Abortion

[Phazzan]

Hello all,

Lately I've been thinking (yes, I [i]do[/i] think) about the issue of abortion. Personally I have been opposed to it my whole life, even when I wasn't Christian, however I've never really been [i]vehemently[/i] opposed to it, as in I've said or done little about it. Don't get me wrong, I AM AGAINST IT! Anyway, lately I've been thinking more about abortion and the [u]reasons[/u] for why it's wrong, instead of just believing because my heart tells me so. So I have a few questions...

I don't buy the arguement that early term abortion (i.e. first few weeks of conception) is outright murder. Why? Because it's not. I hear Christians and a lot of Catholics arguing abortion is murder. I believe abortion is murder, in the case where the fetus is formed and there are signs of life in the child. I don't believe this is first degree murder which warrants the death penalty, but I believe it's a form of murder. But prior to the first eight weeks of conception the child is not a child, it is an embryo. Therefore, according to my reasoning faculties I don't think this can be considered murder since murder is the taking of innocent [u]human[/u] life and an embryo is not a human... yet. This is not to say I don't think it's wrong, I believe it has some very moral and ethical issues such as preventing human life, but I don't think it's "murder in the first degree", if you get what I mean. Am I wrong?

Another thing I struggle with is the Catholic Church for a long permitted abortions. In fact, this "zero tolerance" attitude towards it only came after the Church decreed life begins at conception, which wasn't that long ago. Why did the Church have this stance on abortion, when the idea of it is supposed to be so naturally wrong and evil to us?

Oh, one more thing. If a woman is married and can no longer get pregnant because of a medical fear doing so might kill her (and/or the child), should she be allowed to take birth control to nullify the threat, and still be allowed to have sex? What if she gets pregnant (in early stages) and there is a realistic threat going through with the pregnancy might kill her, should she be allowed to have an abortion then?

That's all
Thanks
Phazzan

[lil bull 04]

[quote name='Phazzan' date='Oct 18 2004, 10:05 AM'] Oh, one more thing. If a woman is married and can no longer get pregnant because of a medical fear doing so might kill her (and/or the child), should she be allowed to take birth control to nullify the threat, and still be allowed to have sex? What if she gets pregnant (in early stages) and there is a realistic threat going through with the pregnancy might kill her, should she be allowed to have an abortion then?

[/quote]
okay...first of all I will say this so that I don't offend any Catholics. I am a Lutheran and we are opposed to abortion but we do not believe that using birth control to prevent pregnancy when you are married is wrong because some people when they are first married are not in a financial situation to have a child. But then when it is for medical reasons I'm alright with it too. But I am still opposed to abortion even if it means killing the mother or the baby. If that mother dies and has faith she will go to heaven. I'm not sure what will happen to the baby if it dies. I would like to think that if it dies it would go to heaven even though it is sinful from birth but if the mother had faith and so did the father i would think that if the baby were to be born they would have been baptized to i think that maybe it would go to heaven but i dunno.

for more info on it go to:
[url="http://www.teenadviceonline.org/archive/26466.html"]http://www.teenadviceonline.org/archive/26466.html[/url]

I'm not trying to justify taking the pill even though i have because i had to get rid of acne so i could go into the military. there are also other reasons to take the pill. i know friends that have had to because of other reasons other than acne and it wasn't because they were doing the bad thing either. it was for other medical problems. Phazzan I hope that what I said makes some sense to you.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

The defining question is at what point in the life of a human does he becomes human. Some say birth. This is a very important part of a person's life, but developmentally the child is not much more a child after birth than right before birth. And certainly the child is no more conscious of himself after birth. We could define it as being conscious of oneself, but how do you ultimately know if someone is conscious of himself. This also is not a good criteria. Going before birth, at what point does an embryo become a fetus? How much of a brain, a heart, or recognizable body parts must be developed before the embryo becomes a fetus? There is not point at which you can definitively say, "this is and embryo and that is a fetus." The moment of implantation is important as well. Many fertilized eggs don't implant thus they never develop into people. Is preventing implantation ethical? I would say no. It would be like preventing someone from eating (analogous to preventing implantation) as opposed to the person deciding not to eat (analagous to the embryo not implanting naturally). The only real change before that is conception. There is a huge change at conception. An egg is something that would exist whether or not the woman was having sex and sperm exist whether or not the man is having sex. When they unite in conception, it is representative of the unity between a husband and wife. At this point there is a new person - a unity.

