Will the doctor refuse to treat you because you brought your condition on yourself? No, of course not. It was not your intention to catch a cold. Your "punishment" for your actions is merely having to undergo the cure.
    
    Equally, a woman who uses birth control has clearly indicated her intentions. If the birth control fails, that is a failure of technology, which is properly corrected by the application of more technology.
    
    Once you understand this, then you realize it doesn't matter if she uses birth control or not. It doesn't even matter if her intent was to get pregnant. What matters is what choice she wants to make now. Her rights to decide how to dispose of her body are not diminished by time, any more than the doctor could tell you that he won't treat your flu because you didn't come in when you had a cold.
    
    
14. I want to reiterate this once more: Preganancy is NOT a moral consequence of sex, its a physical consequence.
    

This is a list of points I've compiled in the past when debating pro-choice vs. pro-life. I am very much for women's rights (and animal rights!), I think it makes a very strong case for the "necessary evil" point of view.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I (an orthodox Jew) 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.

However, we would 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.

Questions?

Be well!

ssv

 

[Pastor_Benjamin]

Does anyone have the right to take a life, but God?

 

[professor frink]

stubbornkelly,
Because the only reason for sex is to reproduce and continue human life.

Then why is sex pleasureable?

 

[professor frink]

Does anyone have the right to take a life, but God?

There are a couple problems with this.
Pretending for a moment that there is a god:
1) What gives God the right to take a life.
2) Why if it is wrong did God give us the Ability to perform abortions. (Note: The ability; not talking about free will here.)

 

[Fiendishjester]

Why is abortion wrong?

When it comes to the topic of abortion, the teachings of Buddhism come to mind. Buddhism teaches that all the pain and suffering in this world is caused by desire. Only when people learn to control their desires will they be able to end all pain and suffering. In the case of abortion, people must learn to control their desires.

I guess that is the question we must ask here: Why have sex if you don't want to have a child? The only reason for sex is to reproduce. To comit such acts for pleasure is, but a sin of the week minded. They can't control their desires and for this they should suffer - only then will they learn their lesson.

Well, I have chosen to remain outside the topic of abortion, but I would like to share my thoughts regarding sex.

Well, I disagree that to have sex for pleasure/non-child related reasons is a sin, even from a Buddhist viewpoint. The act itself can never be a sin, what Buddhism disagrees with is the selfish desire and attachment we have to sex for pleasure. To quote the Buddha, "It is not our preferences that cause problems but our attachment to them." If you are not attached to sex, that doesn't mean that you cannot or should not enjoy it, and this applies to many other things as well.

Your screen name "bodhisattva" indicates that you have some knowledge of the Mahayana. In this case, I suggest you look up Zen master Ikkyu Sojun, who the red thread school was founded after. He wrote many beautiful poems, some of them being on the beauty and pleasures of love and sex, which was something he enjoyed greatly. If you do get around to looking him up, I think you'll understand my viewpoint much better.

 

[marc37]

because you kill a human being born or not yet born it makes no difference.

 

[Kirei]

I believe that abortion, although wrong from a purely idealistic point of view, since it IS taking a life, is necesary in today's world. As christians, we should not forbid abortion, but help those who have no choice, whether they choose abortion because they are unprepared or for medical reasons.
To those who want to outlaw abortion, I say : Are you ready to adopt the child that would not have been born ? If you are, take care of him yourself. No need to outlaw abortion, simply go to the nearest hospital, and tell the staff, I'm sure they'll pass the word to the women concerned. If you are not, don't complain about abortion. The woman who chose to abort is much less ready than you are.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

Yes, I would take care of another child. Do you realize a fetus has a heartbeat before you even realize you are pregnant? Women that kill their children after birth are sent to prison....

Love-n-Blessings
dee