What's your denomination/religions views towards abortion?

[joanofarc2008]

I have known a few young girls that have gone to confession years after having had an abortion. They were truly remorseful. They were granted absolution. They were NOT in any way, shape, or form excommunicated…

I think you misunderstand what excommunicated means. Excommunicated means that you are outside of communion - meaning that you cannot take the Eucharist until you receive Confession. In many dioceses this is still only able to be done by the Bishop, certain Orders of Penance, retreats done by Rachel’s Vineyard are delegated are also delegated to handle this. In other dioceses due to the massive numbers the Bishop does delegate the ability to handle these confessions down to the priests.

By very nature of these women going to confession they were brought in to communion and the excommunication was lifted.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**Please stick with the topic of the OP.

What’s your denomination/religions views

towards abortion?**

 

[FightingFat]

What’s your denomination’s/religion’s views/position towards abortion? If you have no religion what is your own personal views towards abortion.

Abortion is a terrible evil, the wilful murder of an innocent, helpless child. Thus it is the clearest violation of the 5th commandment I can conceive of.

The ELCA describes itself as “a community supportive of life,” and encourages women to explore alternatives to abortion such as adoption. However, the Social Statement asserts that there are certain circumstances under which a decision to end a pregnancy can be “morally responsible.” These include cases where the pregnancy “presents a clear threat to the physical life of the woman,”

It is OK to murder an innocent child if there is a threat to the life of the mother? Is this acceptable outside the womb as well?

situations where “the pregnancy occurs when both parties do not participate willingly in sexual intercourse,”

So if the woman is raped, it’s OK to murder the child that results? Man that makes no sense whatsoever!

and “circumstances of extreme fetal abnormality, which will result in severe suffering and very early death of an infant.”

This amounts to a doctor deciding whether an unborn child deserves the chance to live or not, and making decisions about the decision God made to bring that person to life doesn’t it?

Regardless of the reason, the ELCA opposes abortion when “a fetus is developed enough to live outside a uterus with the aid of reasonable and necessary technology.”

Why? Why does it make a difference when you kill someone? When they are 10 months, when they are 2 years? Because they look more human the older they are? Do they become human at a certain age? What age is that?

The ELCA opposes “laws that deny access to safe and affordable services for morally justifiable abortions,” and “laws that are primarily intended to harass those contemplating or deciding for an abortion.” The statement emphasizes the prevention of circumstances leading to abortion, specifically encouraging “appropriate forms of sex education in schools, community pregnancy prevention programs, and parenting preparation classes.”

So basically, it is a pro-abortion organisation.

 

[manualman]

As others have noted, the catholic position on abortion is quite clear: murder.

But it should also be noted that sometimes there ARE hard medical cases for pregnant women in which the outcome will be fatal for both if nothing is done. Ectopic pregnancy, for example. In that, it is NOT an abortion to remove the affected fallopian tube in which the baby is lodged. Killing the baby is NOT a goal of this procedure, but an unavoidable side effect. Doing nothing allows both to die. Thus, this does not fall under the definition of abortion (intentional killing of innocent unborn baby to achieve other goals).

The problem with the ELCA criteria as I read them is that they are so vague as to be useless. Humans are geniuses at rationalization. There are so many holes in the statement that you could drive a truck through it. Anybody who wants an abortion can find a justifiable reason in there if they want to. And tragically, many people seem to want to.

 

[IanCorrigan]

What’s your denomination’s/religion’s views/position towards abortion? If you have no religion what is your own personal views towards abortion?"

I’m a Pagan, and so, of course, no centralized authority tells me what to believe. After long thoughton this matter here’s my opinion:

1: The divine inheres in the human spirit. The personal will is an expression of the divine will. Humanity is not ‘fallen’ and we do not have an inherently sinful nature, rather we are true and right, as we have grown to be, thus our will is as right as our wisdom can make it.

2: Every woman, therefor, is an expression of the Goddesses. When a woman becomes pregnant, she has the option to become an expression of the Mother Goddess.