As for the pill, there is no good reason for it. Sure it treats symptoms of a variety of medical conditions, but there are many drugs that treat each symptom better without the side effects of the pill. The side effects of the pill include increased risk of breast cancer, increased risk of STD transmission (not a factor if you're not sexually active), and increased risk of miscarriage later in life. As for the young couple that's not in a good financial situation, I would recommend that they use NFP or abstain entirely. Some good Christian would say that I'm nuts for saying they should abstain, but we agree that we should abstain before marriage. Why is it so absurd to recommend abstaining during marriage? We're not animals that must always give into our urges.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Oct 18 2004, 05:50 PM'] The defining question is at what point in the life of a human does he becomes human. Some say birth. This is a very important part of a person's life, but developmentally the child is not much more a child after birth than right before birth. And certainly the child is no more conscious of himself after birth. [/quote]
In fact babies lose a bit of weight soon after birth because of the trauma of it, so by bodyweight they are more of a person immediately before birth..

[Thy Geekdom Come]

And if you want to argue body weight, my older brother was both at the second trimester mark...

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

God gives this baby life from the moment it is conceived. Have an abortion, destroy a miracle and gift of God.


Not too comforting is it?

[JP2Iloveyou]

Phazzan, I commend you for trying to use philosophy and rational thought to discuss this. Far to many people say something to the effect of, "I feel this way," or "I feel that way." I for one do not care how anyone feels. I'm much more interested in what you think and why you think it. That being said, your arguments and why they are flawed:

[quote]I don't buy the arguement that early term abortion (i.e. first few weeks of conception) is outright murder. Why? Because it's not. [/quote]

That's begging the question. "Because it's not," is not an answer. Why is Nazism wrong? Because it is. It doesn't fly.

[quote]I believe abortion is murder, in the case where the fetus is formed and there are signs of life in the child. I don't believe this is first degree murder which warrants the death penalty, but I believe it's a form of murder. But prior to the first eight weeks of conception the child is not a child, it is an embryo. Therefore, according to my reasoning faculties I don't think this can be considered murder since murder is the taking of innocent human life and an embryo is not a human... yet.[/quote]

As far as I can tell, your argument goes something like this:

1) If we intentionally kill a human being, then we have committed murder.
2) A fetus is not a living human being for the first eight weeks after conception.
Therefore, if we kill a fetus in the first eight weeks after conception, we have not committed murder.

You have a valid argument, but I think you are very flawed with your second premise. The burden of proof is on you to prove that an unborn child is not a human being during the first eight weeks after conception. Exactly what is the difference? What is the cutoff point? Is it viability? If that is the case, then when we have a "human" changes everytime an advancement is made in medical science and embryology. If it is when it begins to "look" like a human being, then you need to define what "look" means. Does someone who has had both arms and both legs amputated look like a normal human being? Does it follow from there that that person is not human?

[quote]Another thing I struggle with is the Catholic Church for a long permitted abortions. In fact, this "zero tolerance" attitude towards it only came after the Church decreed life begins at conception, which wasn't that long ago. Why did the Church have this stance on abortion, when the idea of it is supposed to be so naturally wrong and evil to us?[/quote]

I assume that means "for a long time." That's just flat out wrong. From the earliest times of the Church as recorded in the Didache, the teaching of the 12 Apostles, abortion has been condemned. Please provide documentation for this claim.

[quote]Oh, one more thing. If a woman is married and can no longer get pregnant because of a medical fear doing so might kill her (and/or the child), should she be allowed to take birth control to nullify the threat, and still be allowed to have sex? What if she gets pregnant (in early stages) and there is a realistic threat going through with the pregnancy might kill her, should she be allowed to have an abortion then?[/quote]

No to both. First of all, the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy is abstinance. This has been around for as long as man has been. Birth control was not to prevent pregnancy, we already had a method for that, it was to prevent having to face consequences for one's actions. Gor ordered the sexual union of man and woman for two purposes: unitive and procreative. By using birth control, the couple takes at least one of those aspects out of the act. It arguably takes the other aspect out because it objectifies people. People become a means to an end, not an end in themself. It is not immoral to experience pleasure in sex, indeed it is necessary, but we ought not make other human beings the agent of achieving orgasm for that purpose only.

