Abortion Stance

[tklein1014]

I'm curious to know where people here stand on this issue.

Tina

[Melody]

I'm very Pro-Life and Anti-Abortion. So I believe it should never be legal under any circumstances.

I know of a priest (Fr. Mathew Elavunkal) who firmly preaches this message and has many case studies of mothers who were warned to have abortions by their doctors either for their own health or the health of the baby but didn't because they trusted in the Lord & prayed & everything worked out 100% in all the cases. Easy to preach but hard to do.

Then again, Jesus did warn us that the correct & True path was a narrow one.

Wrt the poll, as of now one person voted for 1st tri abortion legal in certain circumstances - what makes you vote that?

Melody

[Ajay]

I have no idea wat a tri is, but in my opinion, abortion is illegal.

No human being has the right to take away the life of another whether in real or whether in the womb.

[tklein1014]

The one who picked 1st trimester under certain circumstances was me...  Gee, I guess that makes me the "liberal" here so far - ROTFL - That's kind of weird.  Anyhow, in making the responses it's hard to cover all the "what ifs" so I generalized it.  My "certain circumstances" specifically is if the mother's life is in danger.  Not health - every pregnancy is a threat to a woman's health, which is why I think the "health exception" the liberals here in the US are touting regarding the PBA ban is bogus.  In my opinion, in a case such as an ectopic pregnancy, where both mother and baby are doomed if the baby is carried at least to viability, it's better to save 1 life than to lose both.  I think a legitimate argument for self-defense could be made in cases like this.  I don't see a moral difference between defending your life against a born person & an unborn person.  Self-defense is self-defense, and I think everyone should always have a right to that if need be.  By the time you get to the 2nd trimester, if carrying the baby to term becomes a threat to the mother's life at that point or later, the baby starts to become viable & then I think an attempt should be made to save both lives, whether that means carrying the baby as long as possible up to/after viability, or if it means inducing early labor in order to save the mother's life, and hope/pray for the best for the baby.  If/when technology advances to the point where a 1st trimester baby can survive outside the womb (viability age has gotten younger and younger over the years), then I'd oppose legal abortion all the way, but as it stands where we are now, if the baby isn't viable yet, the mother's life should be saved instead of losing them both.

Tina

[tklein1014]

Ajay - Just FYI, a trimester is each subsequent 3 month period of pregnancy.

1st trimester = Implantation-12 weeks (zygote/embryo/early fetus stages)
2nd trimester = 13-24 weeks (at this point in technology as far as I'm aware, viability occurs at about 21-22 weeks)
3rd trimester = 25 weeks-Term

Tina

[Seeker]

It's never legal because once the egg is fertilized it is another human being.  The only exception I can see is if there is an ectopic pregnancy (or one where the egg attaches outside the uterus) in which both the baby and mother are doomed unless something is done.  It is tragic, but until medical technology is such that both can be saved, there is no other choice in order to save the mother's life.

I also never realized before that the Pill doesn't just prevent ovulation, but if ovulation occurs, it makes the uterus inhospitable for the fertilized egg so that it may not attach and then dies.  To me this sounds morally a lot like abortion even if it seems a lot cleaner.

[tklein1014]

I am 100% in agreement with you, Seeker.  You put what I was trying to say much simpler.  After I posted yesterday I thought of a simpler way to put my thoughts...  Pre-viablility, last resort, emergencies only (in order to save the mother's life).  I've also heard that about the pill.  I've heard some say that it doesn't cause abortions, but I suspect those comments are coming from those who don't think life begins until Implantation.  IMO, if something prevents implantation (pill, IUDs, etc) it causes abortions.

Tina

[Ajay]

Ajay - Just FYI, a trimester is each subsequent 3 month period of pregnancy.

1st trimester = Implantation-12 weeks (zygote/embryo/early fetus stages)
2nd trimester = 13-24 weeks (at this point in technology as far as I'm aware, viability occurs at about 21-22 weeks)
3rd trimester = 25 weeks-Term

Tina

Thanks

[Seeker]

Hi Tina,

I've also heard that about the pill. I've heard some say that it doesn't cause abortions, but I suspect those comments are coming from those who don't think life begins until Implantation.

I think you're right Tina.  In case some of those people are simply misinformed about the Pill here's the info straight from Planned Parenthood itself..  You can also get more of the truth from Pharmacists for Life.

I know a lot of people who think it just prevents ovulation.  I think the drug companies certainly would like for everyone to believe that.  I don't believe that most OB/GYN's make that point to people when they prescribe the Pill.  It's promoted as an easy and clean way to prevent pregnancy.  A lot of good Christians (and many of them Catholics) take the Pill regularly without any thought about it.  If they knew the truth, I think many of tem would change their habits.  Or at least I hope so.

