Should abortion be banned or not?

[Believe_85]

I think that perhaps we should first define murder. Is killing a blob of tissue that may become a person if given the chance really murder?

It’s not a blob of flesh. I think the real issue here is when does a person become a person? And with that, when does God put a soul into a human? I think most traditional Catholics would say a soul enters the body upon conception. Others may say “we have no way of knowing”… If that is true, then to err on the safe side would be to not allow abortion at any time because we don’t know when it has a soul and so is a person. If one is unsure about when a baby is a baby with a soul, then they should think about the consequences of assigning a time other than at conception that “the blob of tissue” becomes a human being.

 

[rlg94086]

It’s not a blob of flesh. I think the real issue here is when does a person become a person? And with that, when does God put a soul into a human? I think most traditional Catholics would say a soul enters the body upon conception. Others may say “we have no way of knowing”… If that is true, then to err on the safe side would be to not allow abortion at any time because we don’t know when it has a soul and so is a person. If one is unsure about when a baby is a baby with a soul, then they should think about the consequences of assigning a time other than at conception that “the blob of tissue” becomes a human being.

Well stated.

If someone doesn’t believe in a soul, they could set biological requirements (pain receptors, brain function, survivability, etc.). Even that would severely cut back the “woman’s right to choose” to a much earlier time than is currently allowed.

I would still fight for a total ban on abortion, but I would be pleased if we could at least compromise in the short-term on a ban on any abortion past the first…I don’t know…8 weeks? It would only cut the number of abortions by 40%, but it would be a good start.

 

[JRKH]

The thing that sets a “Human” apart from other creatures is it’s number of Chromosones. This is set at the time of conception and the first splitting of the cells.
Therefore abortion takes human life and needs to be banned.

There are of course several specific medical instances that migth require ending a pregancy, but deciding those issues needs to be made in the context of abortion being wrong inherantly wrong both morally and civily.

Peace
James

 

[HiggDo]

I cannot, however, impose my own religious beliefs upon others so I am pro-choice.

First of all Holly, I might suggest that you can and should impose your religious beliefs on others, especially when it comes to pointing them towards salvation. You should do this out of a loving concern for their spiritual well being. I think your thinking is the byproduct of a “separation of church and state” mentality, evolved and espoused by generations of those who find it too difficult to face the truth.

Just because you might be met with hostility, indignation or indifference, it is not a reason to keep from being a happy worker in the vineyard. Jesus implores you to do it… Evangelize when convenient and inconvenient… BE so bold… Be strong, make a stand towards righteousness, make a difference with your life. I know you can because you were made by God, for God!

My point was that it may become a person if allowed to grow to full term. It may not become a person if not allowed to grow to full term.

It is an individual person from the moment of conception. A separate human entity that happens to rely on the mother for growth and nourishment until birth.

Here you are, a loving person, capable of dreaming, thought, recollection… you have a spirit, a soul… you have individual senses and tastes from your parents. You are an individual now, and always have been- from the time of your conception- regardless of the physical condition of your evolving state during your mother’s pregnancy. It was always intended by God for you to be who you are. You didn’t go from blob to your being. That blob as you say, was always you in the womb……

 

[hasikelee]

Well, one example that immediately comes to mind is that of ectopic pregnancies. They can truly endanger a woman’s life and the baby has absolutely no chance of living either. Surely an abortion would be justified in such a case.

Anyway, here is a page with some abortion statistics on it:

guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

I honestly think I would have to remain pro-choice or at least allow all abortions before 18 weeks gestation.

Ectopic pregnancies are part of the principle of double effect that I mentioned in my last post and are not a direct abortion.

I look forward to the technology and theories of scientists who believe they will soon be able to successfully lift the new human from the fallopian tube and implant the human into the uterus, thus saving the mother and the child.

That being said, ectopic pregnancies have dramatically increased since abortion became legal. In 1970, approx. 4.5 cases for every 10,000 pregnancies was recorded, where in 1992 it rose to 19.7 cases per 10,000.

