abortion

[slycoperofer]

abortion is straight-up murder. you take a baby and take its life giving it no opportunity to live and be happy. if you give a woman the right to choose the fate of her baby, WHAT RIGHTS DOES THE BABY HAVE??? I ask all liberals this...how can a woman have an early miscarriage if the baby is not alive to begin with? A miscarriage is the death of the baby before it is born. an early miscarriage is before the date that liberals say the baby actually "lives". if a baby can die at that time, how can pro-choice people actually say that a fetus is not truly alive??? if the baby doesn't actually die in a miscarriage, why can't you put the baby back in its place and continue the pregnancy? It's because the fetus is a living being and CAN die. it is also selfish to have an abortion because what would you rather do? die and give the baby a chance, or live and kill the baby? this is the case in the "life-threatening pregnancy situation" but lets look at another. a woman has just become pregnant. the doctor says that he will have down syndrome when he is born and if they were going to terminate the pregnancy, it should be now. the woman said she didn't believe in abortion and continued the pregnancy. a miracle happened. the baby was born and was perfectly normal. down syndrome-negative. what would have happened if she had aborted her son? she would have killed a perfectly normal baby! the fact is that doctors are humans and make errors. their machines are mechanical and are subject to malfunctions. abortion is wrong and should never be used. God wouldn't choose it. We are told by God that we should try to act like God. Would you choose it? (and harm an innocent and beautiful being?!?)

[GreenMunchkin]

Moved to the debate sub-forum.

This may not stay open, so please be patient for a little :)

Thanks.

[Lel]

I don't know; I suspect we're all at least very close to the same side on abortion. I doubt an abortion thread here will be all that interesting. "I'm pro life! Me too!"

[Simon_Templar]

This is one of the issues (I would say 'many' issues ;) ) on which Liberalism relies and psudo-logic, and when that fails resorts to simple emotionalism.

The issue of abortion is really not that complex. It raises difficult questions, but not difficult in the sense of hard to resolve, or hard to reason out... but rather hard to live with.
The fact that the decisions involved are hard some how is supposed to make whatever decision is reached, acceptable.

The issue in terms of reason is really very simple. Is the child a living human being, or is it not? If it is, then it is entitled to all the rights any other human being posesses inherently and inalienably.
If it is not a living human being, then it has no human rights.

all of the emotionalism, and the rest is nothing but "muddying the waters" trying to obscure the real issue. This is done because when it comes down to the real issue, there is no logical or reasonable way to deny that the unborn child is a living human being by every viable standard.

Any standard which is used to exclude an unborn child from humanity, will eventually exlude others as well.

What I find truly shocking, and truly ironic in this issue is that some 'liberal christian' groups have actually gone so far as to develop "christian" liturgies and ceremonies for women who wish to see their abortion as a sacred, holy act.
We have apparently come full circle to the point where some Christians are now sacrificing their children as the Israelites once did in the Valley of Hinnom. I can think of few greater blasphemies.

[IamRedeemed]

Sad.... one thing that bothers me though is, why am I not surprised?
After all, it IS unbelievable!

:cry:


http://pichostonline.com/u/071017/fc289a4845.gif

This is one of the issues (I would say 'many' issues ;) ) on which Liberalism relies and psudo-logic, and when that fails resorts to simple emotionalism.

The issue of abortion is really not that complex. It raises difficult questions, but not difficult in the sense of hard to resolve, or hard to reason out... but rather hard to live with.
The fact that the decisions involved are hard some how is supposed to make whatever decision is reached, acceptable.

The issue in terms of reason is really very simple. Is the child a living human being, or is it not? If it is, then it is entitled to all the rights any other human being posesses inherently and inalienably.
If it is not a living human being, then it has no human rights.

all of the emotionalism, and the rest is nothing but "muddying the waters" trying to obscure the real issue. This is done because when it comes down to the real issue, there is no logical or reasonable way to deny that the unborn child is a living human being by every viable standard.

Any standard which is used to exclude an unborn child from humanity, will eventually exlude others as well.

What I find truly shocking, and truly ironic in this issue is that some 'liberal christian' groups have actually gone so far as to develop "christian" liturgies and ceremonies for women who wish to see their abortion as a sacred, holy act.
We have apparently come full circle to the point where some Christians are now sacrificing their children as the Israelites once did in the Valley of Hinnom. I can think of few greater blasphemies.

