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

[1213]

...
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?
...

1) People don't necessarily know what saves the life of the woman.
2) The baby has done nothing to deserve death penalty.

[Diogenes]

...
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?
...

1) People don't necessarily know what saves the life of the woman.
2) The baby has done nothing to deserve death penalty.

Arbitrarily ignoring facts to support an opinion is not an example of morality.

1) Physicians know when a medical abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother and when a life saving procedure involves the death of a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus.

“Pregnancy imposes significant physiological changes on a person’s body. These changes can exacerbate underlying or preexisting conditions, like renal or cardiac disease, and can severely compromise health or even cause death."
https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases ... -necessary

Contrary to claims made online, certain medical conditions may require the termination of a pregnancy to avoid fatal complications for the mother.
.... If there’s a clear sign of infection, the condition can be life threatening, “because there is an extremely high risk that the infection inside of the uterus spreads very quickly into her bloodstream and she becomes septic. If she continues the pregnancy it comes at a very high risk of death.”'

https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N2TC0VD

2) A Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus are not "babies."

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

or embryo?

[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.

The best course of action is for the poor girl or woman to raise the child and win by proving the rapist and all the people that wanted to kill the baby were wrong to think so.

[brunumb]

[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?

[1213]

...
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.

[JehovahsWitness]

...
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?
...

1) People don't necessarily know what saves the life of the woman.
2) The baby has done nothing to deserve death penalty.

I would also add who judges that the life of a woman is of more value than the life of a child? Biblically, all human life is equal, it is not of less value because the person is smaller, has not lived as long or is physically dependent on others to survive.

[Bust Nak]

The best course of action is for the poor girl or woman to raise the child and win by proving the rapist and all the people that wanted to kill the baby were wrong to think so.

Best for whom and best in what sense?

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.

Nor doesn't make abortion wrong.

I would also add who judges that the life of a woman is of more value than the life of a child?

Value is subjective, so it's up to each individual to decide.

[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.

[Diogenes]

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.