Abortion is Immoral: Change My Mind

[SPF]

People often don't want the baby because it is known to have a diability which would drain their finances, stress them out in many ways,

Aborting a baby because they will be expensive (all babies are), and will generate stress in their life (all babies do) is not a valid reason for an abortion.

I would say that especially for a Christian, where we recognize that everything we have comes from God and that God is the one who supports us and that God is the one that gives us strength, then stress and finances are certainly not morally acceptable reasons to have an abortion.

 

[Blade]

Abortion wrong.. sin duh. Yet what authority does one have in this issue over another? Is this 1 sin that God allows us to intervene in anothers life? If one does not know Christ "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Yet its written Christ didnt come to condemn but to save..

GOD does not every look at this as we do. That person... in GODS eyes has every right to do what they want..even sinning. When has GOD ever got in your way sinner or save to stop you? The wages for sin.. the price to sin in this world is death. As awful heart breaking ..so awful as it is.. that sin they do is as David or GOD wrote.."Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest."

Dude..your on a Christian site.. you wonder then why you dont get any takers? Maybe the who are you. And what right do you have in this? Is it the words? As in BABY so we MUST act..we have a RIGHT to say something where even a GOD does not? This is where we PRAY come together to PRAY..to fight the REAL battle that does not involve humans aka flesh and blood "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

Thats where this will be won.

 

[SPF]

Dude..your on a Christian site.. you wonder then why you dont get any takers?

You apparently don’t spend much time reading the abortion debate threads. There are at least a dozen active posters that are pro-choice and disagree with me.

 

[hedrick]

P1: All human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

P2: A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.
Does my conclusion not follow from the premises? Is my position (in italics) not properly based upon the premises and conclusion above?

As noted before, the problem is P2. In most understandings of the image of God, it's hard to see how a few cells that exist right after fertilization show God's image.

The large number of spontaneous abortions doesn't absolutely prove that P2 is wrong, but it certainly challenges its plausibility. Do you really think that most people in heaven are aborted fetuses? Again, not logically impossible but certainly strange. (Why would I say that? If about 10% of adults are saved, and all infants are saved -- typical assumptions by conservative Christians -- you do the math.)

The big surprise to me in these discussions is the absolute belief by so many that Scripture teaches P2. In fact Scripture has nothing to say about it. The usual arguments use passages that are so far from saying this that the type of exegesis they show could be used to prove absolutely anything. Most specifically, they would prove the preexistence of souls (which Christians have normally considered heretical).

I just don't understand where all of this comes from, at least for Protestants. Catholics have church tradition, which has uniformly said that abortion is wrong (though not necessarily that it's murder). But the amazing level of certainty from Protestants is hard to understand.

 

[SPF]

In most understandings of the image of God, it's hard to see how a few cells that exist right after fertilization show God's image

I wouldn’t consider being made in the image of God to be a physical attribute, so the way a human looks at any stage in their 25 year development would be irrelevant.

Do you really think that most people in heaven are aborted fetuses? Again, not logically impossible but certainly strange. (Why would I say that? If about 10% of adults are saved, and all infants are saved -- typical assumptions by conservative Christians -- you do the math.)

I think Scripture is silent when it comes to that subject so I tend to be as well. I don’t know what God does, I just trust that whatever it is that it is just.

The big surprise to me in these discussions is the absolute belief by so many that Scripture teaches P2. In fact Scripture has nothing to say about it. The usual arguments use passages that are so far from saying this that the type of exegesis they show could be used to prove absolutely anything. Most specifically, they would prove the preexistence of souls (which Christians have normally considered heretical).

I primarily rely on science for P2. Science has advanced enough to where we can literally see what happens at fertilization. There is essentially no doubt that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

In terms of Biblical support, I would admit I personally find little, and typically reject most of the passages people use. I would consider King David saying that he was sinful from the moment of conception as evidence. And I would consider Luke 1, which flatly states that John the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the womb as evidence. But I certainly rely on science for the primary basis of that premise.

 

[hedrick]

Science seems like an odd place to go for this question. Sure, an embryo is human, but so is a fingernail. Do you accept the concept of brain death? A brain dead person is still human, and in a technical sense alive, but they are still not considered to have the same status as a normal person.