[PreachersWife2004]

What really gets to me is that people will clamor for Scott Petersen to be tried for two murders while in the same breath say that abortions are okay, because the logic is that in one case the mom wanted the baby and in the other the mom didn't.

What kind of logic is that, anyway? :scratch:

[~free~]

I'm not sure there is a whole lot of logic in any abortion debate.

[Izdaari]

Everyone who is a member of this forum is against abortion; or else they joined under false pretenses.

The question is, what is to be done about it?

Politically, I can only speak to and for Americans, as this is only country in which I'm familiar with even the terms of the debate.

If abortion is murder, well, there are no federal laws against murder. That's something the founders thought was best handled at the state level.

If it's merely a medical procedure, well, there's no constitutional authorization for involvement in that either.

My conclusion: Overturn Roe v. Wade, and return the question of abortion to the states.

[Catherineanne]

I ask all liberals this...

Since you ask, and since you mention Liberals, then I will answer, as best I can. I am a visitor, not a member, here.

Imo, life is the most precious gift of God. I personally do not understand any woman not wanting to keep her child, but I do have women friends who have had abortions (not while I have known them, but before) and who I do not judge. It is a fact that some women either cannot or will not continue their pregnancy, and will find a way to end it. Abortion cannot be stopped; as I see it we have the choice between legal abortion, and backstreet abortion.

Given that choice, I will always choose to have legal abortion, carried out by doctors, safely and under proper medical supervision, on the precept that when faced with a choice between two evils, choosing the lesser evil becomes the morally right thing to do.

It simply is not the case that we can choose no abortions ever to happen. Any country or state which goes down that route only passes the problem on to their neighbours.

But given that we have legal abortion, I would also certainly want the age at which abortion can be legally carried out to be reduced. At present in the UK it is legal to terminate up to 24 weeks, when babies can be born and survive from 22 weeks. This to me is a disgrace, and certainly needs addressing.

As a final point, much is made of the child's right to live. I think there is another right, which is perhaps more contentious. I have known homes where there is child abuse, and I have known people who honestly would have preferred never to have been born. Because of this, I personally believe it is not always a sin to terminate a child.

Sometimes, with such homes, it would be a mercy. Yes, people can give their children up for adoption, but most abusive parents don't. They raise their children in violent homes, where emotional damage is the norm, and is perpetuated for generations. Such sin is likely to be, imo, far worse in God's sight than deciding you cannot raise a child, and ending a pregnancy.

Others are free to differ, of course. :wave:

[Zeo]

Since you ask, and since you mention Liberals, then I will answer, as best I can. I am a visitor, not a member, here.

Imo, life is the most precious gift of God. I personally do not understand any woman not wanting to keep her child, but I do have women friends who have had abortions (not while I have known them, but before) and who I do not judge. It is a fact that some women either cannot or will not continue their pregnancy, and will find a way to end it. Abortion cannot be stopped; as I see it we have the choice between legal abortion, and backstreet abortion.

Given that choice, I will always choose to have legal abortion, carried out by doctors, safely and under proper medical supervision, on the precept that when faced with a choice between two evils, choosing the lesser evil becomes the morally right thing to do.

It simply is not the case that we can choose no abortions ever to happen. Any country or state which goes down that route only passes the problem on to their neighbours.

But given that we have legal abortion, I would also certainly want the age at which abortion can be legally carried out to be reduced. At present in the UK it is legal to terminate up to 24 weeks, when babies can be born and survive from 22 weeks. This to me is a disgrace, and certainly needs addressing.

As a final point, much is made of the child's right to live. I think there is another right, which is perhaps more contentious. I have known homes where there is child abuse, and I have known people who honestly would have preferred never to have been born. Because of this, I personally believe it is not always a sin to terminate a child.

Sometimes, with such homes, it would be a mercy. Yes, people can give their children up for adoption, but most abusive parents don't. They raise their children in violent homes, where emotional damage is the norm, and is perpetuated for generations. Such sin is likely to be, imo, far worse in God's sight than deciding you cannot raise a child, and ending a pregnancy.

Others are free to differ, of course. :wave:
I agree with this completely. I don't support abortion, as such, but I do support the option because I'd rather see it done safely than in a backstreet operation.

