Abortion..

[UKStudent]

As is probably obvious from my screen name I am a student at high school, from the UK. I am currently designing a website on abortion and this appears to be the best place to get views from true, strict catholics.

Why is abortion wrong?

Are there any arguements against abortions not based on the scripture from the pbible, that would be acceptable by other religions?

I expect somebody will ask, as I have read some threads here(the anti-muslim thread in non-catholic religions) and I will say that I am not a Catholic.

 

[The_Barrister]

Simple: abortion kills an innocent human being.

Doesn’t get much simpler than that.

 

[UKStudent]

But the governmental view is that a foetus(at the stage where abortion is legal at least) is not yet a human being. At that stage it is a undeveloped parasitem, feeding off the mother.

 

[Mary_s_Lamb]

Hi UK,

You had asked for a bible verse about abortion. I would like you to consider the moment of the Incarnation. This was when Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and conceived Jesus. It was precisely at this moment that God was present in her womb.

What can we derrive from this? First life begins at conception. Second, by choosing to become Man in this manner, God gave dignity to our personhood as an embroy and then as fetus.

I know you are not a catholic. So I don’t expect that you’ll necessarily agree with this. But take some time to reflect on this and ask God to enlighten your mind. It’s not so important that you receive the perfect answer to your question. Rather make your soul fertile through prayer to receive some seeds of faith. And nourish them to help them grow.

God bless you and keep you.
Mary

 

[StratusRose]

Perhaps you should use testimonies of women who have had abortions and have regretted it. There are serious psychological effects on women who have aborted their children. Some cannot bear to see children in public, or even to hear babies cry. Many have attemped suicide, some have been successful. Also, sometimes fathers have had post-abortion effects too. Abortion is an irreversible procedure. Why are they so deeply affected? Because there is no longer life thriving inside of them. No one can deny that abortion ends a life. The government claiming that it’s a parasite feeding off the mother’s womb is ludicrous. Host/Paracite relationships imply that the parasite sucks the life from the mother. The fetus is not sucking blood from the mother and moving on to another host. Rather, the baby is receiving life through the mother, and the mother nourishes her child in her womb. It’s a life-giving relationship.

Biblical Verse

“Thou shalt not kill.” - I think that’s good enough.

 

[StratusRose]

UKStudent:

I expect somebody will ask, as I have read some threads here(the anti-muslim thread in non-catholic religions) and I will say that I am not a Catholic.

Anti-Muslim thread? Are you sure? As much flack as we get from other religions, I highly doubt we would classify ourselves as “anti-muslim.” I happen to have a lot of respect for Muslims. Muslims, Christians, and Jews all believe in the same god.

 

[The_Barrister]

UKStudent:

But the governmental view is that a foetus(at the stage where abortion is legal at least) is not yet a human being. At that stage it is a undeveloped parasitem, feeding off the mother.

A parasitem? What’s that? A parasite? It pains me to see such a misunderstanding of fundamental medical science. Besides, since when is the government the final arbiter of all that is true and moral?

Assuming you meant parasite, even a parasite has to be something - a bacteria, a germ, an animal, a plant, and so on. So what is the union of sperm and egg? A bacteria? A gopher? A pansy? No.

When the sperm and egg merge, there is a creation of a human being in the earliest stage. That human being has his or her own DNA, unique from that of the mother or father. Every merger of father and mother results in a unique, living human being. Even Planned Parenthood’s own doctors conceded as much in testimony before the U.S. Senate.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I have said this a bunch of times, I’ll say it again until someone gives a real response: There is absolutely no basis for definitively stating that a fetus is not a human being. The best argument that the abortionists can muster is that we don’t know if it is a human which leaves it as a distinct possibility in which case basic morality (not just Christian) compels us to err on the side that it is human. To abort would be like a hunter firing into rustling bushes without determining what he is shooting at.

Scott

 

[cove]

UKStudent:

But the governmental view is that a foetus(at the stage where abortion is legal at least) is not yet a human being. At that stage it is a undeveloped parasitem, feeding off the mother.

At what stage does it stop being a parasite??? As far as I know, the pre-born baby feeds off it’s mothers up until it is born. And, of course, it still “feeds off of it’s mother” after it is born.

So, can you give me a better reason for killing a pre-born human being who is in it’s earliest stages of development.

 

[Tom]

UKStudent:

Why is abortion wrong?

It is murder.

UKStudent:

Are there any arguements against abortions not based on the scripture from the pbible, that would be acceptable by other religions?

Do other religions consider murder acceptable because they reject the Bible?

UKStudent:

I expect somebody will ask, as I have read some threads here(the anti-muslim thread in non-catholic religions) and I will say that I am not a Catholic.

This is not a “Catholic” argument, it’s life and death, every human should be involved, not just religious minded.

UKStudent:

But the governmental view is that a foetus(at the stage where abortion is legal at least) is not yet a human being. At that stage it is a undeveloped parasitem, feeding off the mother.

