Is Abortion Immoral?

September 11, 2011

I think the structure of this poll gives a little insight into the christian mentality.

The question is:

Is Abortion Immoral?

And available answers are "yes" or "no".

I couldn't honestly answer with either of those. If I'd answer honestly, it would probably be one of these:

Why should I care?

According to whom?

What do you mean by "immoral"?

I'm hungry.

September 12, 2011

Why Abortion is Moral
Abortion questions answered

All of the arguments against abortion boil down to six specific questions. The first five deal with the nature of the zygote-embryo-fetus growing inside a mother's womb. The last one looks at the morality of the practice. These questions are:

Is it alive?

Is it human?

Is it a person?

Is it physically independent?

Does it have human rights?

Is abortion murder?

Let's take a look at each of these questions. We'll show how anti-abortionists use seemingly logical answers to back up their cause, but then we'll show how their arguments actually support the fact that abortion is moral.

1. Is it alive?

Yes. Pro Choice supporters who claim it isn't do themselves and their cause a disservice. Of course it's alive. It's a biological mechanism that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It's alive.

Anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. "Life begins at conception" they claim. And they would be right. The genesis of a new human life begins when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a fertilized cell, called a zygote, with 46 chromosomes. The single-cell zygote contains all the DNA necessary to grow into an independent, conscious human being. It is a potential person.

But being alive does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation.

A single-cell ameba also coverts nutrients and oxygen into biological energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply and grow. It also contains a full set of its own DNA. It shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is not a potential person. Left to grow, it will always be an ameba - never a human person. It is just as alive as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.

And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why we must answer the following questions as well.

2. Is it human?

Yes. Again, Pro Choice defenders stick their feet in their mouths when they defend abortion by claiming the zygote-embryo-fetus isn't human. It is human. Its DNA is that of a human. Left to grow, it will become a full human person.

And again, anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. They are fond of saying, "an acorn is an oak tree in an early stage of development; likewise, the zygote is a human being in an early stage of development." And they would be right. But having a full set of human DNA does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation.

Don't believe me? Here, try this: reach up to your head, grab one strand of hair, and yank it out. Look at the base of the hair. That little blob of tissue at the end is a hair follicle. It also contains a full set of human DNA. Granted it's the same DNA pattern found in every other cell in your body, but in reality the uniqueness of the DNA is not what makes it a different person. Identical twins share the exact same DNA, and yet we don't say that one is less human than the other, nor are two twins the exact same person. It's not the configuration of the DNA that makes a zygote human; it's simply that it has human DNA. Your hair follicle shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is a little bit bigger and it is not a potential person. (These days even that's not an absolute considering our new-found ability to clone humans from existing DNA, even the DNA from a hair follicle.)

Your hair follicle is just as human as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.

And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why the following two questions become critically important to the abortion debate.

3. Is it a person?

No. It's merely a potential person.

Webster's Dictionary lists a person as "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." Anti-abortionists claim that each new fertilized zygote is already a new person because its DNA is uniquely different than anyone else's. In other words, if you're human, you must be a person.

Of course we've already seen that a simple hair follicle is just as human as a single-cell zygote, and, that unique DNA doesn't make the difference since two twins are not one person. It's quite obvious, then, that something else must occur to make one human being different from another. There must be something else that happens to change a DNA-patterned body into a distinct person. (Or in the case of twins, two identically DNA-patterned bodies into two distinct persons.)

There is, and most people inherently know it, but they have trouble verbalizing it for one very specific reason.

The defining mark between something that is human and someone who is a person is 'consciousness.' It is the self-aware quality of consciousness that makes us uniquely different from others. This self-awareness, this sentient consciousness is also what separates us from every other animal life form on the planet. We think about ourselves. We use language to describe ourselves. We are aware of ourselves as a part of the greater whole.

The problem is that consciousness normally doesn't occur until months, even years, after a baby is born. This creates a moral dilemma for the defender of abortion rights. Indeed, they inherently know what makes a human into a person, but they are also aware such individual personhood doesn't occur until well after birth. To use personhood as an argument for abortion rights, therefore, also leads to the argument that it should be okay to kill a 3-month-old baby since it hasn't obtained consciousness either.

Anti-abortionists use this perceived problem in an attempt to prove their point. In a debate, a Pro Choice defender will rightly state that the difference between a fetus and a full-term human being is that the fetus isn't a person. The anti-abortion activist, being quite sly, will reply by asking his opponent to define what makes someone into a person. Suddenly the Pro Choice defender is at a loss for words to describe what he or she knows innately. We know it because we lived it. We know we have no memory of self-awareness before our first birthday, or even before our second. But we also quickly become aware of the "problem" we create if we say a human doesn't become a person until well after its birth. And we end up saying nothing. The anti-abortionist then takes this inability to verbalize the nature of personhood as proof of their claim that a human is a person at conception.

But they are wrong. Their "logic" is greatly flawed. Just because someone is afraid to speak the truth doesn't make it any less true.

And in reality, the Pro Choice defender's fear is unfounded. They are right, and they can state it without hesitation. A human indeed does not become a full person until consciousness. And consciousness doesn't occur until well after the birth of the child. But that does not automatically lend credence to the anti-abortionist's argument that it should, therefore, be acceptable to kill a three-month-old baby because it is not yet a person.

It is still a potential person. And after birth it is an independent potential person whose existence no longer poses a threat to the physical wellbeing of another. To understand this better, we need to look at the next question.

4. Is it physically independent?

No. It is absolutely dependent on another human being for its continued existence. Without the mother's life-giving nutrients and oxygen it would die. Throughout gestation the zygote-embryo-fetus and the mother's body are symbiotically linked, existing in the same physical space and sharing the same risks. What the mother does affects the fetus. And when things go wrong with the fetus, it affects the mother.

Anti-abortionists claim fetal dependence cannot be used as an issue in the abortion debate. They make the point that even after birth, and for years to come, a child is still dependent on its mother, its father, and those around it. And since no one would claim its okay to kill a child because of its dependency on others, we can't, if we follow their logic, claim it's okay to abort a fetus because of its dependence.

What the anti-abortionist fails to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child - such as in the anti-abortionist's argument above. That's social dependence; that's where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence.

Physical dependence was cleverly illustrated back in 1971 by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. She created a scenario in which a woman is kidnapped and wakes up to find she's been surgically attached to a world-famous violinist who, for nine months, needs her body to survive. After those nine months, the violinist can survive just fine on his own, but he must have this particular woman in order to survive until then.

Thompson then asks if the woman is morally obliged to stay connected to the violinist who is living off her body. It might be a very good thing if she did - the world could have the beauty that would come from such a violinist - but is she morally obliged to let another being use her body to survive?

This very situation is already conceded by anti-abortionists. They claim RU-486 should be illegal for a mother to take because it causes her uterus to flush its nutrient-rich lining, thus removing a zygote from its necessary support system and, therefore, ending its short existence as a life form. Thus the anti-abortionist's own rhetoric only proves the point of absolute physical dependence.

