Religion and Abortion

[anders]

It is sufficiently clear from the Bible/TaNaK that a fetus is not a living human being until it has taken its first breath. So, abortion is not contrary to the Christian or Jewish faiths. Moreover, Exodus describes a woman's loss of a fetus after bodily harm as the loss of a possession of her husband. Abortion is not only allowed, but PRESCRIBED if the woman is pregnant by a man other than her husband and if her husband is jealous. I interpret this rule (Numbers ch. 5) as that the husband very generously may abstain from the abortion-cum-sterilisation if he is not jealous.

Independently from this, my personal view is that the decision must be the woman's own decision, which she should consider discussing with the father-possibly-to-be if she thinks that the man is a responsible person.

Anders

 

[classz123]

It also says that only those who are sinless shall cast the first stone

 

[painted wolf]

While I would never personally have an Abortion, I would also never tell another person what to do with thier body. I certanly find it better than infanticide, at least its over early. The 'problem' is abortion has always been with us and always will be, its not a right that once taken away magically makes people stop.
Native Peoples around the world had contraceptives and abortitiives in their herbology... sometimes a woman and her people simply couldn't care for the child and it was more humane than letting it suffer. Women who bore ill or severly deformed children were known to kill them or just leave them in the wild to die... It was a traumatic event and the woman would mourn in whatever way her people did so.
When I was an Archeology student I learned that one of the most prized diggs was an old outhouse... aparently you often found the remains of infants that had been dropped in to thier deaths.... I for one don't want to go back to the 'good old days'.

wa:-do

 

[Runt]

It is sufficiently clear from the Bible/TaNaK that a fetus is not a living human being until it has taken its first breath.

If it is not alive, then why does its heart beat? Why does it kick its feet and suck its fingers and toes? Why does it hiccup? Why does its heartrate increase when it is startled inside the womb? Why does it DIE if its mother aborts it if it is not a living human being until it is born?

 

[anders]

Me: "It is sufficiently clear from the Bible/TaNaK that a fetus is not a living human being until it has taken its first breath."

Runt: "f it is not alive, then why does its heart beat?..."

Well, my reflections were meant primarily for those who think that they can use the Bible to oppose abortions. They obviously have no knowledge of the passages to which I refer, especially Numbers 5.

Anders

 

[Runt]

Anders--

Sorry. My bad

 

[Bendad]

Yes, most Christian denominations are in principle opposed to abortion-on-demand with some opposing it more vehemently than others. But I'm not aware of any specific mention of abortion in the Bible unless one applies the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill to the unborn. It probably wasn't a well-known practice among the Jewish peoples of either the old testament or during the life of Jesus. Yet, in the Didache, which historians and archeologists generally agree were writings of the apostles or their earliest followers, the practice of abortion which was later observed among the Roman community was strongly condemned as sinful.

It is difficult for politicians in today's secular communities to openly lobby for abortion to be outlawed on the basis of their own personal religious beliefs. Perhaps the best way for it to be handled is for governments to provide greater support options to pregnant women and single mothers. The authorities need to make adoption more accessible to couples who can't parent their own baby and provide provide mediators who could confidentially act as go-betweens for such couples and any pregnant women who might want to consider adopting out as an alternative to abortion.

Also, our aging population and declining birth rate in western nations means that more alternatives to abortion should be made available by governments before our societies reach such an imbalance demographically that they will not longer be able to support themselves.

 

[anders]

Bendad,

In a previous post I wrote "Abortion is not only allowed, but PRESCRIBED if the woman is pregnant by a man other than her husband and if her husband is jealous." In Numbers ch. 5, the husband and the priest in such a case are to see to that the woman not only has an abortion, but is sterilised for life (v. 27, KJV): "... and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot ..." Comparing the Hebrew text and several translations, there is no doubt that the first part means a miscarriage or abortion, and that the second part (some use "wilt") means that she will be unable to have any more children.

See also my April 02 post.

 

[civilcynic]

I am pro-choice and I have known women who have had abortions. To be sure there a few women who do use abortion as a method of birth control ( none that i have known) but I suggest that most women who make that decision, do so after agonizing over it. In most cases, it is not an easy decision to make and is not made simply for convenience.

