What's your denomination/religions views towards abortion?

[JaredM]

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

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,” situations where “the pregnancy occurs when both parties do not participate willingly in sexual intercourse,” and “circumstances of extreme fetal abnormality, which will result in severe suffering and very early death of an infant.” 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.” 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.”

 

[JonNC]

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

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,” situations where “the pregnancy occurs when both parties do not participate willingly in sexual intercourse,” and “circumstances of extreme fetal abnormality, which will result in severe suffering and very early death of an infant.” 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.” 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.”

The statement of the LCMS is far more direct:

Q. What is the Missouri Synod’s view of abortion?

A. The LCMS believes that abortion is contrary to God’s Word and “is not a moral option except, except as a tragically unavoidable byproduct of medical procedures necessary to prevent the death of another human being, viz., the mother” (1979 Res. 3-02A). Official synodical resolutions and other materials on this topic are available from the Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR).

Further, here is a statement from former synod President Barry.
lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_abortion.pdf

Jon

 

[1ke]

Murdering babies is always morally wrong. ALWAYS. There is no such thing as a “morally justifiable” abortion.

 

[meltzerboy]

Murdering babies is always morally wrong. ALWAYS. There is no such thing as a “morally justifiable” abortion.

Is it true, as I have heard, that the Church teaches if the mother’s life is in imminent physical danger, it is the fetus who must be saved, rather than the mother, because the fetus has not been baptized and will go to limbo if it dies instead of heaven? This differs from Orthodox Judaism’s position on abortion in this regard, which is that the decision between saving the life of the mother and saving the unborn child is always in the direction of the mother’s life.

 

[meltzerboy]

Judaism’s view on abortion is not uniform–even within Orthodox (Torah) Judaism–and is extremely nuanced. Most Orthodox Jews, however, concur that danger to the physical life of the mother is the most important situation in which abortion is permissible, even beyond the first 40 days. (I believe Torah Judaism teaches that the soul of the baby is not yet bestowed in its prenatal state.) The Orthodox perspective is that abortion on demand for socioeconomic reasons is not permissible. However, there are other cases involving, for example, the psychological trauma–rather than the physical life–of the mother (as in rape or incest), that are hotly debated among the Orthodox, with different passages from the Torah cited to support opposing views. Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism have their own perspectives. This is only the tip of the iceberg on, what for Judaism as a whole, is a very complex issue.

 

[Montalo]

Is it true, as I have heard, that the Church teaches if the mother’s life is in imminent physical danger, it is the fetus who must be saved, rather than the mother, because the fetus has not been baptized and will go to limbo if it dies instead of heaven? This differs from Orthodox Judaism’s position on abortion in this regard, which is that the decision between saving the life of the mother and saving the unborn child is always in the direction of the mother’s life.

the Church teaches that every single attempt must be made in order that both parties will live

 

[Holly3278]

Everyone has a right to live from the moment of conception until natural death. Abortion is a horrendous and cruel tragedy that never should have been allowed to begin with. Unfortunately, it is legal in the United States. But just because it is legal in the United States and in many other countries that sure doesn’t mean it is legal in God’s eyes! It is very much illegal in God’s eyes and is a grave sin. Anyone who commits an abortion is automatically excommunicated. That is how seriously the Catholic Church takes abortion!

 

[z0wb13]

i say, if it feels good, go do it! note that abortions don’t feel good.

one excellent way to keep women subordinate to men is to take away control of their reproductive rights. it keeps them in an almost animal state of slavery to men; if they are constantly pregnant or nursing, they can’t really have careers, or any life outside of the home.

maybe it’s that women are too flighty or silly to make sound decisions for themselves, so it’s really nice that other people are willing to make their decisions for them. i honestly can’t understand why women need the right to vote either, since their fathers husbands can make better decisions for them.

those are my personal beliefs, shot through with a little fatuousness. as for religious beliefs, my religion says nothing about it. neither does the bible; it wasn’t an issue until the 1930’s. people did practice abortion 2000 years ago, but it is never addressed. thou shalt not kill doesn’t quite cover it, either, because people didn’t traditionally recognize pregnancy until the 2nd trimester.