This question becomes even more profound when we consider a scenario where it's not an existing person who is living off the woman's body, but simply a potential person, or better yet, a single-cell zygote with human DNA that is no different than the DNA in a simple hair follicle.

To complicate it even further, we need to realize that physical dependence also means a physical threat to the life of the mother. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). That's 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion.

Therefore, not only is pregnancy the prospect of having a potential person physically dependent on the body of one particular women, it also includes the women putting herself into a life-threatening situation for that potential person.

Unlike social dependence, where the mother can choose to put her child up for adoption or make it a ward of the state or hire someone else to take care of it, during pregnancy the fetus is absolutely physically dependent on the body of one woman. Unlike social dependence, where a woman's physical life is not threatened by the existence of another person, during pregnancy, a woman places herself in the path of bodily harm for the benefit of a DNA life form that is only a potential person - even exposing herself to the threat of death.

This brings us to the next question: do the rights of a potential person supercede the rights of the mother to control her body and protect herself from potential life-threatening danger?

5. Does it have human rights?

Yes and No.

A potential person must always be given full human rights unless its existence interferes with the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of an already existing conscious human being. Thus, a gestating fetus has no rights before birth and full rights after birth.

If a fetus comes to term and is born, it is because the mother chooses to forgo her own rights and her own bodily security in order to allow that future person to gestate inside her body. If the mother chooses to exercise control over her own body and to protect herself from the potential dangers of childbearing, then she has the full right to terminate the pregnancy.

Anti-abortion activists are fond of saying "The only difference between a fetus and a baby is a trip down the birth canal." This flippant phrase may make for catchy rhetoric, but it doesn't belie the fact that indeed "location" makes all the difference in the world.

It's actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other - and thus they don't have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a "right to life" to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

After birth, on the other hand, the potential person no longer occupies the same body as the mother, and thus, giving it full human rights causes no interference with another's right to control her body. Therefore, even though a full-term human baby may still not be a person, after birth it enjoys the full support of the law in protecting its rights. After birth its independence begs that it be protected as if it were equal to a fully-conscience human being. But before birth its lack of personhood and its threat to the women in which it resides makes abortion a completely logical and moral choice.

Which brings us to our last question, which is the real crux of the issue....

6. Is abortion murder?

No. Absolutely not.

It's not murder if it's not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it's not murder to end the life of any child before she reaches consciousness, but we don't know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it's completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being.

Using independence also solves the problem of dealing with premature babies. Although a preemie is obviously still only a potential person, by virtue of its independence from the mother, we give it the full rights of a conscious person. This saves us from setting some other arbitrary date of when we consider a new human being a full person. Older cultures used to set it at two years of age, or even older. Modern religious cultures want to set it at conception, which is simply wishful thinking on their part. As we've clearly demonstrated, a single-cell zygote is no more a person that a human hair follicle.

But that doesn't stop religious fanatics from dumping their judgements and their anger on top of women who choose to exercise the right to control their bodies. It's the ultimate irony that people who claim to represent a loving God resort to scare tactics and fear to support their mistaken beliefs.

It's even worse when you consider that most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it. Even though it's not murder, it still eliminates a potential person, a potential daughter, a potential son. It's hard enough as it is. Women certainly don't need others telling them it's a murder.

It's not. On the contrary, abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body.

September 12, 2011

Just curious as to what kind of moral values atheists/agnostics have.

This one's for you StPaul:

Why Abortion is Biblical

How anti-abortion activists misrepresent the biblical record

One sided. That's the abortion stance of most Christians -- one sided. We hear the Christian Coalition speak against abortion. We hear Focus on the Family tell Republican candidates it will not support them unless they state their opposition to abortion. We hear Operation Rescue's Christian members praying God will turn back the clock and make abortion illegal again. Over and over we are bombarded with the "Christian" perspective that abortion is outright wrong, no exceptions.

With all these groups chanting the same mantra, there must be some pretty overwhelming biblical evidence of abortion's evil, right?

Wrong. In reality there is merely overwhelming evidence that most people don't take time to read their own Bibles. People will listen to their pastors and to Christian radio broadcasters. They will skim through easy-to-read pamphlets and perhaps look up the one or two verses printed therein, but they don't actually read their Bibles and make up their own minds on issues such as abortion. They merely listen to others who quote a verse to support a view they heard from someone else. By definition, most Christians, rather than reading for themselves, follow the beliefs of a Culture of Christianity -- and many of the Culture's beliefs are based on one or two verses of the Bible, often taken out of context.

This is most definitely the case when it comes to abortion. Ask most anti-abortion Christians to support their view, and they'll give you a couple of verses. One, quite obviously, is the Commandment against murder. But that begs the question of whether or not abortion is murder, which begs the question of whether or not a fetus is the same as a full-term human person. To support their beliefs, these Christians point to one of three bible verses that refer to God working in the womb. The first is found in Psalms:

"For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for Thou art fearfully wonderful (later texts were changed to read "for I am fearfully and wonderfully made"); wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them."

Psalm 139:13-16

Although this passage does make the point that God was involved in the creation of this particular human being, it does not state that during the creation the fetus is indeed a person. According to Genesis, God was involved in the creation of every living thing, and yet that doesn't make every living thing a full human person. In other words, just because God was involved in its creation, it does not mean terminating it is the same as murder. It's only murder if a full human person is destroyed.

But even if we agreed to interpret these verses the same way that anti-abortion Christians do, we still have a hard time arguing that the Bible supports an anti-abortion point of view. If anything, as we will soon see, abortion is biblical.

Anytime we take one or two verses out of their context and quote them as doctrine, we place ourselves in jeopardy of being contradicted by other verses. Similarly, some verses that make perfect sense while standing alone take on a different feel when seen in the greater context in which they were written. And we can do some rather bizarre things to the Scriptures when we take disparate verses from the same context and use them as stand-alone doctrinal statements. Some prime examples of this come from the same book of the Bible as our last quote. Consider these verses that claim that God has abandoned us:

Why dost Thou stand afar off, O Lord? Why dost Thou hide Thyself in times of trouble?"

Psalm 10:1

"How long, O Lord? Wilt Thou forget me forever? How long wilt Thou hide Thy face from me?"

Psalm 13:1

"O God, Thou hast rejected us. Thou hast broken us; Thou hast been angry; O, restore us.

Psalm 60:1

Not only can we use out-of-context verses to support that God doesn't care for us anymore, we can even use them to show how we can ask God to do horrible and vile things to people we consider our enemies. In this example, King David even wanted God to cause harm to the innocent children of his enemy:

"Let his days be few; let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children wander about and beg; and let them seek sustenance far from their ruined homes. Let the creditor seize all that he has; and let strangers plunder the product of his labor. Let there be none to extend lovingkindness to him, nor any to be gracious to his fatherless children."

Psalm 109:8-12

Are we indeed to interpret that God, speaking through David in these Psalms, is saying we have been abandoned by God and that when wronged we can ask God to cause our enemies to die and cause our enemies' children to wander hungry and homeless? Indeed, it would seem the case.

But rather than interpret that God is with us as a fetus, but forgets us as adults, and yet will allow us to plead for the death of our enemies, we need to look at the greater context in which all these verses are found: songs.