Also, to the statement "Everyone who is a member of this forum is against abortion; or else they joined under false pretenses": how can you make a claim about what everyone believes? Not everyone agrees on everything, and not everyone sees complex issues such as abortion in black and white terms. And no, that doesn't mean anyone joined under false pretenses.

That brings another thing up: this issue is much too complex to give it the convenient label of being "liberal" or "conservative." We're not "liberals," we're human beings with very multidimensional perspectives. That said, my opinion on the matter (which I already stated) is not as simple as "I'm liberal, so I must support abortion." Please give the topic some respect by leaving name calling and label tossing out of it.

Either way, although I do think that safe abortion clinics should be provided, I agree that it should be brought to the state (or even local) level, rather than left to the entire country. I like the idea of smaller regions making decisions for themselves rather than having a few figureheads in DC making decisions for 300 million people.

As far as "what can be done" about abortion: what we need to do is give support systems to disadvantaged mothers (the people most likely to get abortions). If we want them to have the baby, we need to be willing to support and assist the mother in raising the baby. This issue is too often ignored; it seems that people are willing to support the baby up to its birth but then seem largely uninterested in what happens in the rest of its life. (What about other "murder" institutions such as sending our children off to war? Aren't 18 year olds just as valuable and meaningful as babies, if not more so?) I think if we really want to see a stop to abortion, we need to be willing to take care of the already living members of our society and give them the basic necessities that will allow them and their new baby to live happily and healthily. That's the real issue.

[PreachersWife2004]

Zeo, it is actually in the SoF that we are against abortion. In order to be a member of the CC forum, one must adhere to ALL parts of the SoF, not just some of them. Therefore, the statement that all members of this CC forum are against abortion IS correct, as is the statement that they joined under false pretenses if they are not against abortion.

:hug:

[nyj]

What really gets to me is that people will clamor for Scott Petersen to be tried for two murders while in the same breath say that abortions are okay, because the logic is that in one case the mom wanted the baby and in the other the mom didn't.

What kind of logic is that, anyway? :scratch:Illogic

[PreachersWife2004]

Most definitely. It is the ILlogic of a selfish society, to be sure.

About 8 months after I had my first son, I found out I was pregnant again. I was roughly 9 weeks when the doctor told me that the pregnancy was not going to go full term (I don't remember the reasoning, it was something medical) and that if I didn't abort the baby I faced possible death. It was the hardest decision I've ever had to make, but I told that doctor that I would place my life in God's hands and let HIM decide what to do with me and the baby. Two weeks later I miscarried. The doctor told me I was foolish for putting my life at stake like that, and I said "then call me a fool, but call me a pro-life Christian fool". I never went back to that doc.

The doctor I currently have won't even counsel on abortions. He will counsel AGAINST them, but if someone comes to him seeking one, he won't even recommend anyone, he just tells them to please leave his office. He's the best doctor I have had.

[Lisa0315]

Most definitely. It is the ILlogic of a selfish society, to be sure.

About 8 months after I had my first son, I found out I was pregnant again. I was roughly 9 weeks when the doctor told me that the pregnancy was not going to go full term (I don't remember the reasoning, it was something medical) and that if I didn't abort the baby I faced possible death. It was the hardest decision I've ever had to make, but I told that doctor that I would place my life in God's hands and let HIM decide what to do with me and the baby. Two weeks later I miscarried. The doctor told me I was foolish for putting my life at stake like that, and I said "then call me a fool, but call me a pro-life Christian fool". I never went back to that doc.

The doctor I currently have won't even counsel on abortions. He will counsel AGAINST them, but if someone comes to him seeking one, he won't even recommend anyone, he just tells them to please leave his office. He's the best doctor I have had.

My doctor too. I asked on my first visit.

Lisa

[nyj]

When my mom was pregnant with me, she unknowingly worked with a woman who came down with the German measles. When my mom found out, obviously she panicked and went to the doctor who told her there was no way of knowing whether or not it would be passed to me (if she was subclinically infected). Since the pregnancy was early on, he said she did have the option of terminating the pregnancy and starting over.

Fortunately for me, and the rest of the world, she refused.

[Allegory]

When my mom was pregnant with me, she unknowingly worked with a woman who came down with the German measles. When my mom found out, obviously she panicked and went to the doctor who told her there was no way of knowing whether or not it would be passed to me (if she was subclinically infected). Since the pregnancy was early on, he said she did have the option of terminating the pregnancy and starting over.