Secondly, if this is the case, and it is in some cases, then the best option is to practice NFP or to abstain altogether. I can imagine a scenario where this would be needed. In a situation like this, even if the woman became pregnant, she could not morally procure a direct abortion because there is nothing that justifies the unjust taking of innocent human life. This was the situation of a couple that I know and the cross they had to bear during their marriage after having their second child was to abstain for many years until it was biologicly impossible for the woman to conceive.

[quote]okay...first of all I will say this so that I don't offend any Catholics. I am a Lutheran and we are opposed to abortion but we do not believe that using birth control to prevent pregnancy when you are married is wrong because some people when they are first married are not in a financial situation to have a child.[/quote]

By what authority do you make this claim? Again, it comes down to what is sex for? It is for union and procreation. Aquinas argues for the intention of the act. What is the intention of using birth control when having sex? It is not unitive and procreative. It is a selfish act by one or both persons in the relationship to use his/her partner to achieve sexual climax.

[quote] But then when it is for medical reasons I'm alright with it too. But I am still opposed to abortion even if it means killing the mother or the baby. If that mother dies and has faith she will go to heaven. I'm not sure what will happen to the baby if it dies. I would like to think that if it dies it would go to heaven even though it is sinful from birth but if the mother had faith and so did the father i would think that if the baby were to be born they would have been baptized to i think that maybe it would go to heaven but i dunno.[/quote]

You should be very careful is saying who does and who does not go to Heaven. It is God's kingdom and he can decide. None of us deserve Heaven and had Christ not paid the price for all of our sins, none of us would inherit our eternal reward. The fact is that people who die in an unrepentant state of mortal sin cannot inherit eternal life. The teaching of the Church is clear on this point.

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote]As far as I can tell, your argument goes something like this:

1) If we intentionally kill a human being, then we have committed murder.
2) A fetus is not a living human being for the first eight weeks after conception.
Therefore, if we kill a fetus in the first eight weeks after conception, we have not committed murder.

You have a valid argument, but I think you are very flawed with your second premise. The burden of proof is on you to prove that an unborn child is not a human being during the first eight weeks after conception. Exactly what is the difference? What is the cutoff point? Is it viability? If that is the case, then when we have a "human" changes everytime an advancement is made in medical science and embryology. If it is when it begins to "look" like a human being, then you need to define what "look" means. Does someone who has had both arms and both legs amputated look like a normal human being? Does it follow from there that that person is not human?[/quote]

Sorry Phazan, I think I goofed on your argument. As I've presented it, it is INVALID.

If P then Q
Not P
Therefore Not Q is denying the antecedant. A logical fallacy. Anyway, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you want your argument worded as such:

1) If we commit murder, then we intentionally kill a living human being.
2) A fetus is not a living human being for the first eight weeks after conception.
Therefore, if we kill a fetus in the first eight weeks after conception, we have not committed murder.

Anyway, my response would not change based on the rewording.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Phazzan' date='Oct 18 2004, 11:05 AM'] I don't buy the arguement that early term abortion (i.e. first few weeks of conception) is outright murder. Why? Because it's not. I hear Christians and a lot of Catholics arguing abortion is murder. I believe abortion is murder, in the case where the fetus is formed and there are signs of life in the child. I don't believe this is first degree murder which warrants the death penalty, but I believe it's a form of murder. But prior to the first eight weeks of conception the child is not a child, it is an embryo. Therefore, according to my reasoning faculties I don't think this can be considered murder since murder is the taking of innocent [u]human[/u] life and an embryo is not a human... yet. This is not to say I don't think it's wrong, I believe it has some very moral and ethical issues such as preventing human life, but I don't think it's "murder in the first degree", if you get what I mean. Am I wrong?
[/quote]
To answer your question, yes you are wrong. The human child at that specific stage of development is called an "embryo" but he still has HUMAN DNA. The child can be scientifically proven to be human. Saying that because its an embryo and therefore not a child so aborting it wouldn't be murder is like saying "it doesn't LOOK human yet so its ok to kill it." (1337 stated things quite well.) Murder is always wrong, and abortion is always murder no matter what stage of development the child has reached.