Called Psalms, these are the songs of King David, a man of great faith who was also greatly tormented. He was a man of passions. He loved God, lusted for another man's wife, and murdered him to get her. He marveled at nature and at his own existence. All his great swings in emotion are recorded in the songs he wrote, and we can read them today in the Book of Psalms. What we cannot do is take one song, or one stanza of a song, and proclaim that it is indeed to be taken literally while taking other stanzas from David's songs and claim they should not be taken literally.

Yet that is exactly what anti-abortion Christians are asking us to do. They use those few verses from the Psalms to support their dogma that abortion is wrong. They proclaim those verses as holy writ and the other verses as poetry that we should not be following. Clearly, this is a perfect example of taking verses out of context. And it leads us to only one conclusion: if we cannot trust that God wants to kill our enemies and abandon us, we must also conclude that we cannot trust that God has defined the fetus as being a person.

For indeed, if we allow that kind of thinking we could also make an argument that God is willing to maul children to death if they make fun of a bald guy who just happens to be in God's favor. You think I'm joking, but I'm not. In the book of Second Kings, our hero, the Prophet Elisha, who was quite bald, so it seems, was taunted by a group of young boys. Elisha's response was bitter and cruel:

"...as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, 'Go up, you baldhead; go up you baldhead!' When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number."

2 Kings 2:22-24

Did God kill those forty-two kids for making fun of a bald prophet? We can certainly make an argument for that if we use the anti-abortionists' kind of thinking.

Likewise we can also use the anti-abortionists' methods to establish that God approves of pornography, as seen in these following verses by Solomon as he pondered the female body:

"How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince's daughter! The curves of your hips are like jewels, the work of the hands of an artist. Your navel is like a round goblet which never lacks for mixed wine; your belly is like a heap of wheat fenced about with lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle."

"Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I said 'I will climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks.' Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine."

Song of Solomon 7:1-3,7-9

Pretty steamy stuff. Taken by itself, it would appear God is indeed promoting a written form of pornography. But just like Psalm 139:13-16, we cannot take it by itself. Instead we must take it within the context it was written.

The same is true with the other two verses used by anti-abortion Christians to defend their cause. From the book of Jeremiah, these Crusaders are fond of quoting the phrase, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee," from the first chapter. But they never quote the entire passage, which changes the meaning considerably:

"Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child. But the Lord said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord. Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant."

Jeremiah 1:4-10

This is a special event -- the birth of a prophet. God brought the prophet Jeremiah into the world for a divine purpose, and because of that, God was planning Jeremiah's life "before" he was even conceived. God was preparing him to do miraculous things, such as speak on behalf of God while still a child and setting him up as an overseer of nations and kingdoms. But the anti-abortionists simply overlook this on their way to claiming that the one phrase they quote proves God sees us as individual people while still in the womb. God saw Jeremiah in that way, but to claim it applies to all of us is akin to saying that we were all prepared as children to speak for God, and that God has placed all of us "over the nations and over the kingdoms" of the world. In essence, to claim this verse applies to anyone other than Jeremiah is to claim that we are all God's divine prophets. We are not; therefore, we cannot apply these verses to our own lives.

Another problem in this passage is the phrase, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee." In Psalm 139:13-16 the anti-abortionists claim that because God was active in the creation of King David in his mother's womb that we must conclude the fetus is recognized by God as being a person. But here we see God stating that he knew Jeremiah "before" he was formed in the womb. By anti-abortionist logic, we would have to conclude that we are a human person even before conception. Since this is a ridiculous notion, we must, therefore, conclude that the anti-abortionist is interpreting these verses incorrectly.

The last verse most often quoted by anti-abortion Christians relates the story of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, while both were pregnant. When they meet, the pre-born John the Baptist leaps in his mother's womb at Mary's salutation. Let's read the original:

"And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:"

Luke 1:39-41

As much as the anti-abortion lobby would like this to mean that all fetuses are sentient persons because one is recorded as knowing Mary's words and then leapt inside the womb, the logic is as flawed as the Isaiah misquote. Again we have a miraculous event. Again we have a divine prophet whom God had ordained since before he was conceived. And this time it's even more miraculous, because the gestating John the Baptist is reacting to the approach of Mary, who at the time was pregnant with Jesus. Unless we believe all of us are chosen before birth to be the divine prophet ordained by God to herald the arrival of Christ on earth, then we cannot claim this passage refers to us. And indeed, it does not. While gestating fetuses are known to move and kick as their nervous systems and muscles are under construction, only divinely-inspired babies understand the spoken words of the mother of Jesus and can leap in recognition.

The point to all this is simple: we cannot take the verses we like and interpret them to support what we want to support. And, more to the point, we cannot simply accept what some Christian leaders proclaim as being God's word on a given subject without carefully reading the full text of the book and taking into consideration the entire context. We cannot, as we have shown, simply interpret those few verses from Psalms, Isaiah, and Luke as a reason to be against abortion. And, as we will see in a moment, there are still other verses -- if interpreted in the sloppy manner demonstrated by anti-abortion Christians -- in the Bible that could easily lead us to argue that indeed God, at times, supports abortion. Let's take a look.

In the full context of Ecclesiastes, King Solomon makes the point that much of life is futile. Over and over he writes that if life is good then we should be thankful. But when life is not good, Solomon makes some interesting statements:

"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5

Clearly there is a quality of life issue being put forth in the Scriptures. And in this case, Solomon makes the point that it is sometimes better to end a pregnancy prematurely than to allow it to continue into a miserable life. This is made even more clear in these following verses:

"Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3

Here we have an argument for both euthanasia and abortion. When quality of life is at stake, Solomon seems to make the argument that ending a painful life or ending what will be a painful existence is preferable. Now remember, we're not talking about David's songs here. We're reading the words of the man to whom God gave the world's greatest wisdom.

And Solomon was not alone in this argument. Consider the words of Job, a man of great faith and wealth, when his life fell upon the hardest of times:

"And Job said, 'Let the day perish on which I was to be born, and the night which said, "a boy is conceived." May that day be darkness; let not God above care for it, nor light shine on it.'"

"Why did I not die at birth, come forth from my womb and expire? Why did the knees receive me, and why the breasts, that I should suck? For now I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept then, I would have been at rest, with kings and with counselors of the earth, who rebuilt ruins for themselves; or with princes who had gold, who were filling their houses with silver,. Or like the miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light. There the wicked cease from raging, and there the weary are at rest. The prisoners are at ease together; they do not hear the voice of the taskmaster. The small and the great are there, and the slave is free from his master."

Job 3:2-4,11-19

And again a few chapters later Job reiterates the greater grace he would have known if his life had been terminated as a fetus:

"Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb."
Job 10:18-19

Clearly there is a strong argument here that the quality of a life is as important if not more important than the act of being born. Indeed, we could claim that the Bible supports ending a pregnancy in the face of a life without quality. And, if I wanted to be bold, I could claim that this interpretation is in fact a biblical mandate to support the use of abortion as a way to improve our quality of life. And taking these verses to their extreme, I could claim that abortion is not just a good idea, it is a sacrament.