Fortunately for me, and the rest of the world, she refused.
Well aren't you lucky, and just a testament to the fact that abortion should be made illegal, no matter what?

This is one of the issues (I would say 'many' issues ;) ) on which Liberalism relies and psudo-logic, and when that fails resorts to simple emotionalism.


I thought this line was kind of funny. "Liberals" (read, people who are not absolutely against abortion) aren't the ones calling abortion "murder" and pandering to the sympathies of people.

I will agree with people that the limit on the amount of time that a person can wait to have an abortion should be reduced (24 weeks, what is that 6 months or so? That's a little much) However safe abortion clinics should always be available. No matter what. People will always choose to abort, you can't stop that. Making it illegal will not stop that. So clinics must be provided so you don't have young girls dieing from having unqualified people do the abortions.

Another, more philosophical issue regarding abortion is the time frame that an unborn child becomes sentient. For much of the time in the womb you are alive, but only alive in the same way your liver is alive. You're not a sentient being, you have no mind. You will, at some point, become a sentient being if given the opportunity, but you would not notice if you were aborted.

So you might say "Well what if they abort a fetus and it turns out it would have been normal instead of down's syndrome, or it would have been some genius, or blah blah blah"? Well what if the parents had have had sex and managed to conceive a month earlier or a month later? Well that would be a totally different person too. There are too many factors leading up to a person's life to say "well what if this, or what if that?" What if their grandparents had met other people? It doesn't make any sense to speculate about what could have happened, or to even use that as an argument against abortion...

[Tangeloper]

[EDIT: Deleting the quote of a deleted post ]

First, I find your comment directed to NYJ as rather rude and unnecessary...

Secondly, the post you quoted mentioned Liberalism and not "Liberals". As for pandering to the sympathies of people... those who call for "Pro-Choice" certainly use emotionalism to try and argue that there is a true need for abortion. "Too many poor people", "mothers won't be able to care for these babies", etc... etc... However, when comparing the argument of those wishing to protect LIFE the "Pro-Choice" rhetoric falls rather flat, IMHO... It's hard to rationalize selfish attitude as a needed "sympathy".

I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of your post as I'm frankly just not in the mood to argue at the moment... Not that there is not plenty I could say... Just that I'm not in the mood to spend my afternoon arguing these points...

[Allegory]

Why bother even making that post?

[PreachersWife2004]

What I am curious about is why someone with liberal views regarding abortion even bother coming into a thread about abortion in an obviously conservative area of Christianity. Such a person certainly isn't going to get affirmation on their views.

[Allegory]

What I am curious about is why someone with liberal views regarding abortion even bother coming into a thread about abortion in an obviously conservative area of Christianity. Such a person certainly isn't going to get affirmation on their views.
Well what's the point of making a thread in a debate forum where everyone's going to agree with each other? Someone has to disagree, right?

[PreachersWife2004]

IIRC, this thread didn't start out in the debate area - it had to be moved because people were getting contentious.

But, to address your question...

Some people answered this post not with the intention of good honest debate, but with the intention of putting down those whose opinions differed from theirs. In those cases, I think it's silly for them to come to an area where they know they are not going to agree and then simply try to bait the members.

Not saying you are or have done this by any means, but your sarcasm in your posts is duly noted, as well.

I personally as a Christian cannot stand here and say that while I believe abortion is wrong and is murder, a woman still has the right to do what she will with her body and abortions should be legal. I used to think that way...but not anymore. It is no different than me saying while I think adultery is wrong, I think it's someone else's business what they are doing outside the marriage bed.

With abortion, you can't have a gray area. It is truly a black and white issue. It's either murder or not. Since I believe that life begins at conception (and that is what this particular forum (CC) believes, abortion is murder no matter what stage of pregnancy it is done in. Why do I have to say that clinics should be allowed to exist that will help someone kill their babies? That again goes against what I believe.

The life that is in my womb right now is no different than the life that is sleeping in the crib upstairs.

[Izdaari]

Well, if it is murder (and I'm inclined to think that it is), there is no federal law against murder. Murders are prosecuted by the states. Accordingly, I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and the matter returned to the states where it belongs.

