Absolute Prohibition of Abortion

[Diogenes]

One question for debate is whether Islam and the Roman Catholic church prohibit abortion in all cases.* They both appear to, even to save the mother's life. The RC view is nuanced, perhaps using disingenuous logic.#

Assuming these two major religions DO prohibit abortion even to save the life of the mother, as well as in the cases of rape and incest, how can this prohibition be morally justified?


_________________
*

"Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and the child." (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Association of Large Families, AAS (1951), XLIII, p. 855.)

#

The only ethically justified understanding of this much-celebrated exception shows that it is not an exception at all! The classical example of an ectopic pregnancy or the example of the cancerous uterus, which allow the surgeon, ethically, to remove the woman's damaged reproductive organs in order to save her life, should not be used as examples of abortion, even though a baby's life is terminated in the progress.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/librar ... ther-12052

[Wootah]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]
It is immoral to kill someone just to right a wrong.
Abortion is killing someone.
Therefore abortion is immoral.

A zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is not a someone. But of course that doesn't fit with your emotive argument.
Are you aware that up to three quarters of all conceptions fail to reach term without any human intervention and many of those are desperately wanted by their parents. That means that countless millions of those zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses die each year. What sort of intelligent design allowed for that? Is God the ultimate abortionist?

Its just straight up dehumanising.

Yes, fundamentally, God is the judge and the great abortionist. Deep down we hate God for who He is and so want to be God and steal his job. So in turn we act like God and we start deciding to take life.

One of the reasons to be pro Christianity is because we argue some things are better left up to God. Western democracies can abort millions but commies can do that and murder humans as well. So while you argue for killing one people group just watch out because even worse ideologies are willing to argue to kill humans.

They won't call them humans when they do it. They will dehumanise them first.

[Wootah]

Sometimes people are simply ignorant of the facts.
Other times people grossly distort facts to support their opinions.

This is a zygote:

This is a human


There is nothing in either the Bible or the Koran that claims either a zygote, a blastocyte, or an unquickened fetus is a human being.

If you are going to bring the Bible into it the Bible is clear that a man is either something made in the image of God or just an animal.

Animals can be put down at any time.

I read recently that 3% of all deaths in Canada are from euthanasia.

Tick tock Mr Wick.

[AquinasForGod]

...
How do you morally justify allowing a wife and mother to die in order to preserve a blastocyst
...

It is interesting how people often dehumanize the person they want to murder. Similar argument could be used against any human. Doesn't make murder right.

Murder is unlawful killing of a human being. If abortion is legal it is not unlawful and therefore not murder. A clump of cells is not a person despite anything you might say to prop up your emotive argument.

This is not a good argument. It is saying that whatever we humans say is legal is right. At some other time or in some other country, their law could state that killing an unborn child is murder, so then what law is right?

If your only point is, well murder only means something in the context of USA law, then that is not much of a point as to if it is immoral to kill an unborn child. At the very least, upon conception, we have a potential person.

Now when you claim the guy is appealing to emotions to call it immoral, okay, but what are you appealing to? Is it wrong to kill a baby 10 minutes after it is born? Is it wrong to kill a person in a coma that has no brain activity? If so why so? What do you appeal to exactly?

I often wonder, what if we grew children on our backs in a clear sack so everyone could see the child develop? I wonder if we would see abortion the same.

[AquinasForGod]

I think if a doctor told a woman that she had a high chance of dying if she goes through with the pregnancy, I would not call her a murderer for getting an abortion. I if all her other actions were such that she was going to heaven before she had the abortion, I believe she will still go to heaven after having the abortion.

If a woman uses an abortion as a method of contraception, she is guilty. Hopefully, she lives a good life at some point.

[1213]

Murder is unlawful killing of a human being. If abortion is legal it is not unlawful and therefore not murder. A clump of cells is not a person despite anything you might say to prop up your emotive argument.

Do you think you are more than a clump of cells? Why?

[Bust Nak]

Its just straight up dehumanising.

You say dehumanise; I say refraining from humanising.

Western democracies can abort millions but commies can do that and murder humans as well. So while you argue for killing one people group just watch out because even worse ideologies are willing to argue to kill humans.

They won't call them humans when they do it. They will dehumanise them first.

And that's one reason why people should stop conflating blastocysts with people. It trivialises the actual dehumanisation that is going on elsewhere on Earth.

If your only point is, well murder only means something in the context of USA law, then that is not much of a point as to if it is immoral to kill an unborn child.

It is a point when presented as a counterpoint to the claim "abortion is murder."

I often wonder, what if we grew children on our backs in a clear sack so everyone could see the child develop? I wonder if we would see abortion the same.

That's all the more reason to affirming that the pro choice side is appealing to emotions. Things would be different if you can just see the visual similarities, you can just look at how cute they are.

Do you think you are more than a clump of cells? Why?

I am a very special clump of cells. I don't know if that counts as "more than" or not. I am very special because I am a person.

[brunumb]

...
How do you morally justify allowing a wife and mother to die in order to preserve a blastocyst
...

It is interesting how people often dehumanize the person they want to murder. Similar argument could be used against any human. Doesn't make murder right.

Murder is unlawful killing of a human being. If abortion is legal it is not unlawful and therefore not murder. A clump of cells is not a person despite anything you might say to prop up your emotive argument.

This is not a good argument. It is saying that whatever we humans say is legal is right. At some other time or in some other country, their law could state that killing an unborn child is murder, so then what law is right?

If your only point is, well murder only means something in the context of USA law, then that is not much of a point as to if it is immoral to kill an unborn child. At the very least, upon conception, we have a potential person.

Now when you claim the guy is appealing to emotions to call it immoral, okay, but what are you appealing to? Is it wrong to kill a baby 10 minutes after it is born? Is it wrong to kill a person in a coma that has no brain activity? If so why so? What do you appeal to exactly?

I often wonder, what if we grew children on our backs in a clear sack so everyone could see the child develop? I wonder if we would see abortion the same.

To repeat, you cannot say it is murder unless it is unlawful. If abortion is legal, then it does not involve murder. Everything else is a separate issue.

The absurdity arises when people start referring to a clump of cells as a person. I don't believe they really care about those cells. They care about exercising control over others while using their religious beliefs as a lever. How many people give two figs about the children they managed to save from being aborted? Their concern ends at the vaginal opening. If the mother is young, then she is often treated as someone to be despised rather than someone who needs help. They now have a baby that they did not want, or need, or may not be able to care for, but that doesn't matter. The righteous have had their way and moved on.

[brunumb]

If a woman uses an abortion as a method of contraception, she is guilty.

Or, someone needs to learn the meaning of contraception.

[brunumb]

Murder is unlawful killing of a human being. If abortion is legal it is not unlawful and therefore not murder. A clump of cells is not a person despite anything you might say to prop up your emotive argument.

Do you think you are more than a clump of cells? Why?

I am, now. In the beginning, I was not.

I was wondering how long it would take someone to disingenuously pick up on that description. One usually hopes that what is stated will not be deliberately misconstrued for the sake of argument. But, for some that is the best they can counter with.

[AquinasForGod]

If a woman uses an abortion as a method of contraception, she is guilty.

Or, someone needs to learn the meaning of contraception.

I know the definition. I take it then you did not understand the concept I presented because the word was used outside the ordinary use? Do you stumble when reading novels for the same reason? Do you stop to email the author to let them know the way they used the word was outside the norm?