Actually, I will stop short of making that claim. In fact, I will stop short of making the claim that the Bible condemns or supports abortion at all. It does neither. The condemning and supporting comes not from the words of the Bible but from leaders within our Culture of Christianity who use verses out of context -- the same way I just did to support abortion -- to support their views against abortion. The condemning and the supporting comes not from the Scriptures but from average Christians who take the easy way out, accepting one or two verses of the Bible as proof that their leaders are speaking the gospel truth. The condemning and supporting comes not from God but from those who do not take the time to read the Bible, in its own context, and decide for themselves the meanings therein.

For indeed, there is one passage in the Bible that deals specifically with the act of causing a woman to abort a pregnancy. And the penalty for causing the abortion is not what many would lead us to believe:

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Exodus 21:22-25

This is a very illuminating passage. In it we find a woman losing her child by being stuck by men who are fighting. Rather than it being a capital offense, however, it is relegated to a civil matter, with the father-to-be taking the participants to court for a settlement. But, as we read on, if the woman is killed, a "life for a life," then the men who killed her shall be killed. Some have claimed that the life for a life part is talking about the baby. But from reading the context we can see this is not true. It also states a tooth for a tooth and a burn for a burn. Babies don't have teeth when they are born, and it is highly unlikely a baby will be burned during birth. It is pretty clear that this part refers to the mother. Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.

It's important to note that some anti-abortion lobbyists want to convince us the baby in this passage survived the miscarriage. They point to the more "politically-correct" translation they find in the New International Version of the Bible. There it translates the term "miscarriage" into "gives birth prematurely" (the actual words in Hebrew translate "she lose her offspring"). While this may give them the warm and fuzzy notion that this verse might actually support their cause if maybe the child survived, it is wishful thinking at best. In our modern era of miracle medicine only 60% of all premature births survive. Three thousand years ago, when this passage was written, they did not have modern technology to keep a preemie alive. In fact, at that time, more than half of all live births died before their first birthday. In a world like that, a premature birth was a death sentence.

Others have looked to the actual Hebrew words, themselves, to try and refute these verses. They note that the word "yalad" is used in verse 22 to describe the untimely birth, and that yalad is also used in other places to describe a live birth. They then go on to say other places in the Bible use the words "nefel" and "shakol" to describe a miscarriage. Therefore, the argument goes, the baby in Exodus 21:22 must have been born alive. It's easy to see how a novice might make this mistake, but a closer look at the words in question reveal the flaw in this argument.

The word yalad is a verb that describes the process of something coming out - the departing of the fetus. Since it is describing the process, and not the result, it could be used to describe either a live birth or a miscarriage. Shakol which shows up in Hosea 9:14, is also a verb, but its meaning is to make a woman barren. Now a barren woman certainly might miscarry, but with this understanding of the word, it's clear why the writer of Exodus would not have used it since this miscarriage was caused by an accident, not by barrenness. And the word nefel is not even a verb. It's a noun. True, as a noun it is the term for a miscarried fetus, but the writer wasn't using a noun. He was using a verb to describe the coming out of the fetus. Thus, if I were describing a man falling to his death, I would use the verb "to fall" which can be used for both those who die and those who survive a fall, but to describe the man himself I would use the word the "fatality." So we can see that while a novice might mistake a verb for a noun and come to the wrong conclusions about the original Hebrew words used in the Exodus passage, a more careful look proves that the words only describe the action of losing the fetus, not the fetus itself. And that being the case, we can't use the Hebrew translations to determine if the fetus was alive or not when it came out - so we are forced to accept that in all certainly, considering the medical knowledge at the time, the preemie died. This makes it even more clear that the "tooth for a tooth" passage refers only to the mother, not to the miscarried fetus.

What has been so clearly demonstrated by the passage in Exodus - the fact that God does not consider a fetus a human person - can also be seen in a variety of other Bible verses. In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person. In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath. Likewise, in Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe. And in the same book, in Genesis 38:24, we read about a pregnant woman condemned to death by burning. Though the leaders of Israel knew the woman was carrying a fetus, this was not taken into consideration. If indeed the Jews, and the God who instructed them, believed the fetus to be an equal human person to the mother, then why would they let the fetus die for the mother's crimes? The truth is simple. A fetus is not a human person, and its destruction is not a murder. Period.

It is time to stop the one-sided view of abortion being proclaimed by Christian leaders. These leaders do not -- despite their claims -- have a biblical mandate for their theologies. It is time to stop preaching that the Bible contains an undeniable doctrine against abortion. It is time to stop the anger and hatred being heaped on abortion doctors and upon women who have abortions, especially when it's done in the name of a God who has not written such condemnations in his Bible. It is time to stop, because the act of making a judgment against people in God's name, when God is not behind the judging, is nothing short of claiming that our own beliefs are more important than God's. We must stop, because if we don't, then indeed the very type of theological argument being used against abortion can be turned around and used to proclaim that abortion is biblical.

http://elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html

September 27, 2011

Not being an ass or anything BUT should this be an issue that someone comes to on their own terms than just being spoon fed an opinion of what maybe some atheists/agnostics have? Because look at it this way, I know a site right now that I can post why atheists think it is immoral, it is not a simple issue that "atheists/agnostics believe this..." Because it is far from a universal belief that is shared among everyone.

I think it is immoral, and religion has nothing to do with it at all, I think it is immoral because it is socially accepted killing of "unborn children", "fetus" or whatever term you associate with it. I think it is immoral because we let the fate of these (whatever you want to call) in the hands of man and law which have been wrong before, which make wrong choices.

October 17, 2011

I'm not sure I can answer this question objectively enough, as I may not be far enough removed from my Christian indoctrination.

But in my opinion, I think it is technically "immoral" to end the life of a living human. However, I believe it is best to leave that decision up to the mother, since it is her body after all. I do think people who are looking in to abortions do however need to be educated about what their options are. For instance, there is quite a few infertile couples out there who want to adopt. Also, I think one needs to check the motives behind an abortion. I don't think it's a good reason to have an abortion simply because you would be embarrassed if anyone found out you were pregnant. On the other hand, things like financial reasons are understandable - though I myself would probably still give the advice to keep the baby. Either way, I'm not going to judge whatever decision the mother makes.

October 17, 2011

Re: The OP question. Is Abortion Immoral?

I don't think it's as cut and dry as the poll options imply. Yes or No.

Even though I voted, "No" because it at least afforded the ball park for my belief on the subject.

I think abortion is innately personal. I don't think a societal ideology encompassing right and wrong can be applied in this case, because as we know those seeming absolutes painted as black and white are always shadowed with shades of gray.

For instance, if murder is immoral then what is war? If murder is immoral then how can any theist support capital punishment? If abortion is murder, because abortion is against god's will and god is the omnipotent overseer of all that is, then what is miscarriage? (spontaneous abortion) One would think miscarriage is an example of that old axiom; god gives and god taketh away.

So then, how can we say abortion is immoral based on religious doctrine, when anti-abortion laws then ask a woman to assume, by force of law, a higher moral standard than that what the giver and taker of life in the womb, possesses?