[Albion]

I thought this line was kind of funny. "Liberals" (read, people who are not absolutely against abortion) aren't the ones calling abortion "murder" and pandering to the sympathies of people.

Sure they are. Murder is a matter of definition. But it is emotionalism to avoid addressing it by talking about "rights".

When did murder become a natural right?

I will agree with people that the limit on the amount of time that a person can wait to have an abortion should be reduced (24 weeks, what is that 6 months or so? That's a little much) However safe abortion clinics should always be available. No matter what.

Why, given the opposition to abortions you just outlined?

People will always choose to abort, you can't stop that.

People will always choose to steal. Should be revoke all laws against breaking and entering, then?

Making it illegal will not stop that.

Neither will laws against speeding or any other kind of murder. Are you opposed to then for the same reason and in the same degree as you are with abortion?

Another, more philosophical issue regarding abortion is the time frame that an unborn child becomes sentient. For much of the time in the womb you are alive, but only alive in the same way your liver is alive. You're not a sentient being, you have no mind. You will, at some point, become a sentient being if given the opportunity, but you would not notice if you were aborted.

Boy, is THAT from the medical dark ages! Or maybe it's just that "pandering" stuff you were talking about. Almost all of what you wrote there is disproved by modern science.

So you might say "Well what if they abort a fetus and it turns out it would have been normal instead of down's syndrome, or it would have been some genius, or blah blah blah"? Well what if the parents had have had sex and managed to conceive a month earlier or a month later? Well that would be a totally different person too. There are too many factors leading up to a person's life to say "well what if this, or what if that?" What if their grandparents had met other people? It doesn't make any sense to speculate about what could have happened, or to even use that as an argument against abortion...

But they would still be a living human being.

The objection to personalizing a story like you are speaking of doesn't override this fact.

[BigNorsk]

abortion is straight-up murder. you take a baby and take its life giving it no opportunity to live and be happy. if you give a woman the right to choose the fate of her baby, WHAT RIGHTS DOES THE BABY HAVE??? I ask all liberals this...how can a woman have an early miscarriage if the baby is not alive to begin with? A miscarriage is the death of the baby before it is born. an early miscarriage is before the date that liberals say the baby actually "lives". if a baby can die at that time, how can pro-choice people actually say that a fetus is not truly alive??? if the baby doesn't actually die in a miscarriage, why can't you put the baby back in its place and continue the pregnancy? It's because the fetus is a living being and CAN die. it is also selfish to have an abortion because what would you rather do? die and give the baby a chance, or live and kill the baby? this is the case in the "life-threatening pregnancy situation" but lets look at another. a woman has just become pregnant. the doctor says that he will have down syndrome when he is born and if they were going to terminate the pregnancy, it should be now. the woman said she didn't believe in abortion and continued the pregnancy. a miracle happened. the baby was born and was perfectly normal. down syndrome-negative. what would have happened if she had aborted her son? she would have killed a perfectly normal baby! the fact is that doctors are humans and make errors. their machines are mechanical and are subject to malfunctions. abortion is wrong and should never be used. God wouldn't choose it. We are told by God that we should try to act like God. Would you choose it? (and harm an innocent and beautiful being?!?)

Well sly, I remember well when my wife and I had our children and we were repeatedly advised to have procedures done to detect birth defects. We didn't do it, there was no purpose because we were not going to abort our children. Now it is the recommendation that all pregnancies be tested.

I notice that even groups that claim to be against abortion have many fewer children with some birth defects than would be expected from demographics, and so that's one truth that you should realize. A lot of people who say they are against abortion, and probably are at some level, will themselves have them if they feel some personal pressure to do so.

When I was growing up for instance, more than one girl in a prominent family left town for a few days to have an abortion. Having a child would have hurt her chances to marry well you know. Not a single one of those families was ever prosecuted even though abortions were illegal.

In any case, you seem to make a big deal about permission can only be given by the person on whom the procedure is performed. Well that isn't the way our society is structured. Right now at your age, you still can't give permission for anything like a medical procedure, your parents or guardian can.

Realize too that our society doesn't consider the unborn persons in many ways. You don't get a tax deduction for them. They are not counted in a census. They can't own property. And on and on. You ask how an early miscarriage can be a death if the baby isn't alive. Well try and prove that a death occurred. There is no death certificate, no coroner's report, nothing in the legal notices of the paper, no obituary, nothing, not even a name. You can, in conversation say the baby died, but woven throughout society is the assumption the baby never existed.