this is a little off topic, but natural family planning (the rhythm method) doesn’t work. a women’s body doesn’t have an atomic clock that perfectly times every ovulation, or a thermostat either. ideas like this are why we need more sex education in schools, because otherwise people grow up to believe that what they learned about reproduction from their friends in middle school is sound medical advice. case in point, i literally used to think that a women could get pregnant if you spit in her mouth;p

@Holly: we are the same age, so we really don’t understand the horrors of back alley abortions that used to take place before roe v wade. it worked like this, poor women would get butchered, rich women would go to europe. abortions were still practiced either way, and they will continue to be practiced regardless of however many legal impediments are set up. the only difference is how safe it will be, and how badly the poor or otherwise less fortunate will be treated.

 

[z0wb13]

i think it’s fine if women choose to oppose abortion for themselves, or choose adoption over abortion, or whatever, as long as they have a choice. i don’t like it when a religious authority that i don’t take seriously is able to dictate its own morality; that is a theocracy.

so the OP was about personal views, and i don’t want to argue with you. you believe what you want to, and i’ll believe what i want, and we’ll agree not to force it on one another.

 

[1ke]

Is it true, as I have heard, that the Church teaches if the mother’s life is in imminent physical danger, it is the fetus who must be saved, rather than the mother, because the fetus has not been baptized and will go to limbo if it dies instead of heaven?

(a) There is no such teaching that a baby must be saved over a mother.

(b) Limbo is not a teaching of the Church either.

This differs from Orthodox Judaism’s position on abortion in this regard, which is that the decision between saving the life of the mother and saving the unborn child is always in the direction of the mother’s life.

It is always our duty to attempt to save both.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

i think it’s fine if women choose to oppose abortion for themselves, or choose adoption over abortion, or whatever, as long as they have a choice. i don’t like it when a religious authority that i don’t take seriously is able to dictate its own morality; that is a theocracy.

so the OP was about personal views, and i don’t want to argue with you. you believe what you want to, and i’ll believe what i want, and we’ll agree not to force it on one another.

I am sorry but this reasoning makes no sense. If a white supremacist thinks nonwhites aren’t really human beings and therefore subject to a campaign of ethnic cleansing, would you believe it wrong to take that “freedom of choice” from him?

 

[z0wb13]

you have to agree that what i said was my opinion. and you might as well give up trying to convince me i’m wrong, just as i have no intention of telling you that you are wrong.

what we can disagree on is how much of our belief systems we should be allowed to force on one another. i say none, you say more than none, i suppose. but people intentionally kill other people all the time. there are wars all the time. in the OT, god kills people almost indiscriminately, burning down whole cities, and commands the israelites to hunt down and kill every last amalekite.

if you want to oppose abortion, i think that’s great. but you have to understand that if reproductive rights came under the purview of the national or state government, then the government could just as easily require abortions as prohibit them. that would be great if the government’s positions were the same as your own, but it would basically be a dictatorship of the majority. and if you don’t believe me, look at china’s policy.

or imagine a hypothetical. there is a lady the flies apache helicopters in the army. the army has paid potentially $9 million to train her to do her job, but she happens to get pregnant. the army says “tough tacos, lady. you are the property of the US military, and you are going to get an abortion.” i know it’s an emotional issue, but think it through. it wasn’t cool back when the romans forced decisions on the christians back then, and it isn’t any cooler now for christians to dictate morality to everyone else.

anyway, i do respect your opinion. pro-choice means that i want you to be able to choose to carry all of your pregnancies to term, or some or none. i think that family planning should be done at the individual level.

 

[z0wb13]

I am sorry but this reasoning makes no sense. If a white supremacist thinks nonwhites aren’t really human beings and therefore subject to a campaign of ethnic cleansing, would you believe it wrong to take that “freedom of choice” from him?

you are drawing a false equivalency. i think that all babies can be aborted, regardless of their race;p

i’m joking, but you are sort of mis-characterizing what i’m saying. and i don’t have to make any sense, it’s a belief. just like you don’t have to make any sense in your opposition to abortion. but the KKK argument is a red herring. nonwhites really are human beings, so to make myself clear, i’m opposed to genocide and ethnic cleansing. i know it’s a hard position to take, and i’m very brave to do so. i also like good movies, and don’t really care for bad ones;p

 

[Stephen0]

Sorry z0wb, but allow me to substitue a few words to your post and see how it rings:

one excellent way to keep women subordinate to men is to take away control of their reproductive rights.
one excellent way to keep the fetus from interferring in the mother’s life is to take away control of their life.

it keeps them in an almost animal state of slavery to men; if they are constantly pregnant or nursing, they can’t really have careers, or any life outside of the home.
It keeps the baby in an almost non-human state of existance to the women; if they are dead, they can’t really have a natural life, or any life outside the womb.