If a woman thinks abortion is immoral, don't have one.

But then what is a woman who's forced to give birth, when she's an unfit mother gestating for 9 months a fetus she cares not one bit for? She's a drug addict, she's abused by her pimp. She abuses herself by selling her body to john's and she numbs that reality with any drug she can score.

Is it immoral that she terminate in first trimester and, if it is indeed about life, how then if it is black and white,moral or immoral, that it's not also about quality of life?

I posted an article in News/Current Events forum wherein it is projected that in very short order the population of earth will reach 7 billion individuals. Clearly, population is not an issue in matters of declining numbers. However, it is a matter of declining quality of life, all over the world.

In the time it took to read this thread to this point, how many newborns have died in Darfur? How many have died in other "third world" countries? How many have died right here in the U.S. , Canada and Mexico?

And why?

It's often said, you can't save the world from itself. True enough. And just as true is it is impossible to legislate common sense, decency or morality.

I think if someone is against abortion, then they should strive with all their might to adopt the born and unwanted. They should invest as much activism into making adoption and fostering laws and rules more user friendly and less bigoted. As in some States to this day, mixed race adoption or fostering is forbidden. Gay adoption(s) and fostering is forbidden. Single parent adoption and fostering is forbidden.

How is it that love is so hard to come by, by law?

It's so easy to claim abortion is immoral, when it's your personal opinion. However, what is not easy, nor an entitlement, is to take that right of personal opinion and foster it upon other women who one thinks must abide by the tenet implied; forced pregnancy by law.

That, is immoral.

In the meantime, if opposition to another woman's right of choice as sovereign keeper of her own womb, is theological consider this. When god is the universal abortionist by will, forcing a woman to assume a higher moral standard by law, is hypocritical.

October 23, 2011

Yes, abortion is immoral. How will we ever reach the stars if we keep murdering so much of our future? It's so sad that today so much is not placed on the future as into instant fullfilment (it used to be just the guys that felt that way, but with an abortion pill inside every Walgreens, so do the girls).

When does life begin? When does some splooge and an egg become human? You were there, but you may not remember, and I'm glad that your mother never killed you, from that time, until now.

October 23, 2011

Hopefully someone will take this seriously. I'm sick of the rape and incest bullshit. That occurs in like 1/2 of 1% of all pregnancies. Nice try though. I'm guessing your answers are no.

I love my donkey and he loves me. I had to have an abortion because I was going to have a donkey human.

October 23, 2011

If a woman has absolute control of her body, then how is it that she is not liable for spreading her legs, knowing what is "going on down there", and later killing the results of the union that she feels growing within her?

You can't own everything, and then blame some stuff on somebody else.

October 23, 2011

Yes, abortion is immoral. How will we ever reach the stars if we keep murdering so much of our future?

World population could reach 7 BILLION Oct 31!

Seems to me our future is overpopulation. What a lame argument this is of yours.

It's so sad that today so much is not placed on the future as into instant fullfilment (it used to be just the guys that felt that way, but with an abortion pill inside every Walgreens, so do the girls).

Exactly, like not taking into account the overpopulation problem!

When does life begin? When does some splooge and an egg become human? You were there, but you may not remember, and I'm glad that your mother never killed you, from that time, until now.

But you're fine sending soldiers off to war to kill grown children?

October 30, 2011

If a woman has absolute control of her body, then how is it that she is not liable for spreading her legs, knowing what is "going on down there", and later killing the results of the union that she feels growing within her?

You can't own everything, and then blame some stuff on somebody else.

Liable? For spreading her legs? Once again, it is her right of choice!

And let's step away from the double standard sexist indictment you've afforded against women, shall we?

When is the man liable for failing to wrap his hard on, and instead goes bare back into that what's spread?!

Why is it that Big Pharma and men like you, always put it on women to be solely responsible for prevention of conception?

Men's choice is a condom! Or not.

Meanwhile, women have to risk the side effects of the pill, implant devices like Norplant and Implanon. NuvaRing, Femcap, the birth control songe, birth control injection like Depo-Provera, IUD, spermicides, "outercourse" (of all things) , the birth control patch Ortho Evra, asking her man to get a vasectomy (how likely is that?), rhythm method, flushing her vagina with spermicide and then having her lover wear a condom, etc...

So given all the risks women are asked to assume making the choice to practice safe sex, when those fail or she chooses not to risk anything and she conceives, how is it that after assuming all those risks not to get pregnant, she's suddenly not permitted to assume the risk of ending her unwanted pregnancy?

November 9, 2011

I would say that (at the least) it is the moral obligation of a person to not be caught in a situation where abortion is needed or desirable, if one can help it. I don't regard a society that enslaves a woman to her pregnancy to be acting morally either, but in most cases, abortion is immoral.

November 9, 2011

Yes, abortion is immoral. How will we ever reach the stars if we keep murdering so much of our future? It's so sad that today so much is not placed on the future as into instant fullfilment (it used to be just the guys that felt that way, but with an abortion pill inside every Walgreens, so do the girls).

When does life begin? When does some splooge and an egg become human? You were there, but you may not remember, and I'm glad that your mother never killed you, from that time, until now.

You're here because your mother was pro-choice. As cemeteries around the nation prove, women before Roe v. Wade made a choice. Even at the cost of their lives, they chose by their own sense of morality their reproductive future.

And when does life begin? In what context are you asking? Religious? That wouldn't be until birth. As when god breathed air into the Adam and it was then that he became a living soul.

Also, one can not legitimately argue that abortion is against god's will. The Bible demonstrates chapter and verse, that not only did god not "say" that abortion should be outlawed but he himself, or his ordained terrorist tribe the Hebrews, slaughtered women and killed babies in the womb and that were already born. All acts that god committed, or ordered to happen for his own agenda.

God is not pro-life! So that argument to the contrary is disingenuous of the facts of god's own word.

As far as legally well, Anspach v. City of Philadelphia, head before a Federal appeals court in a case of a 16 year old girl and access to the morning after pill, determined that pregnancy began at the moment of implantation.When the embryo activates the woman's hormonal system to support the pregnancy. However, that wasn't a decision as to when life begins in the womb.

What is life? And when does it begin? Well, that is easy. (Medical Definition - Life)

As it is an zygote/embryo/fetus, is a parasite. It is not capable of independent survival outside the womb for most of the gestational period. It's "alive" because it's host is.

Then again, the plants in my window are alive. The ants that walk through the grass are alive. Earth, by definition, is alive. So what's life got to do with it?

Can one, in good faith, argue that because it's alive it must be protected?

That's hypocritical, considering all the life that's snuffed out by exacting a free will choice, every single day. Sometimes we even memorialize the fact when we bear those ribbon magnets on our cars that read; I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. (Who take lives. And who's lives are taken because they were commanded by a higher authority to go forth and put them at risk).

So what's the difference when it's a zygote/embryo/fetus in question?

The gender of the host. The female!