Most churches don't treat them as people either. How many funerals have you been to for those who died before birth? How about first trimester funerals. There are a few full term or long term funerals but not many. Yet how about if the child is born and dies in a short time. Usually a big difference. If we want to teach that they are the same, we should treat them the same.

I had to challenge a Catholic priest one day. He had put up white crosses on his church's lawn to signify the abortions. I asked him if that was consecrated ground. He said sure. Then I told him he was wrong to put them there. My wife's sister who was stillborn was not permitted to be buried on consecrated ground by the Catholic Church. If he wanted to be truthful, he should move the white crosses on the other side of the fence, just like the children at his cemetary.

In the issue of abortion, it is easy to see the sins of others and pretend we are blameless. Yet the truth is about the only time any of us treat an unborn child as if they are a person is if either they are our own child or if someone aborts theirs.

Marv

[desmalia]

Well sly, I remember well when my wife and I had our children and we were repeatedly advised to have procedures done to detect birth defects. We didn't do it, there was no purpose because we were not going to abort our children. Now it is the recommendation that all pregnancies be tested.

I notice that even groups that claim to be against abortion have many fewer children with some birth defects than would be expected from demographics, and so that's one truth that you should realize. A lot of people who say they are against abortion, and probably are at some level, will themselves have them if they feel some personal pressure to do so.

When I was growing up for instance, more than one girl in a prominent family left town for a few days to have an abortion. Having a child would have hurt her chances to marry well you know. Not a single one of those families was ever prosecuted even though abortions were illegal.

In any case, you seem to make a big deal about permission can only be given by the person on whom the procedure is performed. Well that isn't the way our society is structured. Right now at your age, you still can't give permission for anything like a medical procedure, your parents or guardian can.

Realize too that our society doesn't consider the unborn persons in many ways. You don't get a tax deduction for them. They are not counted in a census. They can't own property. And on and on. You ask how an early miscarriage can be a death if the baby isn't alive. Well try and prove that a death occurred. There is no death certificate, no coroner's report, nothing in the legal notices of the paper, no obituary, nothing, not even a name. You can, in conversation say the baby died, but woven throughout society is the assumption the baby never existed.

Most churches don't treat them as people either. How many funerals have you been to for those who died before birth? How about first trimester funerals. There are a few full term or long term funerals but not many. Yet how about if the child is born and dies in a short time. Usually a big difference. If we want to teach that they are the same, we should treat them the same.

I had to challenge a Catholic priest one day. He had put up white crosses on his church's lawn to signify the abortions. I asked him if that was consecrated ground. He said sure. Then I told him he was wrong to put them there. My wife's sister who was stillborn was not permitted to be buried on consecrated ground by the Catholic Church. If he wanted to be truthful, he should move the white crosses on the other side of the fence, just like the children at his cemetary.

In the issue of abortion, it is easy to see the sins of others and pretend we are blameless. Yet the truth is about the only time any of us treat an unborn child as if they are a person is if either they are our own child or if someone aborts theirs.

Marv
Excellent comments, Marv. I totally agree.
Even our churches don't pay due respect when a miscarriage happens. It is the death of a child and should be treated as such. My sister miscarried a while back (very early in the pregnancy), and it was most definitely a death in the family, and treated as such.

I also wanted to comment on the Downs Syndrome comment above. I think we need to take that one step further. It's not just about "what if the doctors were wrong, and the baby doesn't have it". Even if the child does have DS, why should that child not be given the same right to life as a "healthy" baby? Yes, I know there is more work involved in raising a Downs baby. But so what? Raising kids is never a walk in the park. If people aren't prepared to deal with this, then they need to abstain, or at very least get themselves fixed. We're talking about human life. A human life that is vulnerable and dependant on his or her mother for protection and care. Abortion is the most extreme betrayal of that trust and dependance.


*steps down off soapbox* :D

[SolomonVII]

Most churches don't treat them as people either. How many funerals have you been to for those who died before birth? How about first trimester funerals. There are a few full term or long term funerals but not many. Yet how about if the child is born and dies in a short time. Usually a big difference. If we want to teach that they are the same, we should treat them the same.