 

[Kaon]

Have you not read Numbers 5?

Then google "wormwood & abortion"

It's a complicated topic.

This was to determine if a woman cheated on her husband.

A faithful woman, when drinking the bitter water, would not have a reaction. An adulterous woman would get sick because of the life in her. It isn't supporting abortion; it is showing the Hebrew process for identifying an adulterer.

 

[SPF]

Science seems like an odd place to go for this question. Sure, an embryo is human, but so is a fingernail.

An embryo is a human being, a fingernail is not.

Do you accept the concept of brain death? A brain dead person is still human, and in a technical sense alive, but they are still not considered to have the same status as a normal person.

I would consider a brain dead person to be dead.

This was to determine if a woman cheated on her husband.

A faithful woman, when drinking the bitter water, would not have a reaction. An adulterous woman would get sick because of the life in her. It isn't supporting abortion; it is showing the Hebrew process for identifying an adulterer.

I am aware of the jealousy offering in which a woman drank water mixed with some dirt. There is a difference between God judging a woman and carrying out His justice and a woman having an abortion for convenience sake.

If you think you can apply this passage against the OP feel free, but I don’t see how it can be done.

Or are you just posting to post?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Science seems like an odd place to go for this question. Sure, an embryo is human, but so is a fingernail. Do you accept the concept of brain death? A brain dead person is still human, and in a technical sense alive, but they are still not considered to have the same status as a normal person.

Actually, abortion is very often about science, or human biology to be exact. Fingernails are dead cells, so you can't compare them to tiny embryos. The "concept" of brain death is a medical reality for both adults and children. Even fetuses can be brain dead.

 

[Kaon]

I am aware of the jealousy offering in which a woman drank water mixed with some dirt. There is a difference between God judging a woman and carrying out His justice and a woman having an abortion for convenience sake.

If you think you can apply this passage against the OP feel free, but I don’t see how it can be done.

Or are you just posting to post?

Technically, I wasn't speaking to you.

I understand the difference between the Most High God judging someone, and abortion - which is why I pointed out the distinction. The post I replied to implies that God somehow (directly or tangentially) supports abortion - in my opinion (I am still waiting for a reply to the person I quoted - although I am not necessarily trying to debate or argue anything).

I don't believe the Most High God supports abortion - however, since we have completely turned our backs on a government under the Most High God for human rule, and humans/mortals use ethics and morality to guide them (not truth, necessarily). Ethics say we should allow everyone to make their own decisions even if it harms them, or someone else. Morality is a bit fuzzier - which is why arguing abortion is futility when one is a religious opponent, and one is a proponent. Because the Word of God has been subject to "tweaking" for ethical and moral sake, it wont do much in the argument either (in terms of an understanding and coalescence of information into the truth).

That is why, morally, we are having the conversations. This shouldn't be a conversation regarding abortion as we know it (I had unprotected sex, and I don't want the child...). Using rape - an exceptionally extreme case - for example, is dishonest (IMO), or uninformed, since it doesn't represent the majority of abortions.

 

[mnphysicist]

If P2 is true, then why limit the discussion to non-medically related abortion?

Sure, no one wants a mother to die, especially in the case of a non-viable fetus... but if P2 is true, in effect, the medical establishment is selecting who should live and who should die.

No one would stand for this after birth, so why is it ok pre-birth... unless perhaps deep down, short of for a few, P2 isn't as true for the fetus as it is for a living breathing baby outside the womb?

Likewise if P2 is true, why is their not widespread condemnation of IVF?

If P2 is true, why is there not a war on miscarriages?

If P2 is true for some, science clearly shows us that it is not true for all

If P2 is true, and P1 is true... then couples in their 30s and older who are trying to get pregnant are engaging in an immoral act, as they are knowingly killing vast numbers of fertilized eggs in hopes that one will finally implant.

if P2 is true and P1 is true, then birth control, and potentially even practices such as natural family planning are rife with the potential for immoral actions?

If P1 is true, then we've got some major problems with the fertilized eggs which fail to implant... is it immoral for a young couple to try to have children? Their overall intent is obviously moral as part of propagating the species... but knowing that they are also intentionally killing a human being created in the image of God in the process would seemingly call that into question.