So often I hear statements from the Pro-life contigency that "if the woman didn't to want to become pregnant, she should have either used birth control or abstained from sex....now that she's pregnant, she should take responsibility"........ This way of thinking traps women in a no-win situation because:

1. With the exception of condoms,abstinence and surgical intervention, all forms of effective birth control are abortifacients (includes pills, IUD, morning after pill, implants, patches, etc)...that is they work after a the egg is fertilized which is when pregnancy begins.

2. Abstinence may be well-suited to discourage promiscuity among unmarried individuals but what about happily married individuals? Should they forego sex once they decide not ot have anymore children?
According to the Christian religion, sex is very important in marriage and a woman should submit to her husband.....What is a woman to do? does she stop having sex with her husband(against most religions), use methods that will ensure the abortion of any beginning pregnancy (frowned upon by many Christian denominations), use condoms (frowned upon by some religions), try to use the rhythm method (which frequently results in pregnancy)?

If all religious and societal mores expect that men and women should maintain a healthy sexual relationship during marriage....how does a woman avoid becoming pregnant year after year after year....or is that what she is supposed to do? How does she remain true to her religious beliefs and yet not become another 'barefoot & pregnant' statistic?

Women should have the right to determine what will happen to their bodies and their future. Late term abortions are the ones most frequently used by anti-abortionists to persuade people to be pro-life. The fact is that late-term abortions are not common and present a medical risk to perform. I do believe that late-term abortions need to be held to higher standards and should never be done without good cause but that 'cause' needs to be between a woman and her doctor.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Alaric-

Are you implying that if another human being were drowning in a nearby lake, I would have the "full right" to decide whether or not to help him/her, since that person's life depends on me being "bothered" in the rescue attempt?

I think people "being bothered" to preserve the lives of others can be required- for example, the Good Samaritan laws.

Also, you say that abortion only becomes murder when the baby can live outside the womb by itself. What if in the future, better medical practices make it possible for fetuses to survive outside the womb at an earlier stage in pregnancy? Does that mean that all those abortions that previously took place at that stage could now be considered murder?

I'm an atheist, and I'm Pro Life. This doesn't mean the mother doesn't have a choice- give the child up for adoption! Contrary to popular belief, our nation's orphanages are far from overcrowded, and parents waiting to adopt often have to wait years. It's sad to think how far people go to protect whales, condors, chickens waiting to be turned into McNuggets....yet when it comes to our own young, we use the must base and inhumane medical procedures to kill them off as late as the third trimester, all because "we're really not ready for this baby right now".

The ancient Romans used to give birth to unwanted babies and throw them in the city garbage heap to die. Are abortions, especially late term ones, any less savage? Sorry, it's just my opinion.

 

[Runt]

I think people "being bothered" to preserve the lives of others can be required- for example, the Good Samaritan laws

I think, (though understand, I'm not SURE) that the Good Samaritan laws don't require people to act, but merely protect them from lawsuit for screwing up when trying to help. Like, if I used an AED on someone with a pacemaker and they died... their family could not sue me under the Good Samaritan law because I was trying to help. (We're doing a CPR and AED unit at school, so this issue has come up.)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I could be wrong also, but I thought there were laws that required doctors to help people even when they're off duty, and that require you to at least go call 911 if you see someone get hit by a car etc.

 

[reebs]

I love this topic of abortion. I strongly oppose abortion. Do I think that abortion should be made illegal? Yes. But I don't think that it HAS to be. I feel that everybody has a choice. Man or woman, you have a choice. I feel that humans should be responsible enough and smart enough to make the right choice. Things do happen for a reason!! If a woman becomes pregnant, why look at all the negatives? Look at the positives. You have the opportunity to change a child's life. You can kill it or keep it and help it flourish into a wonderful addition to the world. There shouldn't have to be a law to force someone to make the right choice. Another point: isn't it ironic that if someone gets into a car accident with a pregnant woman and kills her and her baby, it is considered a double murder?

 

[painted wolf]

however there are times abortion is nessisary...
ever heard of Harlequin Fetus ? mg:
There are some very nasty things that can go wrong.... Banning abortion outright also bans its use as a nessisary medical procedure..
Perhaps if pro-abortion activist used the same sort of gory pictures to promote thier agenda it wouldn't be an issue....

wa:-do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't support making abortion illegal when it is a necessary medical procedure.