Was there ever a time though, when so many millions upon millions of unborn were actually aborted?

When children were actually desired, this was not an issue. Even as late as St. Thomas Aquinas, the teaching was unclear.

With live birth rates now reaching the such low points in which there is no reasonable expectation of recovery, churches can no longer afford not to be crystal clear on the issue.

[BigNorsk]

It was unclear or maybe kept changing long after Aquinas. Pope Gregory in the late 1500's rescinded an earlier bull that any abortion was murder and said ensoulment was at day 116.

At the time of the US Constitution, canon law said life began at 40 days for boys and 80 days for girls.

It wasn't until the late 1800's that all abortions were again considered murder, including those to save the life of the mother.

Marv

[SolomonVII]

Was there ever a time though, when there were as many abortions as there were live births?

I suppose our churches in the past may be forgiven for having soft teaching on an issue that was as more theoretical than pressing and urgent. When children actually had value, and abortion was as dangerous for a woman as drinking bleach, this surely could not be expected to be a pressing issue.

But as church, what should we be teaching now?
Particularily for non-Catholics, how relevant should the a soft teaching from this or that pope be?

Perhaps murder is too hard a word for abortion. But then again, from another point of view, it is really much too soft. It does not even close to touching what our society is wreaking upon itself.

So, in the Spirit of Christmas, exactly when did Jesus become incarnate? What does the Bible itself teach us about that?

Certainly, Catholics are having as many abortions, and using all the birth controls that everybody else in society is using, no doubt more often in spite of Chruch teaching than because of any soft teaching.

But even if we have arrived here because of a canon law that was unclear or even wrong, even if the Catholic position today is much harder than it was before, is that really enough of an excuse to continue soft pedallling the issue?

[PreachersWife2004]

What is the official teaching of the RCC when it comes to abortion?

I know for us WELS, it is that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. The only problem I see with our statement is that it then goes on to say that in extreme exceptions, where it is known that one will die over the other, then an abortion may be allowed. What they are really conveying is an ectopic pregnancy, but because of their wording, there really is some slipping room.

Nine years ago, I was faced with a decision. The doctor told me that my pregnancy would no doubt kill me if I tried to carry this baby to term. There was something in my blood work that was so abnormal. I don't even remember what the term was that they used. I just remember telling the doctor that there was no way I was going to abort my child. He said "Have it your way. You'll be dead before the fourth month". Needless to say, I found a different doctor, whose diagnosis was the same, but who was much more compassionate.

God took care of things - I miscarried nine weeks into the pregnancy.

Because of that, I know that if I am ever faced with that decision again (which I shouldn't be, as this is my last pregnancy) I would be able to say with confidence that I would not choose to abort my baby. I would put my life in God's hands and tell him "Please spare me and my baby, but your will, Lord, not mine."

[SolomonVII]

What is the official teaching of the RCC when it comes to abortion?

The catechism has a good summary fo the position, and like your church, the discussion fof abortion falls within the discussion of the fifth commandment of murder:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm

[QUOTE]
Abortion
2270 (javascript:openWindow('cr/2270.htm');) 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.72
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75 God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 (javascript:openWindow('cr/2272.htm');) Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 (javascript:openWindow('cr/2273.htm');) The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81
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.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82
2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84 "Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.


One point to note is that the Catholic Church does not dogmatically state that the embryo is a person, only that it must be treated as such.
Maybe this is hair-splitting, maybe not. But it is only worth noting that the question of when does human life become human personhood has not reached the point of being infallible doctrine for Catholics.
Other than that, it is as clear as anything can be claear.



I
know for us WELS, it is that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. The only problem I see with our statement is that it then goes on to say that in extreme exceptions, where it is known that one will die over the other, then an abortion may be allowed. What they are really conveying is an ectopic pregnancy, but because of their wording, there really is some slipping room.

Nine years ago, I was faced with a decision. The doctor told me that my pregnancy would no doubt kill me if I tried to carry this baby to term. There was something in my blood work that was so abnormal. I don't even remember what the term was that they used. I just remember telling the doctor that there was no way I was going to abort my child. He said "Have it your way. You'll be dead before the fourth month". Needless to say, I found a different doctor, whose diagnosis was the same, but who was much more compassionate.

God took care of things - I miscarried nine weeks into the pregnancy.