But, look at what else happened:

The case-fatality rate has declined from 35.5 maternal deaths per 10,000 ectopic pregnancies in 1970 to only 3.8 maternal deaths per 10,000 ectopic pregnancies in 1989.6 Even though overall survival has increased, the risk of death associated with ectopic pregnancy remains higher among black and other non-white minority women.

For your last statement about allowing abortions up to 18 weeks, what was your reason on that? I am familiar with Guttmacher’s information, but that was a broad statement.

Why not 20 weeks? Why not viability, which for some women is 12-16 weeks? What about the establishment of the nervous system?

Do you advocate that humans in-utero should receive anesthesia from 8 weeks onwards? Or do you have a more humane idea of how to kill them, as opposed to saline injection or cutterage?

Since you are thinking about abortions up to 18 weeks, where the human weighs around a 1/2 pound and has almost every normal characteristic, such as fingernails, hair, eyelids, viability, a nervous system, etc, do you believe women should be allowed to have the body back for a grave, or should the abortion clinic continue to incinerate the bodies?

 

[mlchance]

Abortion is not a religious issue. It is a human rights issue.

godlessprolifers.org/

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Holly,
You keep changing your mind. It’s interesting to watch but how about coming to a conclusion? How does this work: there should be no taking of a human life with intent from the moment of conception to natural death without a proper civil judgement? In the rare cases of medical complications that endanger both lives equal efforts will be made to save both with only the mother if able to give consent to concentrate on saving her child more than herself. I think that is fair to all those alive.

The sanctity of life itself is paramount.
“The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and careless attitude toward liberty.”

Abortion should be beyond the pale to consider such a thing to be accepted as Federal law in the first place. Marriage is a religious concept and should not be a civil matter but it is. Abortion is, as others have already noted a human right which affects both religious and civil rights of every human being.

The police raid a drug house full of junkies shooting up heroin because they are killing themselves by slow death once a month, but protect the building next door killing 25 children a day. It just doesn’t make sense.

 

[BlueRubies]

When you ask this question, what do you have in mind? For example, can you cite any cases from medical journals where doctors and/or scientists found it necessary to kill the child to save the mother? Were these conclusive studies, or simply the attending’s opinion?

Let me weigh in. There are more diseases out there than cancer or whatnot. Yes there are some circumstances unfortunately. I was diagnosed with HELLP syndrome at 27 weeks pregnant and it was very severe. Luckly my baby was old enough to survive. Women can sometimes get this syndrome very early - too early for the baby to survive (the mother and child will die if the baby is not taken). So, would you be againt a 20 week pregnant woman who is on death’s door having her doctor perform a c-section or induce birth even though it’s almost a certainty the child wouldn’t make it (I am not talking abortion - I am talking delivering the baby and letting nature take it’s course - trying to save it if it can survive or letting it die if it’s too young to survive?)

 

[st_lucy]

I think that perhaps we should first define murder. Is killing a blob of tissue that may become a person if given the chance really murder?

I find this the most offensive statement I have ever heard. I have lost three children before their birth and who are you to say or call them “a blob of tissue”! They were beautiful and I was very much privileged to hold them for as long as I did.

Disgusting and very hard of heart! Sometimes I find the nerve of those who claim to be one who cares for what a woman really feels to be astonishing. My children where perfect Thank You very much. And Since I saw their lifeless body I can attest to the fact they were not “a blob of tissue”

Try growing a heart before you spew such hateful things.

 

[kell0618]

Should abortion be banned or not?

I personally do not think it should be banned. I support a woman’s right to choose. I am, however, pro-life. What do you think?

Hello Holly God bless you!

I think women should have a right to choose and that time for choice is before they engage in intercourse. She has the opportunity to say yes or no at that time. Once the act is finished, the time for choice has ended. And to follow up with what could be the next question, in regard to abortion for rape victims: 1) very, very, very few abortions are due to a rape. 2) so if an abortion follows a rape, there are now two victims, one survives and one is murdered. In fact, nearly half of all abortions are procured by women who have had more than one abortion already.

I suggest you get your hands on the Bella DVD when it is released in May. The film is not preachy, and in fact the message is not against abortion; it is for life.