If we are talking ethics in this... this is often where an appeal to utilitarianism comes into play, but is that a legit position to consider for those who ascribe to Christian ethics, especially in light of Paul's words in Romans 3?

Granted an appeal to utilitarianism, and limiting P2 aspect only to non-health related abortions can make for a reasoned argument... but when both P1 and P2 fall apart when applied to all abortions / miscarriages / reproductive science / ethics, the narrower case seems pretty vacant, at least to me.

My personal view is that the mother's health needs to be protected, and if that means the fetus has to die in order to save her life and/or her reproductive organs, than that needs to happen. There is almost always another chance at trying again, as long as she lives and hasn't suffered damage to her reproductive organs. As such, I do not ascribe to P2, and if I did, there is no way I could embrace P1 due to the vast numbers of fertilized eggs that never become living breathing human babies. Thus if I can't ascribe to P1 and P2 within the medical domain, I can't ascribe to them in the narrower scope of abortion as a means of birth control.

I'm not trying to convince you that abortion as a means of birth control is moral thing, but that your arguments are not convincing, due to their lacking in universal application and reproductive science. Have you by chance studied Catholic tradition on this? You might find some nuances to help with your arguments, especially from the more contemporary ethics panels. In fairness though, maybe you are ok with the narrow scope, and if that works for you, and I do see its logical flow, I can't fault you for your thinking on this.

 

[SPF]

If P2 is true, then why limit the discussion to non-medically related abortion?

because that’s what the topic is covering.

Likewise if P2 is true, why is their not widespread condemnation of IVF?

Perhaps there should be, or st least there should be discussion about how IVF is accomplished. But the fact that there is IVF the way it is has absolutely no bearing upon the morality of abortion. We need to understand the distinction between practice and principle.

but if P2 is true, in effect, the medical establishment is selecting who should live and who should die.

I wouldn’t say it is selecting who “should” as opposed to who “can” in a medical emergency. The goal should always be to save both patients.

If P2 is true, why is there not a war on miscarriages?

Miscarriages are a natural event. Perhaps there should be more research into what causes miscarriages and more should be done to prevent them. But again, that has nothing to do with the morality of abortion.

if P2 is true and P1 is true, then birth control, and potentially even practices such as natural family planning are rife with the potential for immoral actions?

Sure, maybe they are - if a persons decision is abortion when birth control fails.

If P1 is true, then we've got some major problems with the fertilized eggs which fail to implant... is it immoral for a young couple to try to have children? Their overall intent is obviously moral as part of propagating the species... but knowing that they are also intentionally killing a human being created in the image of God in the process would seemingly call that into question.

Abortions for convenience are very different than natural miscarriages. God looks at the heart.

Thus if I can't ascribe to P1 and P2

The majority of what you’ve said is actually that the difficult moral dilemmas that result from accepting P1 and P2 are the motivating factor for you rejecting them. This doesn’t seem right. Are there widespread implications for accepting P1 and P2 that would affect many practices? Yes. Does that therefore mean P1 and P2 are false? Absolutely not.

Do you have some supporting argument for why you reject P1? I’ve never heard a Christian deny P1 before. Ever.

 

[SPF]

No one would stand for this after birth, so why is it ok pre-birth... unless perhaps deep down, short of for a few, P2 isn't as true for the fetus as it is for a living breathing baby outside the womb?

And the reason for why it’s “ok” pre-birth is because people are good at rationalizing. A select few have mislead the many and have led people into believing there is a distinction between a human being and a human person. Only human persons have moral worth and value, not human beings. They then draw the line between the two at whatever point is convenient for their argument. Some say first/second/third trimester, some say viability, some the ability to feel pain, or neural activity, or birth.

The point though is that all points are subjective and made up. They are made up because they permit us the excuse to perform an action against a human that we would otherwise consider immoral.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Aborting a baby because they will be expensive (all babies are), and will generate stress in their life (all babies do) is not a valid reason for an abortion.