Remember until slavery was abolished, a person could treat another human being as property. It was their “Right of control” of their property. How primative we look at this now. So the right of a mother to control her property should have limitations when it comes to another human life. In the majority of cases the mother freely intered into the condition of becoming pregnant. Why shouldn’t she acknowledge that there can be life giving consequences in willing her actions. Are we that removed from the reality of cause and consequences?

 

[meltzerboy]

I am sorry but this reasoning makes no sense. If a white supremacist thinks nonwhites aren’t really human beings and therefore subject to a campaign of ethnic cleansing, would you believe it wrong to take that “freedom of choice” from him?

I would indeed take his freedom of choice from him because there is NO social or religious dispute regarding the value of human life AFTER birth. (BTW I would NOT take his freedom of speech from him, which is a different issue.) But with regard to the life of an unborn child, there ARE valid and justifiable religious differences. Catholics believe life begins at conception so that the destruction of the embryo is murder, but OTHER faiths do not believe that, and still others agree with the scientific idea of viable life but not at the same level as after the first trimester. By the same token, there are different religious beliefs concerning whether a mother’s life should be saved by killing her unborn child (abortion), given that the child CANNOT live on their own without the mother. Should one sacrifice BOTH mother and child or spare the life of the mother by aborting the child? Traditional Catholicism says it is murder and no abortion should be allowed; Orthodox Judaism says it is killing but NOT murder, and provides a leniency for abortion in this case. This–as well as cases of rape and incest–are valid topics of debate because there is NO uniform social or religious norm on the issue. Catholics have every legal right to protest the current law regarding abortion; but NO legal right in the public sector to IMPOSE their own moral view on those who do not hold their particular moral beliefs. Otherwise, we have a theocracy, not a democracy.

 

[Stephen0]

you are drawing a false equivalency. i think that all babies can be aborted, regardless of their race;p

i’m joking, but you are sort of mis-characterizing what i’m saying. and i don’t have to make any sense, it’s a belief. just like you don’t have to make any sense in your opposition to abortion. but the KKK argument is a red herring. nonwhites really are human beings, so to make myself clear, i’m opposed to genocide and ethnic cleansing. i know it’s a hard position to take, and i’m very brave to do so. i also like good movies, and don’t really care for bad ones;p

z0wb, watch out for you just gave the political neanderthals a perfect reason for snuffing out your existance if they wished. Why? If any belief has intrinsic value to the beholder then all beliefs are equal including those of the KKK, the Nazis, and Attila the Hun. The only protection any of us has is for a set of universal truths beyond our subjective reach. Try “These truths are self evident, that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights etc.” The truths that this particular American was talking about was the yardstick to measure God’s values given to us. Even a deist can give a good accounting of himself in reflecting Christian values.

 

[z0wb13]

Remember until slavery was abolished, a person could treat another human being as property. It was their “Right of control” of their property. How primative we look at this now. So the right of a mother to control her property should have limitations when it comes to another human life. In the majority of cases the mother freely intered into the condition of becoming pregnant. Why shouldn’t she acknowledge that there can be life giving consequences in willing her actions. Are we that removed from the reality of cause and consequences?

it wasn’t that people could treat others like property (you still can if you want to), it was that blacks were legally property. there is a difference here.

i just don’t see how (or why) rights should be given to a class that cannot exercise any of those rights. like why not give animals the vote, or the dead? my religion (sort of) teaches that our dead relatives’ ghosts interact with the world of the living during certain phases of the moon, so why don’t they get their rights?

and before someone makes the mistake of dropping the “life, liberty, & PoH” line on me, there is no guarantee of those things in the constitution. a person cannot be denied their life, liberty or property without due process, and that means something different.