3: However, the Goddesses are many - not all are about fertility and motherhood. Some are about other kinds of sexuality, some about commerce and education, some about war and wildness. All of these are options for the individual woman.

4: A fetus is a potential person, not a real person . It has no independent life, existing entirely as an extention of the Mother, from whom it draws its substance. (Yes, there was a cell from the father involved, but just one…)

5: It is, then, entirely the mother’s choice as to whether the fetus is a ‘baby’ (i.e. a new human life) or not. The fetus has no will or desire of its own, it has no history or direction, it is merely potential, if the Mother allows it.

6: So, when a woman chooses to have a baby it is a conscious choice based in love and will. It is not a ‘consequence’ of some previous action, it is not a sentence, it is a decision made in love.

7: When a woman decides not to bear a fetus to term, it is simply the end of a potential life, ended as ‘naturally’ as if by disease. Some may view it as unfortunate, some not, but it’s the choice of the woman.

Thus it is, morally, an individual choice by the mother. The woman has the moral authority, based on her divine nature, to choose whether or not to use her own body to bear a baby to term. She is under no obligation to do so, and any child born to her should be born in love and will.

Just for the record, this sort of moral authority declines drastically when the other party has the ability to express a will. A fetus has no will or intent, however much we might romantically grant it a ‘will to live’. A murder victim has a desire to fulfill their life tomorrow, and can be asked whether or not they want to live.

 

[meltzerboy]

I’m a Pagan, and so, of course, no centralized authority tells me what to believe. After long thoughton this matter here’s my opinion:

1: The divine inheres in the human spirit. The personal will is an expression of the divine will. Humanity is not ‘fallen’ and we do not have an inherently sinful nature, rather we are true and right, as we have grown to be, thus our will is as right as our wisdom can make it.

2: Every woman, therefor, is an expression of the Goddesses. When a woman becomes pregnant, she has the option to become an expression of the Mother Goddess.

3: However, the Goddesses are many - not all are about fertility and motherhood. Some are about other kinds of sexuality, some about commerce and education, some about war and wildness. All of these are options for the individual woman.

4: A fetus is a potential person, not a real person . It has no independent life, existing entirely as an extention of the Mother, from whom it draws its substance. (Yes, there was a cell from the father involved, but just one…)

5: It is, then, entirely the mother’s choice as to whether the fetus is a ‘baby’ (i.e. a new human life) or not. The fetus has no will or desire of its own, it has no history or direction, it is merely potential, if the Mother allows it.

6: So, when a woman chooses to have a baby it is a conscious choice based in love and will. It is not a ‘consequence’ of some previous action, it is not a sentence, it is a decision made in love.

7: When a woman decides not to bear a fetus to term, it is simply the end of a potential life, ended as ‘naturally’ as if by disease. Some may view it as unfortunate, some not, but it’s the choice of the woman.

Thus it is, morally, an individual choice by the mother. The woman has the moral authority, based on her divine nature, to choose whether or not to use her own body to bear a baby to term. She is under no obligation to do so, and any child born to her should be born in love and will.

Just for the record, this sort of moral authority declines drastically when the other party has the ability to express a will. A fetus has no will or intent, however much we might romantically grant it a ‘will to live’. A murder victim has a desire to fulfill their life tomorrow, and can be asked whether or not they want to live.

Torah Judaism agrees with SOME of what you say, particularly #1 and #4. Even though the soul of the fetus may not be bestowed until birth, though, there is a time dimension as well: abortion past the first trimester is permissible ONLY when the mother’s life is in danger. Before that time, rape and incest MAY BE determinant factors as well. Still, there is no definitive consensus among the several divisions of Orthodoxy. Conservative Judaism and, especially, Reform Judaism are, however, more pro-choice and the latter agrees with more of what you say, EXCEPT for the Goddess description, which, frankly, is paganism, of course!