The hypocrisy that the pro-life, forced pregnancy by law platform espouses is tissue thin in credibility. It's not about life. It's about control. The woman bears the seed of the man. Patriarchal standards aren't a thing of the past in America. It is the whole of the Christian religion. It's male god, it's male apostles (as to be understood now, but which was not the case in the early period of the first Christians.) It's all about the male. Male power, male supremacy, male dominance (dominion over the earth as described in Genesis unto Adam) And when it comes to the seed bearer, the woman, it's all about controlling her so that that man will continue on in the full term birth of his seed.

And as said previously, arguing anti-choice forced pregnancy by law legislation as something that preserves life, simply argues that once born the baby is then on their own, facing death every single day, with no pro-life activism striving to force legislation to insure quality of life, after birth. It's simply a priority of seed coming to term, and quantity, not quality of life.

November 9, 2011

Not that I base my thoughts on this from the Bible, but there are questionable verses in the Bible that tend to support abortion moreso than contradict it.

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Exodus 21:22-25

So all a man has to do is pay a little coin for "murdering" an unborn child? It seems God cares more for the mother than the unborn child. It seems losing the child is considered more of an inconvenience than an act of "murder."

"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5

If a parent can't provide for the child or lives a life that is filled with struggle and sadness, why drag a child into it? Does the child deserve to suffer alongside the parent? How much pain would it have to endure in a life such as that?

"Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb."
Job 10:18-19

Job suffers throughout his whole life because God makes this deal with Satan. He is in such agony that he wishes he had not even existed to feel the pain he feels.

"And Job said, 'Let the day perish on which I was to be born, and the night which said, "a boy is conceived." May that day be darkness; let not God above care for it, nor light shine on it.'"

"Why did I not die at birth, come forth from my womb and expire? Why did the knees receive me, and why the breasts, that I should suck? For now I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept then, I would have been at rest, with kings and with counselors of the earth, who rebuilt ruins for themselves; or with princes who had gold, who were filling their houses with silver,. Or like the miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light. There the wicked cease from raging, and there the weary are at rest. The prisoners are at ease together; they do not hear the voice of the taskmaster. The small and the great are there, and the slave is free from his master."

Job 3:2-4,11-19

Why does it even matter if the life is ended so early? It's not like the child is going to Hell. An infant is innocent and had no chance to know God. In your beliefs, this means the child will go to be with your Lord. There, it will feel no pain and there is nothing but joy. If you cannot provide for your child, then why not let your child go somewhere that is wonderful? If you're thinking about adoption, we all know that the process of placing and raising children in foster homes that are often abusive is a fate no one should wish on ANY child. There is potential that the child will be adopted by a loving family, yes, but there also those children that are never selected and suffer serious psychological damage as a result. Were I a Christian, I would consider abortion in this case to be merciful.

If your child is in Heaven with no pain and everlasting joy, why can't you rejoice in that? Sure, the child never knew the world, but who says that's a bad thing?

November 9, 2011

When this topic is raised around my dad, he always says the same thing: "I'm male. I don't have a right to an opinion on that issue."

This whole topic is just insensitive in the extreme. Emotionally, an unwanted pregnancy is fucking hard for any woman to deal with. There are so many, many reasons women have abortions, and very few have an abortion because they don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions. Many women have an abortion even though they would dearly love to keep the child, but for whatever reason they just can't. The emotional fall-out from an abortion for the vast majority of women is huge. You don't need to judge them- they are dealing with their own private hell for not carrying that child. And of course it's easy to have a pat view on the subject, when you're not the one dealing with the emotional, societal, and familial, and personal fallout from your own decision, which you made either in your own best interests, the child's best interests, or your family's best interests. It is so easy for men like St. Paul to be judgemental- you'll never have to even consider making this decision!

Now I haven't had an abortion myself, so I can't fully comprehend the extent of the pain women go through who do. I apologise to any woman reading this who has had an abortion if they find what I have written patronising in any way. But that's pretty much my point- you can't really understand or have a valid opinion on this topic unless you have been there yourself.

However, I have had my tubes done. I have not had children, and I have valid reasons not to have children, which I have raised in another forum. One reason I didn't cover in the other forum that contributed to my decision was that I did not want to have to face having to make a decision to abort or keep a child. What a horrific decision to have to face. I was never a woman who was hell-bent on having children, yet I am still to find a single person who understands what I have been through emotionally as a young childless woman to permanently sterilise myself. I have suffered much in silence. I know I made the right decision- but I am still, at the end of the day, a woman, and it's not easy. I cannot tell people how I feel because the most instant, common response I receive is "I told you so", or "you shouldn't have done it". This is what I go through, and I had my tubes done. So I think to myself, how much worse must it be for these women who face such a decision, and go through with it? And then, on top of that, they are judged, just to add to their pain and anguish? And then the Christians wonder why so many either leave their flock or refuse to join it- do not these Christians understand just how barbaric they appear? If that's what it means to be a Christian, then fucking count me out.

November 9, 2011

Back when I was a fundie I thought abortion was murder. Of course I thought that. My pastor told me to think it so I did.

Near the end of my Christianity I realized the Bible was wrong about many things and it was the word of mere mortals. During that stage of my life I realized that abortion is unpleasant and unfortunate but sometimes it is necessary.

Now that I am an ex-Christian I think that if a woman knows she should not have a child then the rest of the world needs to trust her judgement. It's her life and she is the one who knows best. It doesn't matter if we don't understand her situation. We don't need to know. She lives her life so she know what is best. I still see a fetus as both human and alive. However if that fetus is going to grow into an infant and then have a life that completely sucks then abortion can be the better choice. Life just for the sake of life doesn't take into account the great deal of suffering that happens.

November 9, 2011

Back when I was a fundie I thought abortion was murder. Of course I thought that. My pastor told me to think it so I did.

Near the end of my Christianity I realized the Bible was wrong about many things and it was the word of mere mortals. During that stage of my life I realized that abortion is unpleasant and unfortunate but sometimes it is necessary.

Now that I am an ex-Christian I think that if a woman knows she should not have a child then the rest of the world needs to trust her judgement. It's her life and she is the one who knows best. It doesn't matter if we don't understand her situation. We don't need to know. She lives her life so she know what is best. I still see a fetus as both human and alive. However if that fetus is going to grow into an infant and then have a life that completely sucks then abortion can be the better choice. Life just for the sake of life doesn't take into account the great deal of suffering that happens.

Beautifully put, MM

November 9, 2011

When this topic is raised around my dad, he always says the same thing: "I'm male. I don't have a right to an opinion on that issue."

GOOOO! Blackpudd1n's dad! I love it.

...If that's what it means to be a Christian, then fucking count me out.

Amen. And well said.

(edit to add)

...Why does it even matter if the life is ended so early? It's not like the child is going to Hell. An infant is innocent and had no chance to know God. In your beliefs, this means the child will go to be with your Lord. There, it will feel no pain and there is nothing but joy.

I just had to comment on this.

Very well put. An excellent counter argument addressing the anti-choice side of the argument, when it's argued from the religious standpoint.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw that reads; abortion saves!

At least the aborted zygote/embryo/fetus won't have to be born innocent and then evolve to bear god's applied curse of sinner upon it, simply because it was born human and "not worthy" of god's love.

