Tricky questions about abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter CelticChristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe it would have been better put if we were to say, if one is against abortion, they should be ready to help, at least in some way, support an unwed mother who decides to have the child or a couple who wishes to adopt if they themself are not in a position to adopt.

“Help” could mean anything to directly giving support in money, baby stuff, etc. to babysitting, etc. to being politically active to ease adoption laws and regulations.
I think we as Christians should help all who are in need but to say that if you are against abortion you **should **help financially is a little ridiculuos. It is like saying that if one is against rape you should help the victims in some way, support a counseling session, Dr visits etc.

Yes as a Christian we should do all we can to help the less fortunate, but voicing the fact that murder (abortion) is wrong is every Christians duty.
 
What is the best way to respond to these pro-choice arguments?
  1. “It’s all very well saying you’re against abortion, but what if your wife got raped? I’m sure you’ll say you’d keep it, but you don’t know until you’re in that situation”.
Why should the child be punished- tortured to death- for the father’s sin?
  1. “You can believe what you want about the issue, but you can’t go around forcing your religious beliefs on others who don’t share them. You might believe life begins at conception, but other people have a different opinion on that issue”.
Try carrying around a dead body and saying it’s alive- whether you think so or not, there is no cellular activity anymore, and the tissues are decomposing. Whether or not life exists is not a matter of opinion. If a group of cells has unique DNA, and the process of mitosis continues, you have a unique, living organism. If those cells are human cells, you have a human being- no matter how small it may be.
 
What is the best way to respond to these pro-choice arguments?
  1. “It’s all very well saying you’re against abortion, but what if your wife got raped? I’m sure you’ll say you’d keep it, but you don’t know until you’re in that situation”.
  2. “You can believe what you want about the issue, but you can’t go around forcing your religious beliefs on others who don’t share them. You might believe life begins at conception, but other people have a different opinion on that issue”.
Thanks and God bless.
#1 is the weakest of arguments…first of all it is RARE that a woman gets pregnant during a rape - the stress, the attack is not really condusive to creation…However, if a child is conceived in such a situation, there is always adoption. The child should not have to pay by dying for the sins of the father …Finally, rapes constitute less than 1% of abortions…

#2 Speaking your belief is not forcing it…and yes, we do “force” our beliefs as a society on one another, it’s called Law…we believe certain things are wrong and therefore we outlaw them…
 
I think we as Christians should help all who are in need but to say that if you are against abortion you **should **help financially is a little ridiculuos. It is like saying that if one is against rape you should help the victims in some way, support a counseling session, Dr visits etc.

Yes as a Christian we should do all we can to help the less fortunate, but voicing the fact that murder (abortion) is wrong is every Christians duty.
Why is ridiculous? What’s wrong with helping victims of rape? Or are you saying that “must” is a better word here than “should”?

I’m not quite clear, especially when you write that it’s every Christian’s duty to speak out against abortion, but that we “should” do all we can for the less fortunate. Is it not our duty to help the less fortunate as well?

I’m not clear on what you’re trying to say here…
 
Why is ridiculous? What’s wrong with helping victims of rape? Or are you saying that “must” is a better word here than “should”?

I’m not quite clear, especially when you write that it’s every Christian’s duty to speak out against abortion, but that we “should” do all we can for the less fortunate. Is it not our duty to help the less fortunate as well?

I’m not clear on what you’re trying to say here…
I am saying that it is not practical for all to physically do something. A mother who has young children at home for example cannot go out and help at a crises pregnancy center. Her first duty is to her children. A disabled person cannot physically volunteer at birth right. A poor family cannot financially give to pregnancy centers. But they are all called to speak out about the evils of abortions.

It is ridicules to say that all who are against abortion should have to help the mother, when in reality that is not their calling. God gave each of us a calling and for some that calling is not to physically or financially help out, but since we all have a voice we should speak out against it and of course we should all pray, fast and offer repentance for these evils.
 
I think we as Christians should help all who are in need but to say that if you are against abortion you **should **help financially is a little ridiculuos. It is like saying that if one is against rape you should help the victims in some way, support a counseling session, Dr visits etc.