Because of that, I know that if I am ever faced with that decision again (which I shouldn't be, as this is my last pregnancy) I would be able to say with confidence that I would not choose to abort my baby. I would put my life in God's hands and tell him "Please spare me and my baby, but your will, Lord, not mine."

I would think that the Catholic teaching is rather harder than even the teaching that you are following in this regard, if I am reading between the lines correctly. Not only would the intentional or unintentional destroying of a human life be a grave offense, as linked above, but the sexual union of man and woman is taught to be both unitive and procreative in every instance.
According to Catholic teaching, every sexual act must remain open to life. Natural means,including abstinence, may be used to space pregnancies but any unnatural methods that place a barrier between the sexual act and the possibility of procreation is against the teaching.

Suffice it to say that the Catholic teaching recognizes the grave consequences of separating sexuality from life, but it is a very hard teaching for our time and our society all the same. It is a minority of Catholics that are actually able to bring themselves to follow it faitfully and completely.

Maybe though, the consequences of not following that teaching will even be harder for societies such as ours.

[Cromwe11]

Life and death issues are always hard because people allow themselves to base their opinions on emotions. Few things are more dangerous than that when it comes to making laws.

Looking at the issue of abortions in the case of rape/incest/life of the mother. Even most pro-life people want to allow these instances, or at the very least, in the case of the life of the mother.. why? because of how they feel about the issue.

All of this just complicates what is really a very simple issue. Is the unborn child a human life, or is it not. Everything rests on that one question. If it is, then there is no right to take that life for any reason. If it isn't, then none of this conversation really matters.

arguments which try to favor abortion without addressing the issue of human life are some of the most stupid and often barbaric lines of reason I've ever heard on any topic when considered in the rational perspective of what they are really saying.

For example, in cases of rape and incest, the argument is that the woman is forced into a traumatic and violent experience, further emotions are attached to that the child will be a reminder of the incident.

What this really amounts to is saying that its ok to kill a child, because they remind you of a traumatic experience, or its ok to kill a child, if you didn't make the choice which brought the child into being and thus should have to be responsible for him, or possibly.. its ok to kill a child if his father wronged you.

The idea that people are going to get abortions so we have to make it safe is possibly one of the dumbest ideas ever stated. This is the same thing as saying that gangs are going to murder people, so we should make it as safe as possible for them to do so by preventing the police from arresting them.
The only difference here is that the mother getting an abortion is perceived by people as a sympathetic figure, emotionally, while the gang member killing someone for their shoes is not.
The irony there is you could make reasonably valid argument that people who support abortion but oppose gang violence are essentially racist, or sexist, possibly both.

The only defence for women who get abortions is that most of the time they don't really realize what they are doing because they have been conditioned by modern society to think that the child is not a person, its not a human being.
It is a valid defence against a murder charge that you didn't know what you were doing. However, this must be weighed against the truth that people should know. The crime may be less for individuals because an individual may be conditioned by the lies of a society, but as a society the crime is all the greater because our ignorance is willful, a woman may not know, but we as a people only don't know because we have willfully chosen not to.

Its much the same situation as with the holocaust. Some individual germans may not have known what was going on.. but the society as a whole knew, they just chose to look away and convince themselves that they didn't know.

This is yet another example of how liberal humanism's cloak of humaneness, frequently sits atop a hidden body of barbarity.

[nitecrawlur]

Do you realize everytime you don't act on the opportunity to have sex that you are murdering a potential life? Everytime an egg is lost due to CHOOSING not to have sex you kill that potential child. What choice is the child given then? Would that not make you a murderer as well?

[~free~]

Do you realize everytime you don't act on the opportunity to have sex that you are murdering a potential life? Everytime an egg is lost due to CHOOSING not to have sex you kill that potential child. What choice is the child given then? Would that not make you a murderer as well?
The way I see it, prevention is very different than taking a life away or ending a life.

[IamRedeemed]

An egg without sperm can NEVER become a child or vice versa.
This attempt to create a relativistic ideal for abortion
has got to be the worst I have personally ever seen. :swoon:

Do you realize everytime you don't act on the opportunity to have sex that you are murdering a potential life? Everytime an egg is lost due to CHOOSING not to have sex you kill that potential child. What choice is the child given then? Would that not make you a murderer as well?