I would say that especially for a Christian, where we recognize that everything we have comes from God and that God is the one who supports us and that God is the one that gives us strength, then stress and finances are certainly not morally acceptable reasons to have an abortion.

Amen.

 

[Kaon]

In general, we treat the ability to produce life as nothing. We nurture abuse. We relish our submission to authority - and our alleged degeneracy.


And, since most of us don't *really* believe in the spirit world, we will be blindsided and surprised when our "logic" runs thin.

 

[His student]

Axiom P2' seems to neglect embryology, but it is a premise.

P2': I believe that a new human being comes into existence at birth.

So do you people believe that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully human? I'll assume that you do since you list yourselves as Catholic and Episcopal respectively.

I would simply ask you in which trimester you believe that Jesus Christ became "fully human".

Or perhaps you believe that He became fully human when some tech at Planned Parenthood in Bethlehem pronounced Him "viable" or perhaps even when He survived for a certain period of time laying on a steel cart in the stable delivery room and some Planned Parenthood tech's conscience got the better of him and he wrapped Him in swaddling cloths and reluctantly handed Him to Mary.

We are told to protect the most innocent among us.

A baby, who is clearly "fully human" from the instant of conception is certainly the most innocent kind of human being you could encounter in this life.

Anyone who in any way supports the killing of an innocent child for whatever reason - has sinned against not only humanity but against the God Who created us.

That, my shallow theologically challenged friends, is an immoral act beyond shadow of doubt.

 

[hedrick]

So do you people believe that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully human? I'll assume that you do since you list yourselves as Catholic and Episcopal respectively.

I would simply ask you in which trimester you believe that Jesus Christ became "fully human".

Or perhaps you believe that He became fully human when some tech at Planned Parenthood in Bethlehem pronounced Him "viable" or perhaps even when He survived for a certain period of time laying on a steel cart in the stable delivery room and some Planned Parenthood tech's conscience got the better of him and he wrapped Him in swaddling cloths and reluctantly handed Him to Mary.

We are told to protect the most innocent among us.

A baby, who is clearly "fully human" from the instant of conception is certainly the most innocent kind of human being you could encounter in this life.

Anyone who in any way supports the killing of an innocent child for whatever reason - has sinned against not only humanity but against the God Who created us.

That, my shallow friends, is an immoral act without shadow of doubt.

This is argument by vigorous assertion, as are many of the posts.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So do you people believe that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully human? I'll assume that you do since you list yourselves as Catholic and Episcopal respectively.

I believe it. Do you believe it?

I would simply ask you in which trimester you believe that Jesus Christ became "fully human".

From the moment of conception. Do you agree or disagree?

Or perhaps you believe that He became fully human when some tech at Planned Parenthood in Bethlehem pronounced Him "viable" or perhaps even when He survived for a certain period of time laying on a steel cart in the stable delivery room and some Planned Parenthood tech's conscience got the better of him and he wrapped Him in swaddling cloths and reluctantly handed Him to Mary.

We are told to protect the most innocent among us.

A baby, who is clearly "fully human" from the instant of conception is certainly the most innocent kind of human being you could encounter in this life.

Anyone who in any way supports the killing of an innocent child for whatever reason - has sinned against not only humanity but against the God Who created us.

That, my shallow theologically challenged friends, is an immoral act beyond shadow of doubt.

Thank you for calling me a shallow theologically challenged friend. I suppose that is better than a shallow theologically challenged enemy.

 

[chevyontheriver]

This is argument by vigorous assertion, as are many of the posts.

Nothing wrong with assertions. But I like replies based on reading comprehension rather than off the mark presumptions.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Aborting a baby because they will be expensive (all babies are), and will generate stress in their life (all babies do) is not a valid reason for an abortion.

I would say that especially for a Christian, where we recognize that everything we have comes from God and that God is the one who supports us and that God is the one that gives us strength, then stress and finances are certainly not morally acceptable reasons to have an abortion.

I agree with this. It is unfortunate that many expecting parents would rather not have the baby than give it up for adoption by a couple that is better able and willing to take care of a disabled child (or better yet, keep the baby themselves). Of course, the reason I exempted preeclampsia is the baby may not last nine months in the uterus (or worse, the mother can't make it to her due date).