Peace to you,

Kelly

 

[hawkeye]

The Apocalypse Of Saint John
15** I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.**

16 But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

 

[RandA]

I agree with you. I have changed my mind about abortion. I still see it as okay when the mother’s health or life is at risk though.

Holly! I’m so glad to see you have come to your senses! Excellent! Praise to God!


I’m sure someone has already explained why abortion is almost never necessary to save the life or health of the mother…

S.

 

[sawman]

Should abortion be banned or not?

I personally do not think it should be banned. I support a woman’s right to choose. I am, however, pro-life. What do you think?

I don’t quite know how to put this charitably,Holly, but I think you may be ignorant of the term 'Pro-life". As to the poll, I think we should go back to the bad old dark ages, when abortionists were put to death for capital murder. I think that abortion-murderers are the lowest form of crimminal, almost tied with the pedophile. Women are not judges, they have no business choosing whether or not a child shall live. The innocent must be protected to best of our ability as a nation, as a people. I don’t care a rat’s rear end about a woman’s "right " to choose!
Pro-choice people are practicing or supporting witchcraft. The orignal providers of contraception and abortions were and probobly still are in some cases witches.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I am not a pro-choice proponent. But I think the question is absurd because, in a secular democracy, it cannot be banned. Whether or not the embryo is a living human being and whether or not abortion constitutes murder has to do with a theological position regarding what a human being is (body and soul together as one being, the soul being the form of the body’s matter). In other words, mlachance, you believe that abortion is a human rights issue because of a theological position you hold. It *does, *in fact, come down to theology.

With our particular theological understanding, human beingness begins at conception. Lacking this understanding, human beingness begins when the fetus looks like a human baby, or when it’s able to live outside the mother, or when it’s delivered and takes its first breath. Before then, the fetus may be considered merely an animal. It might have human DNA, but until it’s considered a human being, it’s merely living human animal tissue, not a human being. And while it is cruel to needlessly kill animals, it is nonetheless not murder to do so.

Because not everyone shares our particular understanding of what makes a human being a human being, I do not foresee any ban on abortion anytime in the foreseeable future because our understanding is merely one among many–we shout murder, they shout, “not at all!” And the argument is pointless until there’s consensus on when the fetus becomes a human being, and a moral consensus will not be achieved through a general ban.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[rlg94086]

Grace & Peace!

I am not a pro-choice proponent. But I think the question is absurd because, in a secular democracy, it cannot be banned. Whether or not the embryo is a living human being and whether or not abortion constitutes murder has to do with a theological position regarding what a human being is (body and soul together as one being, the soul being the form of the body’s matter). In other words, mlachance, you believe that abortion is a human rights issue because of a theological position you hold. It *does, *in fact, come down to theology.!

Hi Mark,

No offense, but I don’t think you understand how our democratic republic works. If we amend the Constitution to state that human life begins at conception and that the zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus all have a basic right to life (i.e. can’t be purposely exterminated), then abortion would be, in fact, banned in our “secular democracy.” It doesn’t matter whether the question is theological/philosophical.

You seem to understand that later in your post…

Because not everyone shares our particular understanding of what makes a human being a human being, I do not foresee any ban on abortion anytime in the foreseeable future because our understanding is merely one among many–we shout murder, they shout, “not at all!” And the argument is pointless until there’s consensus on when the fetus becomes a human being, and a moral consensus will not be achieved through a general ban.

Indeed, until there is a majority view (66-75%), an amendment banning abortion probably would’t pass, but it is not impossible.

 

[JRKH]

Grace & Peace!

I am not a pro-choice proponent. But I think the question is absurd because, in a secular democracy, it cannot be banned. Whether or not the embryo is a living human being and whether or not abortion constitutes murder has to do with a theological position regarding what a human being is (body and soul together as one being, the soul being the form of the body’s matter). In other words, mlachance, you believe that abortion is a human rights issue because of a theological position you hold. It *does, *in fact, come down to theology.