 

[meltzerboy]

However, a baby is a separate being apart from the mother, albeit helpless to be sure, and has the POTENTIAL of breathing and receiving nourishment through its own biological mechanisms (if cared for), which the fetus–particularly in the first trimester of pregnancy–cannot do apart from the mother. I think extending the logic even this little bit further makes a significant difference and renders the argument illogical. The crux of the matter for me, if one is speaking primarily about abortion in the case of BOTH mother and unborn child who will die without abortion vs. mother who will live with abortion is the value of life attached to the unborn child vs. the value of life attached to the mother. Catholicism is unequivocal on this issue–so it appears based on the numerous posts I have read–that human life is sacred beginning with conception, no matter which stage of development it is in. Judaism, on the other hand, places a higher value on the mother’s life (especially early in the pregnancy, but even later). This may seem discriminatory and immoral to many Catholics on a personal level and according to Church doctrine, but there you have it. Torah Judaism finds Torah and rabbinical justification for this teaching (the principle of saving a life), and I wouldn’t exactly call it rationalization. It recognizes, however, the agony involved in the process for all concerned, especially the surviving mother and her family.

 

[FightingFat]

How important actually is the time frame and why? Isn’t this a question of ontology? Can meltzerboy, IanCorrigan, et al, really be arguing that ***what ***a foetus is changes at birth?



*What *the child is does not change in the third trimester, it may look at bit more like a child than it did previously, but it hasn’t changed in terms of its whatness.

 

[Greg27]

Anglicans have a range of views about abortion. More conservative Anglicans in Australia tend to share the view the Catholic Church has; abortion is never permissible in any circumstances, and they are strongly ‘pro-life.’ Others regard abortion as morally wrong, but believe it should be permitted in some circumstances (i.e. rape or an immediate threat to the life of the mother).

As with most moral issues not touching directly on the essential articles of faith, I think abortion is something a person has to decide according to conscience informed by Christian beliefs and principles. While the Bible itself does not say anything about Abortion, church tradition and other principles do strongly affirm that human life is a good creation of God to be treasured rather than despised. The church tradition has also always gone out to emphasize God’s love for the weak, the poor, and the despised.

In my view these principles strongly support the Christian belief that it is morally wrong to take innocent life, including that of an unborn child. But I believe there are compelling reasons why abortion should remain legally available and safe to those who need it, especially in cases of rape or immediate threat to the mother’s life.

I also have a lot of difficulty with the proposition that human life begins at conception. Even Catholic theologians admit it is not clear when the soul is infused into the body, and the Popes did not definitely rule on the matter until the early 20th century. I think in the case of doubt, the moral choice should be to favour the life of the embryo and fetus and not give ‘abortion on demand’ (especially where the fetus is healthy and in late-term). But as I said earlier, I can’t accept a total ban on abortion and I don’t think criminalising it would help reduce the issue of abortion.

I also don’t believe a uniform view of abortion should be forced onto a Christian’s conscience by church leaders, as happens in the Catholic Church. People have diverse views on the matter and should be able to follow their conscience on matters not relating directly to essentials of faith.

I think a better approach is for churches to work to change social structures to encourage social justice and a culture of life (especially since many women who abort fetuses are poor) and provide better social and pastoral care to women considering an abortion, including material support and counselling. I think the rate of abortions needs to be reduced as much as possible and this won’t be achieved without doing more to remedy the social and economic injustices rife in most societies.

 

[FightingFat]

Anglicans have a range of views about abortion.

Isn’t that true about almost any subject you can think of Greg?

 

[FightingFat]

 

[meltzerboy]

Fair enough.

 

[meltzerboy]

Anglicans have a range of views about abortion. More conservative Anglicans in Australia tend to share the view the Catholic Church has; abortion is never permissible in any circumstances, and they are strongly ‘pro-life.’ Others regard abortion as morally wrong, but believe it should be permitted in some circumstances (i.e. rape or an immediate threat to the life of the mother).

As with most moral issues not touching directly on the essential articles of faith, I think abortion is something a person has to decide according to conscience informed by Christian beliefs and principles. While the Bible itself does not say anything about Abortion, church tradition and other principles do strongly affirm that human life is a good creation of God to be treasured rather than despised. The church tradition has also always gone out to emphasize God’s love for the weak, the poor, and the despised.