but just take me. i know that it’s pointless to expect other people to listen to the ghosts of my dead ancestors. those are my beliefs, and i know that other people might not ever accept them. i also send burnt offerings to the underworld, and send up sky lanterns during specific times of the year. i cannot reasonably demand other people to take that seriously.

i have to do what’s best for me, and christians have to do what’s best for them. i have the humility to not presume i know what’s best for every family on the planet. and i’ll leave it there, but understand that i do tolerate and even respect other’s views on this. it is a very emotional issue, and something that is probably best discussed by the two people involved that have to actually make those kinds of decisions regarding abortions. a public forum on the internet is probably not the best place to discuss such private matters.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

you are drawing a false equivalency. i think that all babies can be aborted, regardless of their race;p

i’m joking, but you are sort of mis-characterizing what i’m saying. and i don’t have to make any sense, it’s a belief. just like you don’t have to make any sense in your opposition to abortion. but the KKK argument is a red herring. nonwhites really are human beings, so to make myself clear, i’m opposed to genocide and ethnic cleansing. i know it’s a hard position to take, and i’m very brave to do so. i also like good movies, and don’t really care for bad ones;p

No, I am not. You are claiming that what constitutes a human being is subject to subjective opinion. That you won’t take your views to their logical conclusion is no argument in favor of your belief that is impermissible to enforce, via the law, our views on others.

I would indeed take his freedom of choice from him because there is NO social or religious dispute regarding the value of human life AFTER birth. (BTW I would NOT take his freedom of speech from him, which is a different issue.) But with regard to the life of an unborn child, there ARE valid and justifiable religious differences. Catholics believe life begins at conception so that the destruction of the embryo is murder, but OTHER faiths do not believe that, and still others agree with the scientific idea of viable life but not at the same level as after the first trimester. By the same token, there are different religious beliefs concerning whether a mother’s life should be saved by killing her unborn child (abortion), given that the child CANNOT live on their own without the mother. Should one sacrifice BOTH mother and child or spare the life of the mother by aborting the child? Traditional Catholicism says it is murder and no abortion should be allowed; Orthodox Judaism says it is killing but NOT murder, and provides a leniency for abortion in this case. This–as well as cases of rape and incest–are valid topics of debate because there is NO uniform social or religious norm on the issue. Catholics have every legal right to protest the current law regarding abortion; but NO legal right in the public sector to IMPOSE their own moral view on those who do not hold their particular moral beliefs. Otherwise, we have a theocracy, not a democracy.

I do not recognize the legitimacy of arguments in favor of abortion. When people try to justify killing innocent people, I don’t listen. Call me unreasonable…

I have every right to advocate that my position be made the law, just as the Orthodox Jew can do the same, the atheist can pursue his own agenda, etc. Every law is passed against someone’s will and someone’s deeply held religious, political, or ideological beliefs. That is a simple fact.

Finally, if some people did not disagree about the permissibility of genocide and ethnic cleansing, these crimes would not exist. Does it ever take a religious nature? Of course. Does it always? Of course not.

 

[vickimonica]

Everyone has a right to live from the moment of conception until natural death. Abortion is a horrendous and cruel tragedy that never should have been allowed to begin with. Unfortunately, it is legal in the United States. But just because it is legal in the United States and in many other countries that sure doesn’t mean it is legal in God’s eyes! It is very much illegal in God’s eyes and is a grave sin. Anyone who commits an abortion is automatically excommunicated. That is how seriously the Catholic Church takes abortion!

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…

 

[joanofarc2008]

you are drawing a false equivalency. i think that all babies can be aborted, regardless of their race;p

i’m joking, but you are sort of mis-characterizing what i’m saying. and i don’t have to make any sense, it’s a belief. just like you don’t have to make any sense in your opposition to abortion. but the KKK argument is a red herring. nonwhites really are human beings, so to make myself clear, i’m opposed to genocide and ethnic cleansing. i know it’s a hard position to take, and i’m very brave to do so. i also like good movies, and don’t really care for bad ones;p

Except for the fact the number of blacks that are aborted are disproportionate to the number of whites so if that does not meet the definition of ethnic cleansing I don’t what does.