[url="http://www.visembryo.com/baby/"]http://www.visembryo.com/baby/[/url]

[quote]Another thing I struggle with is the Catholic Church for a long permitted abortions.  In fact, this "zero tolerance" attitude towards it only came after the Church decreed life begins at conception, which wasn't that long ago.  Why did the Church have this stance on abortion, when the idea of it is supposed to be so naturally wrong and evil to us?[/quote]

The Church never approved of abortions. There were differing opinions on when life began (for example some argued that it didn't occur until the woman could feel the baby move, other said on the 40th day after conception). Abortion was [b]always[/b] frowned upon even back in the day when we didn't have science to prove when life begins.

[quote]Oh, one more thing.  If a woman is married and can no longer get pregnant because of a medical fear doing so might kill her (and/or the child), should she be allowed to take birth control to nullify the threat, and still be allowed to have sex?  What if she gets pregnant (in early stages) and there is a realistic threat going through with the pregnancy might kill her, should she be allowed to have an abortion then?
[/quote]

If a woman took birth control pills for this reason she would at the very least have to abstain during her fertile periods (which would mean charting and tracking when she was fertile) to avoid the risk of conception and the medication she was taking causing an abortion. If she were charting she may as well practice NFP, its more effective than the pill and won't abort a child should she conceive. I believe it is strongly emcouraged (if not required) that a woman abstain the entire time she is taking the pill and only permitted to resume intercourse when she stops taking it (because of the risk of aborting). Surgical abortion is NEVER allowed no matter what the circumstances even if the mother's life is at risk.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Oh, good response JP2ILY!!!

[theculturewarrior]

The fact is, being human isn't a stage of development. We are human from beginning to end, and we don't "become" more or less human along the way. To the best of my knowledge, the Church has never permitted abortions. However, before modern science the fetus was briefly thought to "quicken" at about eight weeks. That opinion was held by the scholastics and was overturned by a medieval pope. It was never license for abortion, to the best of my understanding.

[Trying2BFaithful]

JP2ILY:

Go to law school. Please. We need a lawyer like you.

[Scofizzle]

[quote name='lil bull 04' date='Oct 18 2004, 10:25 AM'] okay...first of all I will say this so that I don't offend any Catholics. I am a Lutheran and we are opposed to abortion but we do not believe that using birth control to prevent pregnancy when you are married is wrong because some people when they are first married are not in a financial situation to have a child. But then when it is for medical reasons I'm alright with it too. But I am still opposed to abortion even if it means killing the mother or the baby. If that mother dies and has faith she will go to heaven. I'm not sure what will happen to the baby if it dies. I would like to think that if it dies it would go to heaven even though it is sinful from birth but if the mother had faith and so did the father i would think that if the baby were to be born they would have been baptized to i think that maybe it would go to heaven but i dunno.

for more info on it go to:
[url="http://www.teenadviceonline.org/archive/26466.html"]http://www.teenadviceonline.org/archive/26466.html[/url]

I'm not trying to justify taking the pill even though i have because i had to get rid of acne so i could go into the military. there are also other reasons to take the pill. i know friends that have had to because of other reasons other than acne and it wasn't because they were doing the bad thing either. it was for other medical problems. Phazzan I hope that what I said makes some sense to you. [/quote]
The idea of taking birth control for any other reason than to prevent pregnancy is a falacy. The pill is NEVER necesary. There are other medical remedies that can be used on all these other things. Saying you must take th pill for clearing up acne is pure laziness and ignorance. I also have heard of friends say that their doctor said they NEED to be on the pill for one reason or another. No matter the situation birth control is NEVER NEEDED!

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='Trying2BFaithful' date='Oct 19 2004, 01:22 AM'] JP2ILY:

Go to law school. Please. We need a lawyer like you. [/quote]
Trying2BFaithful, that's very kind of you. Thank you very much. I am thinking about law school, but at this point, I think that the Lord is calling me to the priesthood. He often times only shows us one step at a time where we are to go to serve him in this life, so you never know, God may be leading me to law school, but at this point, I'm pretty certain that my vocation is to serve as a diocesan priest. God bless you.

[Scofizzle]

you could be a cannon lawyer....and a preist......a double threat....