 

[Bastet]

I am pro-choice, but I don't think I personally could have an abortion. But again, you never know what you would do in a given situation, unless you were actually in it. I have known women who have had an abortion, because they felt it was the best option at the time, and I have known women who decided to keep the baby. Neither were easy decisions. I certainly don't see abortion as "the easy way out", because it's a decision that stays with you for the rest of your life. Yes, I believe everything happens for a reason, but what's to say the reason is to have the baby? Anyway, making abortions illegal won't make them stop, it would just make them more dangerous. You can be pro-life, pro-choice, or pro-whateverthehellyoulike, but in the end, I will do with my own body what I wish. And that should go for every woman.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree that making abortion illegal wouldn't stop abortions entirely, just as making cocaine illegal won't stop all cocaine use. However, abortion rates have increased since Roe v Wade (though they are currently decreasing).

I think if abortions were made illegal (except when medically required) abortion rates would drop, just as if anything were made illegal. I think more women would choose adoption rather than back alley abortions. Today about one in every four pregnancies ends in abortion.
http://www.publicagenda.com/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=abortion&list=3

Why are abortion and keeping the baby the only two options? Why not give the child up for adoption, to a family who wants a baby and has means to support him/her?

What about late term abortions (though very rare) in which the baby inside could be delivered and live on its own outside the body (with the aid of doctors, of course- like all premature newborns)?

In partial birth abortions (which are currently legal) the baby could survive outside the womb if delivered fully, but instead is delivered feet first so that the skull can be split open and the brains sucked out. I apologize for being graphic, but I don't understand why this procedure doesn't fill pro choice people with horror, as it does me.

 

[OctoberTheHottie]

In partial birth abortions (which are currently legal) the baby could survive outside the womb if delivered fully, but instead is delivered feet first so that the skull can be split open and the brains sucked out. I apologize for being graphic, but I don't understand why this procedure doesn't fill pro choice people with horror, as it does me.

I have never heard of that, that is just unbelievable to me that someone would think of such a procedure to do.....

But in my opinion on the whole thing, I have said this before, although it would never happen, I think a good solution to the problem would be if abortion were made illegal and that anyone under 21 should have to legally give thier baby up for adoption to a family waiting on an adoption list. Now I am pro-choice, but teens, as well as irresponsible adults have made this into just another form of birth control, it is so normal and I don't think it should be that way. Not to mention once you get up to a high amount of abortions you are really starting to cause damage for yourself... There should be something into getting people to realize that you need to think about this before the problem, not after.

I don't support making abortion illegal when it is a necessary medical procedure.

And in the case of medical danger to keep the mother or baby from being injured and the doctor has to recommend an abortion, it is called denaturalization and that will always be legal, it is not considered an abortion and would not be affected by laws.... Why would they illegalize that when adult lives could be lost or the baby could be born dead and all that could be avoided?? I don't think the two go hand in hand, illegalizing abortion would mean no more after the fact birth control, and unfortunately rape victims would have to either keep thier baby or put it up for adoption, but those would be the only two things affected....

 

[painted wolf]

well... knowing victems of rape and thier struggle over such issues.. I can't say anyone has the right to tell them to give birth ...

can you imagine haveing to carry the child of your attacker?... Having that constant reminder of the violence and humiliation forced on you by society?

wa:-do

 

[OctoberTheHottie]

Yeah, but that is really besides the point, when you can get a morning after pill, I had forgot about that when I made that post.

I mostly only support illegalizing abortion over teen's view of it as birth control, but since every age group would have to suffer through it as well, there are other options. I just look at it as everyone needs to make a conscience effort. Rape victims need to come forward and get treatment, teens need to make it their responsibility to take this more seriously. And adults need to be more responsible too.... Whether law should be what forces us to do that or not, I dunno, but that is just my opinion.... It just looks cut and dry to me, on one hand you have families dying to adopt a child they can raise as thier own, and on the other hand you have babies being killed everyday because teens are too young to handle it. How much more simple can it get?? If everyone knew 100% without a doubt that if you get pregnant under age your only choice is to give it up for adoption I would think that would make them think twice about whether they wanted to take 9 months out of thier life to deal with that. I don't think they should have the right to keep it because they aren't prepared and the child will suffer not to mention they will be on welfare. I know that is a pipe dream though because I think it would force more kids into trying to do it themselves. So I certainly wouldn't want that. It is a tough world we live in..... It's almost like we have been backed into a corner on this one, it doesn't look like there is any happy way to change this matter....