In my view these principles strongly support the Christian belief that it is morally wrong to take innocent life, including that of an unborn child. But I believe there are compelling reasons why abortion should remain legally available and safe to those who need it, especially in cases of rape or immediate threat to the mother’s life.

I also have a lot of difficulty with the proposition that human life begins at conception. Even Catholic theologians admit it is not clear when the soul is infused into the body, and the Popes did not definitely rule on the matter until the early 20th century. I think in the case of doubt, the moral choice should be to favour the life of the embryo and fetus and not give ‘abortion on demand’ (especially where the fetus is healthy and in late-term). But as I said earlier, I can’t accept a total ban on abortion and I don’t think criminalising it would help reduce the issue of abortion.

I also don’t believe a uniform view of abortion should be forced onto a Christian’s conscience by church leaders, as happens in the Catholic Church. People have diverse views on the matter and should be able to follow their conscience on matters not relating directly to essentials of faith.

I think a better approach is for churches to work to change social structures to encourage social justice and a culture of life (especially since many women who abort fetuses are poor) and provide better social and pastoral care to women considering an abortion, including material support and counselling. I think the rate of abortions needs to be reduced as much as possible and this won’t be achieved without doing more to remedy the social and economic injustices rife in most societies.

A most reasonable argument in my view.

 

[FightingFat]

As with most moral issues not touching directly on the essential articles of faith, I think abortion is something a person has to decide according to conscience informed by Christian beliefs and principles. While the Bible itself does not say anything about Abortion, church tradition and other principles do strongly affirm that human life is a good creation of God to be treasured rather than despised. The church tradition has also always gone out to emphasize God’s love for the weak, the poor, and the despised.

The Bible says nothing about abortion? Let’s look at some of the Biblical reasons why abortion, the deliberate destruction of a child in the womb, is very wrong:

1. The Bible teaches that human life is different from other types of life, because human beings are made in the very image of God.

The accounts of the creation of man and woman in Genesis (Genesis 1:26-31; 2:4-25) tell us this: “God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27).

The word “create” is used three times here, emphasizing a special crowning moment in the whole process of God’s making the world and everything in it. The man and woman are given “dominion” over everything else in the visible world.

Not even the original sin takes away the image of God in human beings. St. James refers to this image and says that because of it we should not even speak ill of one another. “With [the tongue] we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings who are made in the image of God . . . This ought not be so, brothers” (James 3:9-10).

The image of God! This is what it means to be human! We are not just a bunch of cells randomly thrown together by some impersonal forces. Rather, we really reflect an eternal God who knew us from before we were made, and purposely called us into being.

At the heart of the abortion tragedy is the question raised in the Psalms: “Lord, what is man that you care for him, mortal man that you keep him in mind? . . . With glory and honor you crowned him, giving him power over the works of your hands” (Psalm 8:5-7).

There is the key. Not only did God make us, but He values us. The Bible tells us of a God who is madly in love with us, so much so that He became one of us and even died for us while we were still offending Him (see Romans 5:6-8). In the face of all this, can we say that human beings are disposable, like a car that becomes more trouble than it is worth? “God doesn’t make junk.” If you believe the Bible, you have to believe that human life is sacred, more sacred than we have ever imagined!

1. The Bible teaches that children are a blessing.

God commanded our first parents to “Be fertile and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). Why? God Himself is fertile. Love always overflows into life. When the first mother brought forth the first child, she exclaimed, “I have brought forth a man with the help of the Lord” (Genesis 4:1). The help of the Lord is essential, for He has dominion over human life and is its origin. Parents cooperate with God in bringing forth life. Because this whole process is under God’s dominion, it is sinful to interrupt it. The prophet Amos condemns the Ammonites “because they ripped open expectant mothers in Gilead” (Amos 1:13).

“Truly children are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3).

1. The Bible teaches that the child in the womb is truly a human child, who even has a relationship with the Lord.

The phrase “conceived and bore” is used repeatedly (see Genesis 4:1,17) and the individual has the same identity before as after birth. “In sin my mother conceived me,” the repentant psalmist says in Psalm 51:7. The same word is used for the child before and after birth (Brephos, that is, “infant,” is used in Luke 1:41 and Luke 18:15.)