Yes as a Christian we should do all we can to help the less fortunate, but voicing the fact that murder (abortion) is wrong is every Christians duty.
Shouldn’t it also be our duty to do what we can to help the less fortunate? And if we are going to tell someone what not to do, shouldn’t we also do what we can to help remedy the problem causing them to ponder the situation?

After all, pure religion that is acceptable before God is to help the widows and orphans in their distress (James 1:27), not tell others how to live.

Well, this is about as clear a case of any of helping or not helping the widows or orphans, because many women wanting abortions are single mothers, and the reason they’re scared to not have an abortion is because they’ll have trouble taking care of their child when orphanages are already packed and children not well taken care of.

I think it’s a pretty clear-cut rule of thumb that if one isn’t willing to help fix a problem, they shouldn’t speak out against it being a problem.
 
Shouldn’t it also be our duty to do what we can to help the less fortunate? And if we are going to tell someone what not to do, shouldn’t we also do what we can to help remedy the problem causing them to ponder the situation?

After all, pure religion that is acceptable before God is to help the widows and orphans in their distress (James 1:27), not tell others how to live.

Well, this is about as clear a case of any of helping or not helping the widows or orphans, because many women wanting abortions are single mothers, and the reason they’re scared to not have an abortion is because they’ll have trouble taking care of their child when orphanages are already packed and children not well taken care of.

I think it’s a pretty clear-cut rule of thumb that if one isn’t willing to help fix a problem, they shouldn’t speak out against it being a problem.
Like I have repeatedly stated, YES we should do all that we CAN do to help those less fortunate. But for some it is simple not physically and/or financially possible to do this. But we are all called to speak out for those who suffer injustice, in this case the unborn.

I stand by my statement in saying that it is ridicules to say that one should not voice their beliefs (which is the Christian belief) against abortion if they aren’t able to physically or financially help the mother. That is like saying: I know that my next door neighbor is financially burdened with her three children so she is thinking of killing one or more of them to ease the burden. Since I am equally financially burdened and therefor have no means to physically or financially help her I should just keep my mouth shut, when she explains to me how she plains to kill them.
 
Like I have repeatedly stated, YES we should do all that we CAN do to help those less fortunate. But for some it is simple not physically and/or financially possible to do this. But we are all called to speak out for those who suffer injustice, in this case the unborn.

I stand by my statement in saying that it is ridicules to say that one should not voice their beliefs (which is the Christian belief) against abortion if they aren’t able to physically or financially help the mother. That is like saying: I know that my next door neighbor is financially burdened with her three children so she is thinking of killing one or more of them to ease the burden. Since I am equally financially burdened and therefor have no means to physically or financially help her I should just keep my mouth shut, when she explains to me how she plains to kill them.
Alright, I see what you’re saying now. I think we agree that we should only do what we are capable of doing. I wasn’t trying to say we need to adopt, only that we need to be “willing” to adopt, and was why I used that word so frequently.

I really do apologize for not having made that more clear, sorry 😦
 
What is the best way to respond to these pro-choice arguments?
  1. “It’s all very well saying you’re against abortion, but what if your wife got raped? I’m sure you’ll say you’d keep it, but you don’t know until you’re in that situation”.
    .
Actually, yes I can know. We are human, rational persons capable of making intelligent choices.

Would this pro-abort person think that if THEIR Wife was raped, would they hunt down and kill the rapists other children? If they say ‘no’, challenge them to tell you how they could say that, unless they were in that situation.
 
Well, if that’s how we measure death, then let’s use that to measure life. Both are present at 6-8 weeks, so no abortions after 6-8 weeks.
Actually, that is a little bit of a risky argument. We have the measurable beginnings of brain development at that point, but if you want to use the same basic clinical definition for both ends of life, you are possibly looking at the 25th or 26th week.

That is the point in which synapses, actual pathways in the brain, start to develop quite suddenly and we see things like stimulus related heartrate accelerations. Before this point, we don’t really have cranial reflexive responses, the typical definition of “brain dead”.

One thing that I find useful in having these sorts of conversations with secularists is being clear about what, exactly, Catholics believe. We do not believe, as a matter of faith, that a fertilized zygote is unquestionably a human person with a human soul. Nor do we hold that human life, on life support, in the absense of detectable cranial responses, is still an ensouled human person. On those questions, the Church freely admits that we do not know.