It is true, as someone said, the world needs to learn to trust the individual woman's decision regarding her reproductive privacy. In no other case, regarding no other issue, do certain of the world's people think they have a right to force another woman to live their morality, per their decree, that once pregnant she must give birth.

Thus far, when I've encountered forced pregnancy proponents who demonstrate in my area, and asked how many unwanted babies have they adopted so as to insure a quality of life once the life was born into this world, not a single woman nor man in that anti-choice group has ever said they've adopted those lives they insist are born from the women they insist must give birth to them.

I saw a cartoon once, and I can't find it now, that was a single frame split in two. One side had the pro-life side screaming at a woman on her way to the abortion clinic who's sign appeared behind them. The other frame showed that same woman with her baby, offering it to the next set of protesters at that same clinic, so they could raise the life she decided to bring into the world. But those protesters are now seen skulking off with their pro-life signs in hand.

So true. Every woman is suppose to give birth when implanted. However, hardly anyone who argues that ever gives those unwanted children a home afterward. Do as we say! Not as we...DO AS WE SAY!

Fascism, womb style.

That's just rude.

November 10, 2011

Thus far, when I've encountered forced pregnancy proponents who demonstrate in my area, and asked how many unwanted babies have they adopted so as to insure a quality of life once the life was born into this world, not a single woman nor man in that anti-choice group has ever said they've adopted those lives they insist are born from the women they insist must give birth to them. (Yask, above)

I just wanted to say, when people raise the whole "adoption solution", that they never seem to consider the emotional impact of adoption on the woman or the child. They just don't seem to think women who adopt out a child have any feelings of tenderness, or go through any feelings of anguish, as they carry that life inside of them. Nor do they seem to think of the child, who at some point will wonder why their own mother "didn't want" them.

And this belief that women who have unwanted pregnancies are loose women who should just shut their legs, well, it just doesn't hold up. I can understand why a woman who was raped wouldn't want to carry that child. But it's not just that. Sometimes, for whatever reason, the contraception just didn't work. So these women, who took every step they could to ensure they didn't have children, and suddenly find themselves pregnant- why should they be condemned for having an abortion? They took the required steps to prevent the pregnancy, yet it still happened.

I just don't understand why we are debating this subject in 2011. The lack of progress by society disappoints me.

November 18, 2011

May I just say that I find abortion to be a total grey area for me and I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other for society at large. In my family, however, we would abort if my wife became pregnant again. She has a small pelvis and nearly died giving birth to our daughter (Thank the gods for modern medicine). I have since had a vasectomy, but if it reverses itself we are kind of screwed.

November 18, 2011

As someone who was super duper pro-life 'cuz the bible told me so (which it didn't actually), I find it interesting to read this discussion by thoughtful, compassionate non-believers. I was convinced that EVERY atheist must surely be for abortion all the time, because such people have no moral compass whatsoever and only care about their own selfish lives!

Clearly, it is a tremendously difficult and PERSONAL decision people must face when they find themselves in this circumstance.

The big turning point for me in becoming pro-choice was when I encountered some interesting medical facts. The mayo clinic says that 15-20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage before the 20th week, however they also say that the percentage of miscarriages is much higher (some medical professionals believe around 75%!!!) because the fertilized egg miscarries within the first day or two after conception and most women have no idea, they just think it is their normal period.

To me, if god is so tremendously pro-life as christians claim, how can he allow AT LEAST 20% of the population and perhaps an even greater number (remember, life at conception!) to die in the womb! These are the most innocent of all! These are NATURAL abortions. Again, christians love to give credit to god for everything good that happens in their life, but this diety sure does shirk all responsibility for everything bad.

November 18, 2011

This is a really hard one for me. Being that I am a newly deconverting Christian, I am not really sure where I stand I know I would never have one, not matter what has happened to me. However, I would hate to force a woman to have a baby that she was going to hate and not care for properly. I have been "pro-life" as long as I can remember and I believe I have a different view because of my life experience. My mother worked at our local crisis pregnancy center when I was a teenager and while counseling came across a young woman from Columbia that was pregnant. Her boyfriend wanted her to have an abortion, her parents had disowned her. She was in college at the time and her parents stopped sending her money to live. My mom, who is a wonderful woman, went against everyone at the center and brought this young woman to live with us. I can't imagine why, but the crisis center actually fired her for this???? What the hell did they expect this young woman to do? Anyway, she came to live with us when I was 14. My parents finished paying for her college and my mom took care of her child while she finished her education. Things were a little harder financially for us, but I didn't mind, it was worth it. Anyway, she eventually graduated and moved to Ohio for a job, fell in love and married a wonderful man. This baby just got married last month, he is 26 years old and has a beautiful son of his own. They are family and we love them so much.

Anyway, being a mother and having been pregnant, I cannot imagine not carrying to term. However, all of my babies were planned and wanted. Pregnancy is hard, even when totally normal, so I can't imagine going through it and not wanting to be going through it. Especially in the difficult situations some women find themselves in. I do think birth control should be easily accessible, especially to teenagers! The more unwanted pregnancies we avoid, the better! All of this to say, I just don't know.

November 18, 2011

This is a really hard one for me. Being that I am a newly deconverting Christian, I am not really sure where I stand I know I would never have one, not matter what has happened to me. However, I would hate to force a woman to have a baby that she was going to hate and not care for properly. I have been "pro-life" as long as I can remember and I believe I have a different view because of my life experience. My mother worked at our local crisis pregnancy center when I was a teenager and while counseling came across a young woman from Columbia that was pregnant. Her boyfriend wanted her to have an abortion, her parents had disowned her. She was in college at the time and her parents stopped sending her money to live. My mom, who is a wonderful woman, went against everyone at the center and brought this young woman to live with us. I can't imagine why, but the crisis center actually fired her for this???? What the hell did they expect this young woman to do? Anyway, she came to live with us when I was 14. My parents finished paying for her college and my mom took care of her child while she finished her education. Things were a little harder financially for us, but I didn't mind, it was worth it. Anyway, she eventually graduated and moved to Ohio for a job, fell in love and married a wonderful man. This baby just got married last month, he is 26 years old and has a beautiful son of his own. They are family and we love them so much.

Anyway, being a mother and having been pregnant, I cannot imagine not carrying to term. However, all of my babies were planned and wanted. Pregnancy is hard, even when totally normal, so I can't imagine going through it and not wanting to be going through it. Especially in the difficult situations some women find themselves in. I do think birth control should be easily accessible, especially to teenagers! The more unwanted pregnancies we avoid, the better! All of this to say, I just don't know.

I don't think being pro-choice means that you necessarily have to be all for having your own abortion, it just means that you respect the right of other women to make that decision. I could not honestly say if I would have an abortion myself; but neither would I condemn any woman who made such a choice. I think that's the essence of being pro-choice- acknowledging that abortion is a personal issue, and not a moral or religious issue. The way I see it, the pro-lifers make it a moral and/or religious issue, when really it is no such thing.

