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

[JehovahsWitness]

So if I pay the electricity bill in a hospital... can I turn off the incubators?

Depends, what's in the incubators?

Babies.

[Bust Nak]

So if I pay the electricity bill in a hospital... can I turn off the incubators?

Depends, what's in the incubators?

Babies.

Then the answer is no, it's not okay.

[JehovahsWitness]

It's more about how a situation imposes on a person, rather than where, but close enough.

So would it not be fair to say that being in the wrong location (to quote you "where"), being an imposition on a person or being physically dependent is no a reason to kill another living being ?

[Clownboat]

Then I'm missing the point too, unless you're saying that the condition of being inside another person, not freeliving, and the person supporting it should have the right to cut it off, should not be forced to support it whether it's a person or not, is what matters.

No, no, you got the point, that's exactly it.

So it comes down to location? No baby is self suporting, whether inside or outside the womb all babies need another human to survive; what kind of morality determines a person's value based solely on where he is located?

So if I pay the electricity bill in a hospital... can I turn off the incubators?

JW

Why play pretend?
Since you are not paying the electric bill... how about you remove yourself and leave it up to those that are responsible?
(For clarity, I assume you are a responsible person, not meaning to say otherwise above).

I don't like abortions myself and truly wish there was never a need/want to have one, but there are many and I acknowledge I'm not paying the electric bill.
You also don't like abortions and truly wish there was never a need/want to have one, but _______________________________________________.(?)

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #3]

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."

There is still no reason to abort a BABY. Especially when one takes into consideration the fact that babies can live outside the womb at 21 weeks now. Many people do not even know they are pregnant by that time. Abortion now is a cosmetic choice, not a health choice.

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

This is a very uninformed comment. Women cannot even know they are pregnant at 5-9 days. A baby at this stage of development has nothing to do with women dying. Can you at least us relative examples?

[Purple Knight]

So if I pay the electricity bill in a hospital... can I turn off the incubators?

I think it comes down to the fact that when something is freeliving, no specific person has to support them. I think what the vast majority of the pro-choice side would say in this situation, is that you don't just flip the switch, no. But you can stop paying the bill. And mothers can give away their babies... but perhaps not toss them in dumpsters.

And I think it might cease to be an issue for them if it was easier to remove a fetus and put it in somebody else.

I'm really the only outlier on the pro-choice side because my reason is lack of sapience.

[Bust Nak]

So would it not be fair to say that being in the wrong location (to quote you "where"), being an imposition on a person or being physically dependent is no a reason to kill another living being ?

No, that would not be fair to say, it depends on the circumstances of how a situation is imposition on a person. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

[Clownboat]

There is still no reason to abort a BABY.

I love my wife and my children. I would abort a baby (I feel slimy for using this word) to save the life of my wife if she were pregnant. I wouldn't even 2nd guess it and would do it over and over and over again.
There is in fact reason, your empty assertion is therefore wrong.

Especially when one takes into consideration the fact that babies can live outside the womb at 21 weeks now.

I would hate to do it, but I would have my baby aborted at 9 months in order to save the life of my wife. Any fact that a fetus can live outside a womb at anytime in this process is meaningless to this decision.

What would society do with all these unwanted babies we have now have (living outside the womb)? How many unwanted babies should society strive to have each year? Surely you realize that the more the better is illogical in this case.

Abortion now is a cosmetic choice, not a health choice.

When it is a cosmetic choice it would not necessarily be a health choice. However, when it is a health choice... well it is a health choice. What it should not be is your choice unless you are the potential mother. If you disagree, please explain why it should be your choice over the mothers.

[JehovahsWitness]

So would it not be fair to say that being in the wrong location (to quote you "where"), being an imposition on a person or being physically dependent is no a reason to kill another living being ?

No, that would not be fair to say, it depends on the circumstances of how a situation is imposition on a person. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

So if someone is a serious imposition (I would lose my career, my job, my marriage, my house, my good reputation, ...I would lose thousands of dollars), if they continued to live.... I can kill them?

[oldbadger]

So it comes down to location? No baby is self suporting, whether inside or outside the womb all babies need another human to survive; what kind of morality determines a person's value based solely on where he is located?

But when is a baby a baby?

So if I pay the electricity bill in a hospital... can I turn off the incubators?
JW

Hospitals turn off life-supporting machinery all the time.
But a baby in an incubator is not a pregnancy...... for example, killing a baby in an incubator (!!!) can't have any influence upon a woman's decision over a (say) ten week old bunch of cells.