God knows the preborn child. “You knit me in my mother’s womb . . . nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret” (Psalm 139:13,15). God also helps and calls the preborn child. “You have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my mother’s womb you are my God” (Psalm 22:10-11). “God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace” (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15).

1. Scripture repeatedly condemns the killing of the innocent.

This flows from everything that has been seen so far. God’s own finger writes in stone the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17) and Christ reaffirms it (Matthew 19:18 - notice that He mentions this commandment first). The Book of Revelation affirms that (unrepentant) murderers cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (Revelation 22:15).

The killing of children is especially condemned by God through the prophets. In the land God gave his people to occupy, foreign nations had the custom of sacrificing some of their children in fire. God told His people that they were not to share in this sin. They did, however, as Psalm 106 relates: “They mingled with the nations and learned their works…They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and they shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, desecrating the land with bloodshed” (Psalm 106:35, 37-38).

This sin of child-sacrifice, in fact, is mentioned as one of the major reasons that the Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians and the people taken into exile. “They mutilated their sons and daughters by fire…till the Lord, in his great anger against Israel, put them away out of his sight” (2 Kings 17:17-18).

Notice that this practice was a religious ritual. Not even for “religious freedom” can the killing of children be tolerated.

 

[FightingFat]

1. The Bible teaches that God is a God of justice.

An act of justice is an act of intervention for the helpless, an act of defense for those who are too weak to defend themselves. In foretelling the Messiah, Psalm 72 says, “Justice shall flower in his days…for he shall rescue the poor man when he cries out and the afflicted when he has no one to help him” (Psalms 72:7,12). Jesus Christ is our justice (1 Corinthians 1:30) because He rescued us from sin and death when we had none to help us (see Romans 5:6, Ephesians 2:4-5).

If God does justice for His people, He expects His people to do justice for one another. “Be merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37). “Do unto others as you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12). “Love one another” (John 15:17).

Abortion is the opposite of these teachings. It is a reversal of justice. It is a destruction of the helpless rather than a rescue of them. If God’s people do not intervene to save those whose lives are attacked, then the people are not pleasing or worshiping Him.

God says through Isaiah, “Trample my courts no more! Bring no more worthless offerings…Your festivals I detest…When you spread out your hands, I close my eyes to you; though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood! Wash yourselves clean…learn to do good. Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan’s plea, defend the widow” (Isaiah 1:13-17).

Indeed, those who worship God but support abortion are falling into the same contradiction as God’s people of old, and need to hear the same message.

1. Jesus Christ paid special attention to the poor, the despised, and those whom the rest of society considered insignificant.

He broke down the false barriers that people set up among themselves, and instead acknowledged the equal human dignity of every individual, despite what common opinion might say. Hence we see Him reach out to children despite the efforts of the apostles to keep them away (Matthew 19:13-15); to tax collectors and sinners despite the objections of the Scribes (Mark 2:16); to the blind despite the warnings of the crowd (Matthew 20:29-34); to a foreign woman despite the utter surprise of the disciples and of the woman herself (John 4:9, 27); to Gentiles despite the anger of the Jews (Matthew 21:41-46); and to the lepers, despite their isolation from the rest of society (Luke 17:11-19).

When it comes to human dignity, Christ erases distinctions. St. Paul declares, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

We can likewise say, “There is neither born nor unborn.” Using this distinction as a basis for the value of life or the protection one deserves is meaningless and offensive to all that Scripture teaches. The unborn are the segment of our society which is most neglected and discriminated against. Christ Himself surely has a special love for them.

1. Scripture teaches us to love.

St. John says, “This is the message you have heard from the beginning: we should love one another, unlike Cain who belonged to the evil one and slaughtered his brother” (1 John 3:11-12). Love is directly contrasted with slaughter. To take the life of another is to break the command of love. To fail to help those in need and danger is also to fail to love.

Christ teaches this clearly in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), in the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), and in many other places.

No group of people is in more serious danger than the boys and girls in the womb. “If someone…sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of God remain in Him?” (1 John 3:17).