What we do believe is that each human person has a soul which is a unique creation of a God who can, and does, love us each infinitely. Since we are called to love others as the Lord loved us (or at least as much as we love ourselves - perhaps as close as we can come), we treasure life in all stages and in all forms (wealth or poverty, sinfulness or rightousness, healthy or ill). Since we don’t know the exact moment we are infused with the soul or precisely when it departs us, we error on the side of life.

When we focus simply on the question of abortion, it can be hard for secularists to see our point of view. No abortions to save the life of the mother is something that even most Catholics have a hard time following in practice. But it is consistant with our view of infinite value at any stage and any state. It also explains the question of rape and incest. We are called, as Christians, not to judge each other, let alone judge unfairly. The fetus did not commit the crime.

But like saving the mother’s life, the emotional response to rape and incest is understandably strong. So I usually point out that the true test of a belief is rather you will hold it when it costs you something. We Catholics don’t just waggle our fingers at women and say ‘no’ to abortion. We hold life in ultimate regard in all cases. Evangelium Vitae ties abortion, euthanasia, and even the death penalty all together as examples of the same teaching, the inalienable rights of the human person.
 
Alright, I see what you’re saying now. I think we agree that we should only do what we are capable of doing. I wasn’t trying to say we need to adopt, only that we need to be “willing” to adopt, and was why I used that word so frequently.

I really do apologize for not having made that more clear, sorry 😦
That is okay, abortion is such a heated topic that I think that sometimes we don’t always make ourselves very clear.🙂
 
Ok, where are all these “packed orphanages?” The only ones I’m aware of are in China and 3rd world countries, due to China’s brutal “one child policy” and extreme poverty, respecively. I don’t believe we have any “packed orphanages” here in the U.S. We have a packed foster care system, but it’s not full of children given up at birth, it’s mostly older kids taken from their parents after abuse or neglect, or infants taken after being born addicted to drugs. The fact is, there are many many couples (there was a thread about this on the parenting board earlier, actually, it was an old thread about the morality of ivf, but it veered off into adoption) who wait years to adopt, b/c healthy infants (especially caucasion) are not available, mostly because 1 in 4 “unplanned” pregnancies end in abortion. So telling all of us we can’t speak against abortion unless we adopt is ridiculous. Why should I, who have 4 kids now and no fertility problems, take a child that an infertile couple might be waiting for? I totally agree that we all need to support crisis pregnancy centers and help women facing unplanned pregnancy, but it’s crazy to say we can’t fight abortion unless we all adopt children. Even if we all signed up to do so, 1 in 4 babies would still die. Women don’t abort b/c the “orphanages are packed”. I’m sorry, but that’s ridulous.

In Christ,

Ellen
 
What is the best way to respond to these pro-choice arguments?
  1. “It’s all very well saying you’re against abortion, but what if your wife got raped? I’m sure you’ll say you’d keep it, but you don’t know until you’re in that situation”.
The real answer is, the essense of justice and democracy is to not make policy based on how it affects you personally. You might just as well ask, “It’s all very well saying you’re against murder, but what if your wife was accused of that crime?”
  1. “You can believe what you want about the issue, but you can’t go around forcing your religious beliefs on others who don’t share them. You might believe life begins at conception, but other people have a different opinion on that issue”.
Thanks and God bless.
“And you might believe a woman has a right to refuse sex, but you can’t go around forcing your personal beliefs on others who don’t share them. There should be no laws against rape.”

See how silly these arguments are?
 
Ok, where are all these “packed orphanages?” The only ones I’m aware of are in China and 3rd world countries, due to China’s brutal “one child policy” and extreme poverty, respecively. I don’t believe we have any “packed orphanages” here in the U.S. We have a packed foster care system, but it’s not full of children given up at birth, it’s mostly older kids taken from their parents after abuse or neglect, or infants taken after being born addicted to drugs. The fact is, there are many many couples (there was a thread about this on the parenting board earlier, actually, it was an old thread about the morality of ivf, but it veered off into adoption) who wait years to adopt, b/c healthy infants (especially caucasion) are not available, mostly because 1 in 4 “unplanned” pregnancies end in abortion. So telling all of us we can’t speak against abortion unless we adopt is ridiculous. Why should I, who have 4 kids now and no fertility problems, take a child that an infertile couple might be waiting for? I totally agree that we all need to support crisis pregnancy centers and help women facing unplanned pregnancy, but it’s crazy to say we can’t fight abortion unless we all adopt children. Even if we all signed up to do so, 1 in 4 babies would still die. Women don’t abort b/c the “orphanages are packed”. I’m sorry, but that’s ridulous.