So if the “government” were to say that all children under the age of four, who can not provide for themselves are also parasites, and everyone over the age of … (any particular age) are parasites since they can not provide for themselves, or the severely handicapped who can not provide for themselves are parasites, should we kill them also? I think that has been tried before, most would not consider Hitler a “good” person.
Remember Hitler was the head of a “government” I wouldn’t say something is right because a “government” says so.

 

[puzzleannie]

UKStudent:

But the governmental view is that a foetus(at the stage where abortion is legal at least) is not yet a human being. At that stage it is a undeveloped parasitem, feeding off the mother.

I have no knowledge of the history of abortion-related law in UK, but in the United States the Supreme Court has never ruled definitively on when life begins, and in fact in several abortion-related decisions stated its inability and unwillingness to do so. Medical science also has not made a definitive statement, but the entire scientific discipline of embryology and foetology contradicts the “parasitism” excuse.

 

[maendem]

Actually, I think UKstudent asked for an argument NOT based on Scripture. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

I’m a bit troubled by the tone of some of the responses here–as far as I know, the thread-starter asked an open, sincere question about why abortion is wrong, looking for evidence that would ring true with a non-Catholic or non-Christian. Regardless of our beliefs, I think we need to be careful when we throw out the "but it’s just so obvious, how could you think otherwise?’ line, or mock the tendency to look to gov’t legislation for moral guidance.

That said, I will try (later) to offer some philosophical lines of thought that point to the truly human, immortal nature of the human fetus, which exists fully even while its human body is not yet fully formed. It is this nature which renders the fetus a person, and the development of his or her body is in accordance to that nature; it only has the capacity to become a human baby, not an animal. It is only when we can recognize the fetus as a person with a life source or “soul” distinct from its mother that the act of abortion can be identified as murder. Theology is complementary to this understanding, and it is capable of shining even more light on the question, but we are indeed able to conclude abortion is wrong through reason alone.

 

[StratusRose]

maendem:

Actually, I think UKstudent asked for an argument NOT based on Scripture. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

I’m a bit troubled by the tone of some of the responses here–as far as I know, the thread-starter asked an open, sincere question about why abortion is wrong, looking for evidence that would ring true with a non-Catholic or non-Christian. Regardless of our beliefs, I think we need to be careful when we throw out the "but it’s just so obvious, how could you think otherwise?’ line, or mock the tendency to look to gov’t legislation for moral guidance.

QUOTE]

It is important to remember that abortion is a very sensitive issue, here, and pretty much anywhere else you go. However, since he/she requested information from a Catholic forum, it is obvious that he/she is going to get Scripture thrown in at some point. We come from a stand point where we know we are in the right concerning the issue, and it’s hard to believe that anyone else can doubt that. I understand that maybe we need to be more sensitive to opposing opinions, but sometimes it gets frustrating when people just don’t get our POV.

I think the posters on this thread have been fairly respectful to the poster. If there were anything discourteous on here, then an Adminstrator would have deleted it already. (Believe me, I know. )

~Kim

 

[renee1258]

From my studies from law school in the United States, the government didn’t say that a fetus isn’t a human being. The law I read talks about a human being’s viability outside the womb.

The law professor used this analogy.

You have an eight year old son that would die without a bone marrow transplant. You as the parent are a match, to your child. But you refuse to go through with any bone marrow transfusion. Your child dies.

Do you hold a legal duty to your own child to put aside your own bodily integrity for the sake your child?

The legal answer is No. As a rule of law, the government physically force you to go through the bone marrow transfusion.

That is why it is called pro-choice, the choice is in the parent to kill their child and that is the basis of the law.

This example bothered much of the class, even though I assume the majority were pro-choice.

The same application to mother and child within the womb. Instead of a bone marrow transfusion, instead is an umbillicord connecting the two of them for nine months. A mother’s bodily intergrity not to be connected to her child for nurishment has a stronger right then her child’s life, despite the fact her child would die.

For you to accept abortion to be a moral right, you have to accept a parent’s right to refuse the bone marrow transfusion and allowing their eight year old child to die.

 

[JimG]

A parasite? Hmm, well, it’s going to be a parasite for at least 18 years, so I wouldn’t consider that a good basis for killing unless you are also allowed to do in your teenagers.

The biology is straightforward. All human beings have a beginning, and that beginning is at conception. It’s at that point that a new individual of the human species comes into existence. It’s how we all started out. If you don’t protect human beings from their beginning, you can arbitrarily place the point at which they will be protected anywhere. There are some who have argued for putting that point several weeks after birth.

 

[Almeria]

Do you hold a legal duty to your own child to put aside your own bodily integrity for the sake your child?

The legal answer is No. As a rule of law, the government physically force you to go through the bone marrow transfusion.

I normally try to be pretty lenient with people’s typos, so I hate to ask this–what is the missing word between “government” and “physically”? I think it’s “can’t” from the context, but I just want to be sure. Sorry I’m so dense!

 

[cove]

renee1258:

From my studies from law school in the United States, the government didn’t say that a fetus isn’t a human being. The law I read talks about a human being’s viability outside the womb.

The law professor used this analogy.

You have an eight year old son that would die without a bone marrow transplant. You as the parent are a match, to your child. But you refuse to go through with any bone marrow transfusion. Your child dies.

Do you hold a legal duty to your own child to put aside your own bodily integrity for the sake your child?

The legal answer is No. As a rule of law, the government physically force you to go through the bone marrow transfusion.

That is why it is called pro-choice, the choice is in the parent to kill their child and that is the basis of the law.

This example bothered much of the class, even though I assume the majority were pro-choice.

The same application to mother and child within the womb. Instead of a bone marrow transfusion, instead is an umbillicord connecting the two of them for nine months. A mother’s bodily intergrity not to be connected to her child for nurishment has a stronger right then her child’s life, despite the fact her child would die.

For you to accept abortion to be a moral right, you have to accept a parent’s right to refuse the bone marrow transfusion and allowing their eight year old child to die.

But, one can argue that the child did not attach itself to it’s mother by it’s own free will. The consent to allow her child to occupy her body was made when she consented to sex.

I have seen this argument before on an abortion debate board. The poster who loves this one is a staunch pro-abortionist.

I asked her, but she never answered me, if there was any legal presidence for this scenario? Has there ever been a case where a person refused to give a life saving organ to her child? The reason I asked was because I wondered if this had happened wouldn’t it be interesting to see if the laws would change to reflect this type of parental responsibility towards a dying child. My guess would be that this has not happened. I am sure it would have made the headlines somewhere. Plus, I can’t imagine a parent refusing to save their child in this scenario.

Parents are already held responsible for the care of a dying child. They can be arrested if they don’t seek the proper medical help that their child needs. This is considered neglect.

 

[jeremyvacek]

StratusRose:

maendem:

Actually, I think UKstudent asked for an argument NOT based on Scripture. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

I’m a bit troubled by the tone of some of the responses here–as far as I know, the thread-starter asked an open, sincere question about why abortion is wrong, looking for evidence that would ring true with a non-Catholic or non-Christian. Regardless of our beliefs, I think we need to be careful when we throw out the "but it’s just so obvious, how could you think otherwise?’ line, or mock the tendency to look to gov’t legislation for moral guidance.

QUOTE]

It is important to remember that abortion is a very sensitive issue, here, and pretty much anywhere else you go. However, since he/she requested information from a Catholic forum, it is obvious that he/she is going to get Scripture thrown in at some point. We come from a stand point where we know we are in the right concerning the issue, and it’s hard to believe that anyone else can doubt that. I understand that maybe we need to be more sensitive to opposing opinions, but sometimes it gets frustrating when people just don’t get our POV.

I think the posters on this thread have been fairly respectful to the poster. If there were anything discourteous on here, then an Adminstrator would have deleted it already. (Believe me, I know. )

~Kim

While you are correct that this is obviously a Catholic site and that many of the reasons we don’t support abortion are based on our faith, the fact that she requested a non-biblical response should keep people from doing so. She was wise to come to this site even though she doesn’t want a religious argument because there is a large number of people who share her view all in one spot. The point, I believe, the questioner is getting at is that she wants to make an argument in a secular arena that abortion is wrong and should not be permitted by any government. While the bible and our faith clearly are against abortion, using these as an argument with those who don’t align themselves on the side of faith is a fruitless endeavor. So, in order to make a pro life argument in a secular manner, she would need to have information regarding the biology of the unborn. I don’t have the specific facts, but for example, at some point the baby is deemed viable in that it could survive outside the womb. It would seem that at the very least you could get a secular person to agree that that would be murder when the fetus reached this point of development. The next question that comes to mind is what is this life before it reaches that point. Since it clearly is human at that point, where do we go back to see that it is not human?(i.e. the stages where it was a “parasite”) The only clear change in substance of what the fetus is is all the way back to the fusion of the egg and the sperm. I apologize for this not being well put together, but it is just meant as a frame for what my argument would be. I’ll try to find some information to give regarding specifics and hopefully someone can build on this.

 

[bear06]

UKStudent:

But the governmental view is that a foetus(at the stage where abortion is legal at least) is not yet a human being. At that stage it is a undeveloped parasitem, feeding off the mother.

It really doesn’t matter what a government says, the simple scientific fact is at the moment of conception it is either male or female. I’ve always considered this quite basic. It’s not a plant, it’s not an animal. The scientific view is that it’s a tiny human. Don’t you think it horrific that the line of when we can kill changes? It basically comes down to “How much can we tolerate before we make it illegal?”

 

[Scott_Waddell]

UK Student.

Find and read a book called The Unaborted Socrates by Peter Kreeft. It’s a dialogue on abortion without any appeals to Scripture.

Scott