With our particular theological understanding, human beingness begins at conception. Lacking this understanding, human beingness begins when the fetus looks like a human baby, or when it’s able to live outside the mother, or when it’s delivered and takes its first breath. Before then, the fetus may be considered merely an animal. It might have human DNA, but until it’s considered a human being, it’s merely living human animal tissue, not a human being. And while it is cruel to needlessly kill animals, it is nonetheless not murder to do so.

Because not everyone shares our particular understanding of what makes a human being a human being, I do not foresee any ban on abortion anytime in the foreseeable future because our understanding is merely one among many–we shout murder, they shout, “not at all!” And the argument is pointless until there’s consensus on when the fetus becomes a human being, and a moral consensus will not be achieved through a general ban.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Your post is well presented, and really gets to the core of the matter.

Limits on abortion in a secular society do depend on the definition that society gives to human Life. The problem is that society did not throw the definition into question, the courts did with Roe v Wade. And they did so in such a way that very little headway could be made society’s efforts to correct it.
Personally, from a secular viewpoint, I hold with the DNA as the determining factor. It is not theological and is the only clear scientific argument that is not arbitrary.
How a fetus looks is not a sufficient gage of when it is a human because not all humans look alike and therefore it is subjective.
Whether or not it can survive outside the womb is not sufficient for two reasons. First, medicine continues to make great strides in the care of premature births. Second, an infant two weeks after birth is no more able to survive on it’s own than a fetus two weeks before birth.

DNA is the only sure, clear and indisputable determinate of a given species, including Humans.

Peace
James

 

[jmcrae]

Should abortion be banned or not?

I personally do not think it should be banned. I support a woman’s right to choose. I am, however, pro-life. What do you think?

If you are truly pro-life (that is, you recognize the unborn child as a human being created in the image and likeness of God, with all the rights pertaining to human beings, including the right to life) then how can you, at the same time, say that a woman (or anybody) has a right to choose deliberately to kill that child?

 

[mlchance]

In other words, mlachance, you believe that abortion is a human rights issue because of a theological position you hold. It *does, *in fact, come down to theology.

Nonsense. I’m Catholic, not an atheist. The very fact that atheists – who deny the existence of God and the soul – can be against abortion on purely philosophical and/or political grounds demonstrates quite nicely that while your post was well-written it is based on at least a few fallacious assumptions.

Once again: Abortion is not a religious issue. One need not be the least bit religious to see that abortion is an injustice and contrary to the principles upon which the U.S. was founded.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mapleoak]

I am not a pro-choice proponent. But I think the question is absurd because, in a secular democracy, it cannot be banned.

Yes it can. There are enough Catholics in this country to make it happen.

Whether or not the embryo is a living human being and whether or not abortion constitutes murder has to do with a theological position regarding what a human being is (body and soul together as one being, the soul being the form of the body’s matter).

Nonsense. If someone murders a 6 year old, it is murder whether the killer believes the 6 year old has a soul or not. There are killers who are aetheists you know.

In other words, mlachance, you believe that abortion is a human rights issue because of a theological position you hold. It *does, *in fact, come down to theology.

Yes it holds a theological position in part. It also stands on its own merit.

With our particular theological understanding, human beingness begins at conception. Lacking this understanding, human beingness begins when the fetus looks like a human baby, or when it’s able to live outside the mother, or when it’s delivered and takes its first breath.

Nope, biologically, it is defined as human whether it ‘looks’ human or not.

Before then, the fetus may be considered merely an animal.

By whom? Try to tell any learned biologist that a human embryo is a sheep and not human.

It might have human DNA, but until it’s considered a human being, it’s merely living human animal tissue, not a human being. And while it is cruel to needlessly kill animals, it is nonetheless not murder to do so.

Since it is a human both biologically AND theologically it is murder to kill a it. Its humaness can be determined solely on biological merit. Agreed it is not murder to kill a sheep or a sheep embryo, because it is not human.

 

[JRKH]

Snip

It might have human DNA, but until it’s considered a human being, it’s merely living human animal tissue, not a human being. And while it is cruel to needlessly kill animals, it is nonetheless not murder to do so.

Just as an additional point on this.
Let us suppose that some “Lump of Flesh” is discovered by the police and sent to the lab to determine it’s identity. Would the DNA results come back anything other than human??

Peace
James