In Christ,

Ellen
Alright then, a packed foster care system. Either way, the result is the same, little likelihood of children being well taken care of through adoption.

from:
statistics.adoption.com/information/foster-care-statistics.html
Nearly 40% of American adults, or 81.5 million people, have considered adopting a child. If just one in 500 of these adults adopt, all of the 134,000 children in foster care waiting for adoption would have permanent, loving families, according to the new National Adoption Attitudes Survey.
Also, a problem is many people only looking for caucasian infants to adopt, and often place restrictions against adopting any children who might be from drug-using parents. And another problem is a corrupt foster care system that wrongfully takes children from parents for wrong reasons.
 
Also, a problem is many people only looking for caucasian infants to adopt, and often place restrictions against adopting any children who might be from drug-using parents. And another problem is a corrupt foster care system that wrongfully takes children from parents for wrong reasons.
Along with a thicket of regulations that make adoption both expensive and nearly impossible. Here in Arkansas, children are shunted around the system, lest they become “attached” to their foster parents. In some places inter-racial adoption is vigorously discouraged.
 
Along with a thicket of regulations that make adoption both expensive and nearly impossible. Here in Arkansas, children are shunted around the system, lest they become “attached” to their foster parents. In some places inter-racial adoption is vigorously discouraged.
True, there’s that, too. I suppose because of the financial roadblocks here in the U.S., adopting internationally might be the more available route for many families.

Perhaps some legislation is needed to stop adoption agencies from charging an arm and a leg?
 
Along with a thicket of regulations that make adoption both expensive and nearly impossible. Here in Arkansas, children are shunted around the system, lest they become “attached” to their foster parents. In some places inter-racial adoption is vigorously discouraged.
Adoption is hardly impossible. I have 7 adopted nieces and nephews, 6 are non-white and 5 are disabled. The hurdles are higher in some states, but the reasons are complex. For example, Arkansas has repeatedly tried various bans, like gay adoption and cohabitation adoption, which, although so far overturned by the state’s supreme court, slows things down (I guess the legality of one’s marital status and any preference for gladiator movies has to be checked.) Even a preference against inter-racial placements is not always simple. Sometimes they are enacted out of perceived best interests of the children, sometimes simply because of high rates of placement failure.

Also, we need to be careful when it comes to assign simple motives and actions. Arkansas has Title IV-E Foster Care issues, which are at least partly responsible for the ‘shunting’.

One foster care reform group I support is kidsarewaiting.org. The site has some pretty compelling statistics.
 
Adoption is hardly impossible. I have 7 adopted nieces and nephews, 6 are non-white and 5 are disabled. The hurdles are higher in some states, but the reasons are complex. For example, Arkansas has repeatedly tried various bans, like gay adoption and cohabitation adoption, which, although so far overturned by the state’s supreme court, slows things down (I guess the legality of one’s marital status and any preference for gladiator movies has to be checked.) Even a preference against inter-racial placements is not always simple. Sometimes they are enacted out of perceived best interests of the children, sometimes simply because of high rates of placement failure.

Also, we need to be careful when it comes to assign simple motives and actions. Arkansas has Title IV-E Foster Care issues, which are at least partly responsible for the ‘shunting’.

One foster care reform group I support is kidsarewaiting.org. The site has some pretty compelling statistics.
Wow, great site, thanks!
 
What is the best way to respond to these pro-choice arguments?
  1. “It’s all very well saying you’re against abortion, but what if your wife got raped? I’m sure you’ll say you’d keep it, but you don’t know until you’re in that situation”.
  2. “You can believe what you want about the issue, but you can’t go around forcing your religious beliefs on others who don’t share them. You might believe life begins at conception, but other people have a different opinion on that issue”.
Thanks and God bless.
I would ask them to explain exactly what “it” is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top