1. Life is victorious over death.

This is one of Scripture’s most basic themes. The victory of life is foretold in the promise that the head of the serpent, through whom death entered the world, would be crushed (see Genesis 3:15).

Isaiah promised, “He will destroy death forever” (Isaiah 25:8). At the scene of the first murder, the soil “opened its mouth” to swallow Abel’s blood. At the scene of the final victory of life, it is death itself that “will be swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?…Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:54-57).

Abortion is death. Christ came to conquer death, and therefore abortion. “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10).

The final outcome of the battle for life has already been decided by the Resurrection of Christ. We are not just working for victory; we are working from victory. We joyfully take a victory that has already been won, and proclaim, celebrate, and serve it until He comes again to bring it to its fullness. “There shall be no more death” (Revelation 21:4). “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22:20).

 

[FightingFat]

especially in cases of rape or immediate threat to the mother’s life.

Two points. If we don’t kill the guilty rapist, why is it morally acceptable to kill the innocent child that is a direct consequence of the rapist’s actions?

Secondly, hard cases make bad law. Whether we consider abortion should be a course of action reserved to a last resort or not, we can **clearly **observe that the vast majority of abortions are for reasons of convenience.

I also have a lot of difficulty with the proposition that human life begins at conception. Even Catholic theologians admit it is not clear when the soul is infused into the body, and the Popes did not definitely rule on the matter until the early 20th century. I think in the case of doubt, the moral choice should be to favour the life of the embryo and fetus and not give ‘abortion on demand’ (especially where the fetus is healthy and in late-term).

Good point, it’s like a bear hunter shooting a gun a a rustling bush hoping that the rustling is a bear. Actually, he doesn’t know what it is, so surely best wait and see if it is a bear, or if it is a human being?

I also don’t believe a uniform view of abortion should be forced onto a Christian’s conscience by church leaders, as happens in the Catholic Church. People have diverse views on the matter and should be able to follow their conscience on matters not relating directly to essentials of faith.

I think the matter is very clear, abortion is clearly an aberration in the manner the same manner that slave trade was an aberration. Can you put forward any argument to the contrary? I think I have demonstrated that the Bible has plenty to say on the matter, so can we really accept that it has nothing to do with our apostolic faith or the law of God? Certainly in the CCC it is noted in conjunction with the 5th commandment:

 

[FightingFat]

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

 

[IanCorrigan]

How important actually is the time frame and why? Isn’t this a question of ontology? Can meltzerboy, IanCorrigan, et al, really be arguing that ***what ***a foetus is changes at birth?
What

the child is does not change in the third trimester, it may look at bit more like a child than it did previously, but it hasn’t changed in terms of its whatness.

I see no reason at while why a fetus wouldn’t change its essential character in stages.

But most importantly, its whatness isn’t determined by any authority outside of the mother. Rather the mother is the will of the divine in determining whether this lump of biology is a ‘baby’ or a ‘product of conception’.
Ain’t nobody’s bidness but her own…

 

[FightingFat]

I see no reason at while why a fetus wouldn’t change its essential character in stages.

We all develop and certain ‘accidents’ change; the amount or colour of our hair or eyes, the size of our waist, the length of our limbs, but this is not a change in essential character, or whatness. In other words, these changes do not constitute an ontological alteration, a change in *being *or essence. This is not something we can argue about, something that is moveable or relative, this is scientific fact.

But most importantly, its whatness isn’t determined by any authority outside of the mother. Rather the mother is the will of the divine in determining whether this lump of biology is a ‘baby’ or a ‘product of conception’.
Ain’t nobody’s bidness but her own…

Sorry, you couldn’t be more wrong. What the thing is is clear, it is a human being with potential. Nothing will be added to it bar nutrients and oxygen. It has everything essential to the person it will develop into present from the moment of conception. If we ask “what is that” the answer is “that is an unborn human person”.

The reality of abortion is that in order to condone it requires that you accept that killing this child, at its most innocent, at its most vulnerable, is morally justifiable. The argument that it’s not a human being is inaccurate and misleading.

 

[FightingFat]

:frighten: