Is abortion ever morally right?

[toasted_bagel]

Such a procedure would be sure to have risks associated with it, and the potential harm of staying in the womb would have to outweigh the harm that could come from transferring the child. The right to life outweighs the right to pursue happiness. Putting someones life in danger unnecessarily as a way to lessen the pain and suffering a woman might feel however great is not something I would see as being licit.

I definitely agree that life should weigh greater than happiness, but, if the procedure were made to be very safe, could it be considered okay?

Theoretically the procedure would also be beneficial to the child, too; I read on a Catholic psychology site (chastitysf.com/fantasies.htm, the quote is about 2/3 down the page) the following:
" For example, consider a woman, newly married to a man who turns out to be irresponsible, and now despairingly pregnant with a child she doesn’t want. Right in the womb that developing fetus will be “infected” psychologically with the belief that “It would be better if you were dead.” "
I’m fairly sure that, if the child were removed soon enough, this “psychological infection” would not occur, and thus the procedure would be to prevent the child from having self-destructive temptations later, among other things.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I definitely agree that life should weigh greater than happiness, but, if the procedure were made to be very safe, could it be considered okay?

Theoretically the procedure would also be beneficial to the child, too; I read on a Catholic psychology site (chastitysf.com/fantasies.htm, the quote is about 2/3 down the page) the following:
" For example, consider a woman, newly married to a man who turns out to be irresponsible, and now despairingly pregnant with a child she doesn’t want. Right in the womb that developing fetus will be “infected” psychologically with the belief that “It would be better if you were dead.” "
I’m fairly sure that, if the child were removed soon enough, this “psychological infection” would not occur, and thus the procedure would be to prevent the child from having self-destructive temptations later, among other things.

OK, so being murdered in the womb will benefit the child?

 

[Nate13]

OK, so being murdered in the womb will benefit the child?

I believe that is the poster who was asking whether it would be alright to induce birth early in that case if it were possible to safely raise the baby outside the womb. My answer was it was a possibility if you could show the risk to the baby in the womb was greater than the risk of inducing birth early and helping the child develop outside the woman.

However I’m really confused by the example given above. The emotional distress of the woman can infect the child in her womb? I could possibly see the child being affected by this in indirect ways but not directly. Psychological reasons that threaten the child would by far by the hardest to justify in saying the child should be induced early, since they are so intangible and its very hard to ascertain just how much of a threat there is. You would be putting this intangible hard to quantify threat up against the real measurable threat involved in inducing birth early and trying to save a premature child. Very hard to justify depending on how safe your future technology could make the procedure.

 

[toasted_bagel]

However I’m really confused by the example given above. The emotional distress of the woman can infect the child in her womb?

The psychology site listed in my previous post seemed to say that emotions can pass on from mother to child in the womb (but I’m not sure how credible the site is, now that I look back at it; it also seems to suggest that being tempted is a controllable psychological problem, not an uncontrollable attack from the devil)

 

[JNdoum]

I wanted to say that I have a personal stake in the issues of abortion; I lost two siblings to it, and my mother was very close to aborting me as well. I also lived in foster care (the united states does not have “orphanages” anymore, I believe), so when I say that it is better for a child to live, I know what I’m talking about. I could go on a tirade (I must have been on about 50) about how my time in the system was never so bad that I wished I was dead, or any number of those things. But I won’t, because it just brings up things I’d rather not. I will instead bring it all back to God. Were I fortunate enough to get a child from that horrendous experience, I certainly wouldn’t want to destroy the only chance of goodness and life I felt I’d ever have again at the time. That time was one of fear, one of darkness, and adding the murder of someone to it would have done me no good. It is only by God’s grace that I converted about a year after, and found healing. I’ve come to realize a few things from the whole thing:

1. Life is sacred
   Everyone deserves not just life, but a chance for it. No one deserves to never take a breath, and never get to experience God and His love the way that we do. I know that God cares for the unborn children; there’s no way that he doesn’t. But that doesn’t excuse putting a murder on your own soul, your own sorrow, and your own despair.
2. Hard times aren’t that bad.
   My suffering tempered my soul; without it I wouldn’t be who I am today, and I wouldn’t be a Christian at all. My suffering drew me closer to the Lord, and avoiding it may well have led me to ruin. It’s a necessary thing, for building self and character. I suppose it’s hard to explain, but suffering is good, because it makes the good times so much better, and makes you see things differently, I suppose.
3. Children are precious
   A year ago the Lord blessed our family with a baby, my stepmother had her the January before last, and she has been a constant joy in our lives. Of course, we were better prepared for her, but my step-mom proabably had a pregnancy worse than your average rape victim. She is diabetic, and has a plethora of medical issues, and she had to get an induced pregnancy a bit early so that her medications wouldn’t harm the baby. But she never once complained, or thought it a hardship. Then again, I know it’s not quite the same: we’re a Catholic family from Africa, so we apprechiate the sanctity of life, and again we were prepared for her, and had a loving place in our hearts and home for her. But it is something to consider. If I had had my sister with me in those times, my days would have been brighter. I don’t doubt a rape victim would feel the same.
4. Pregnancy is not a problem
   I’m sure it’s inconvenient, and perhaps a struggle at times, but it’s not a disease to be cured or a problem to be had. It’s a miracle going on inside your body. The good Lord saw fit to make me a man, so I cannot fully ever understand, but I believe it would be a blessing to be able bear children. Also, the pregnancy will not stick it to your rapist. He didn’t do what he did out of pure malice - he is no doubt a sick man who requires psychological help. Killing your baby won’t hurt him, it will only hurt you.
   I guess I have to say that abortion is never right. God calls us to love and nurture life, and we never have a right to take it away. I’m an ultra-pacifist, so I would not kill someone to save my own life. To kill someone to make it a bit “easier” or to save me “pain and trouble” is unthinkable. God made us, down to the tiniest atom. Our souls were created who-knows when, but we know that he created our flesh from the moment of conception (perhaps before that, when you were and egg and sperm and such), and he took great care to knit us together from the start. Abortion isn’t just murder, it’s burning an artist’s work before He is even finished. It is burning the unfinished painting, and smashing the marble statue. How could we know what a wonder that child could have been to the world, to his mother, who must suffer through her condition alone now? What could he have done? Have we lost a humanitarian, an activist, a brilliant artist, a pope even? How on earth could we know? And even if we did, what gives us the right to take that away from him?

 

[JRKH]

JNdoum,
Wonderful testimony. Thanks for sharing that.

Peace
James

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t know much about biology and reproduction, but if a fertilized egg were somehow removed from the raped mother’s womb (can this be done without destroying the egg?) and placed in some artificial womb in a laboratory or something (like the glass chambers where clones are made in Star Wars), and it could grow and be born and live, would that be okay?

I know that you can’t un-rape someone, but having a baby seems even worse on top of rape.

Hmm I could see that being licit in some cases in general where that provided the best chance of survival for the baby, but in the case of rape I’m not so sure. Such a procedure would be sure to have risks associated with it, and the potential harm of staying in the womb would have to outweigh the harm that could come from transferring the child. The right to life outweighs the right to pursue happiness. Putting someones life in danger unnecessarily as a way to lessen the pain and suffering a woman might feel however great is not something I would see as being licit.

This is an excellent question, TB, and Nate has a very valid concern.

Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the procedure is “perfected” to where there is minimal risk to both mom and the embryo.

Interesting scenerio. I’d say that it brings into the discussion an element of surrogacy, even though it would be “artificial surrogacy”, and as such would not be seen as a moral act, in itself. However, there could be conceivable circumstances where it ***could *** be considered morally acceptable:

If the mother was mentally unbalanced over the pregnancy as a result of rape, and had made attempts to self-abort or commit suicide, perhaps. Not sure, but maybe…

The notion of an artificial surrogacy device is facinating from a moral perspective. It brings into the discussion a moral possibility of rescuing frozen embryos.