November 18, 2011

This is a really hard one for me. Being that I am a newly deconverting Christian, I am not really sure where I stand I know I would never have one, not matter what has happened to me. However, I would hate to force a woman to have a baby that she was going to hate and not care for properly. I have been "pro-life" as long as I can remember and I believe I have a different view because of my life experience. My mother worked at our local crisis pregnancy center when I was a teenager and while counseling came across a young woman from Columbia that was pregnant. Her boyfriend wanted her to have an abortion, her parents had disowned her. She was in college at the time and her parents stopped sending her money to live. My mom, who is a wonderful woman, went against everyone at the center and brought this young woman to live with us. I can't imagine why, but the crisis center actually fired her for this???? What the hell did they expect this young woman to do? Anyway, she came to live with us when I was 14. My parents finished paying for her college and my mom took care of her child while she finished her education. Things were a little harder financially for us, but I didn't mind, it was worth it. Anyway, she eventually graduated and moved to Ohio for a job, fell in love and married a wonderful man. This baby just got married last month, he is 26 years old and has a beautiful son of his own. They are family and we love them so much.

Anyway, being a mother and having been pregnant, I cannot imagine not carrying to term. However, all of my babies were planned and wanted. Pregnancy is hard, even when totally normal, so I can't imagine going through it and not wanting to be going through it. Especially in the difficult situations some women find themselves in. I do think birth control should be easily accessible, especially to teenagers! The more unwanted pregnancies we avoid, the better! All of this to say, I just don't know.

I don't think being pro-choice means that you necessarily have to be all for having your own abortion, it just means that you respect the right of other women to make that decision. I could not honestly say if I would have an abortion myself; but neither would I condemn any woman who made such a choice. I think that's the essence of being pro-choice- acknowledging that abortion is a personal issue, and not a moral or religious issue. The way I see it, the pro-lifers make it a moral and/or religious issue, when really it is no such thing.

I know what you mean, and I don't believe I have the right to make that choice for someone else. I guess what I don't know is if it is wrong. For instance, if I go out and kill my neighbor because they are making my life difficult, that is obviously wrong. I see a lot of pro choice people think abortion isn't either right or wrong, and I don't know if I can say that. I do know women who have had abortions and I feel sorry for them, not mad at them, because obviously this was not an easy thing for them to do. I would have a harder time with a woman who didn't care that she aborted her baby, although I wouldn't necessarily be angry, just not like that they could be so cold hearted about it. I guess, the point is, it is none of my business. And I do see situations where abortion is probably the best decision for the mother and the child, I just can't ever see abortion as a "good" thing. Just something that is sometimes necessary in the awful world we live in. I am just having a hard time defining it in my own head. Please remember where I am coming from, I am not trying to judge anyone else.

I do have a question though, is good and bad arbitrary? Are there no absolutes? I am asking honestly, I really don't know anymore.....

November 18, 2011

This is a really hard one for me. Being that I am a newly deconverting Christian, I am not really sure where I stand I know I would never have one, not matter what has happened to me. However, I would hate to force a woman to have a baby that she was going to hate and not care for properly. I have been "pro-life" as long as I can remember and I believe I have a different view because of my life experience. My mother worked at our local crisis pregnancy center when I was a teenager and while counseling came across a young woman from Columbia that was pregnant. Her boyfriend wanted her to have an abortion, her parents had disowned her. She was in college at the time and her parents stopped sending her money to live. My mom, who is a wonderful woman, went against everyone at the center and brought this young woman to live with us. I can't imagine why, but the crisis center actually fired her for this???? What the hell did they expect this young woman to do? Anyway, she came to live with us when I was 14. My parents finished paying for her college and my mom took care of her child while she finished her education. Things were a little harder financially for us, but I didn't mind, it was worth it. Anyway, she eventually graduated and moved to Ohio for a job, fell in love and married a wonderful man. This baby just got married last month, he is 26 years old and has a beautiful son of his own. They are family and we love them so much. Anyway, being a mother and having been pregnant, I cannot imagine not carrying to term. However, all of my babies were planned and wanted. Pregnancy is hard, even when totally normal, so I can't imagine going through it and not wanting to be going through it. Especially in the difficult situations some women find themselves in. I do think birth control should be easily accessible, especially to teenagers! The more unwanted pregnancies we avoid, the better! All of this to say, I just don't know.
I don't think being pro-choice means that you necessarily have to be all for having your own abortion, it just means that you respect the right of other women to make that decision. I could not honestly say if I would have an abortion myself; but neither would I condemn any woman who made such a choice. I think that's the essence of being pro-choice- acknowledging that abortion is a personal issue, and not a moral or religious issue. The way I see it, the pro-lifers make it a moral and/or religious issue, when really it is no such thing.
I know what you mean, and I don't believe I have the right to make that choice for someone else. I guess what I don't know is if it is wrong. For instance, if I go out and kill my neighbor because they are making my life difficult, that is obviously wrong. I see a lot of pro choice people think abortion isn't either right or wrong, and I don't know if I can say that. I do know women who have had abortions and I feel sorry for them, not mad at them, because obviously this was not an easy thing for them to do. I would have a harder time with a woman who didn't care that she aborted her baby, although I wouldn't necessarily be angry, just not like that they could be so cold hearted about it. I guess, the point is, it is none of my business. And I do see situations where abortion is probably the best decision for the mother and the child, I just can't ever see abortion as a "good" thing. Just something that is sometimes necessary in the awful world we live in. I am just having a hard time defining it in my own head. Please remember where I am coming from, I am not trying to judge anyone else. I do have a question though, is good and bad arbitrary? Are there no absolutes? I am asking honestly, I really don't know anymore.....

Hey momof8, I was just trying to clarify how I see the issue . I do understand where you are coming from- I used to be there myself Personally, you sound pro-choice to me. I think when it comes to abortion, the only "is it right or wrong" question to ask is "is it right or wrong for me, with this pregnancy?".

When it comes to absolutes, I think the only absolutes we can have are our own personal ones. For instance, I, myself, want nothing to do with drugs. And I won't date a drug user. That being said, I have friends who do drugs- that is their choice. I may not agree with it, but ultimately, it is not my life. The only absolutes I have are my own, to do with how I live my life, and not how anyone else lives theirs. I mean, I smoke cigarettes, and I like smoking cigarettes. Others do not and would not approve.

So really, I see life in many ways as one big grey area. Working out where you stand on everything will take time, as you leave christianity. It won't happen overnight, so I wouldn't sweat it

Is Abortion Immoral?

Recommended Posts

RankStranger

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

RedDogTolstoy

HappyChef

oddbird1963

SilentLoner

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SilentLoner

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ramen666

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ChurchSucks

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Yask

Link to comment

Share on other sites

duderonomy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Xerces

Link to comment

Share on other sites

duderonomy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Yask

Link to comment

Share on other sites

MichaelS

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Yask

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ConureDelSol

Link to comment

Share on other sites

blackpudd1n

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

blackpudd1n

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Yask

Link to comment

Share on other sites

blackpudd1n

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SleeplessGhost

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gamecock1973

Link to comment

Share on other sites

momof8

Link to comment

Share on other sites

blackpudd1n

Link to comment

Share on other sites

momof8