The Truth will set you free.

[Stigmata]

I do not believe that a zygote is a human being, and I support the legal right of every woman to make her own reproductive choices. I do think, however, that the first trimester is ample time to make those decisions.

In my mind, the claim that human life begins at conception is just as arbitrary (and false) as the claim that human life begins at birth.

Of one thing I am certain: No one wants abortions to occur. In that respect, we all have a common goal. The population should be educated about reproductive health, and contraceptives should be accessible, affordable, and safe.

[Rev. Eric]

Hello All,

My own position on abortion is that of the Catholic Church (big surprise, huh?).  Abortion is an intrinsic evil and no one may lawfully take the life of an innocent human being.  It is permissible, however, for a mother to undergo a medical procedure that would result in an abortion if the procedure is done to save the mother's life and the death of the fetus was unavoidable.  This is permissible under the Principal of Double Effect (the primary intention and goal is to save the mother's life, not to abort the child).

I do not believe that a zygote is a human being

In my mind, the claim that human life begins at conception is just as arbitrary (and false) as the claim that human life begins at birth.

Stigmata, my first reaction to such statements was to be curious as to exactly when you, personally, think that human life begins.  Futhermore, I would ask what makes you so certain that human life does not begin at conception.  After all, apparently you feel certain of your position because you support abortion.  I think it would be reckless for you or anyone to support abortion without being certain that human life is not in danger.  But I have not seen any abortion supporter objectively demonstrate this certainty, so they seem to rely upon subjective opinions and personal desires.  You do not personally believe that the life on the womb is human, but how does your personal opinion represent a basis for permitting abortion.  What if you are wrong?  The consequences of your opinion being wrong is the death of a baby.

In any event, in response to your statements I would ask that you consider what I and David Filmer have presented within the thread "Great News."  Therein I show that even though people argue about when human life begins, it is still unethical and illogical to support abortion.  David demonstrates that the fetus, from a biological position, is, indeed, human.

Of one thing I am certain: No one wants abortions to occur. In that respect, we all have a common goal. The population should be educated about reproductive health, and contraceptives should be accessible, affordable, and safe.

Naturally I am against contraception.  Furthermore, I disagree that it is the key to lowering abortions.  Contraceptives are widely advertised on the TV and in magazines.  They are sold over the counter in just about every drug store and department store, and given out for free in health clinics.  Despite this, abortions are rampant.  Contraceptions are unreliable and the use of them fosters an anti-life mentality, which is why turning to abortion seems the next reasonable step to many who initially (and unsuccessfully) relied on contraception to prevent pregnancy.  

For those interested in reading it, the Catholic Church's official position against contraception is described in #2370 of the Catechism.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[jesusandyou]

If somebody takes a pain killer to get freed from a head ache, then you will find a valid reason why the contraceptives should not be used among the HIV infected people from further spreading. The growing problem of teenage pregnency can be controlled by freely distributing drugs or such contraceptives. Prevention is better than cure. To avoid this, it's needed by faith based organizations to educate our young people in schools.

[Melody]

If somebody takes a pain killer to get freed from a head ache, then you will find a valid reason why the contraceptives should not be used among the HIV infected people from further spreading.

Sorry, JesusandYou, but I don't quite understand what you meant by this?

esp. in light of your next statement:

The growing problem of teenage pregnency can be controlled by freely distributing drugs or such contraceptives.

While the Catholic View Does Not Advocate Contraceptives, it is also proven that Condoms are not 100% effective in the preventing the HIV virus from spreading.

STDs are very tiny organisms, minuscule in size compared to sperm. These super-small viruses can get through a hole in a condom much more easily than sperm can. For example, HIV (the AIDS-causing virus) is so small that two million of the disease-causing agents could crowd on the period at the end of a sentence.

However what we were discussing here was abortion. Contraceptives could to a great extent curb pregnancy. Then again - Not a single Contraceptive can give you a 100% guarantee.

The moral of the story - go with the Christian & the Catholic point of view, no pre-marital sex & post-marital sex should be only with one's spouse.

As for my exact view on the above poll, have already posted above.

Blessings,

Melody

[Rose Mary]

 In discussing Abortion, it is to be remembered that ALL chemical, mechanical and surgical methods of contraception are deadly, either to the unborn, as they are abortifacient, or to the mother and child as they can cause eclampsia or other conditions that can kill in the short term or the long term.

The very reason we have LEGALIZED abortion, is that we first LEGALIZED contraception.  It was the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church that removed the ban on contraception for married couples... and then for anyone. This happened in 1930, and since that time, sexually active couples have come to expect sexual pleasure without the consequence of pregnancy, and so, if a pregnancy does occur, and since none of the methods are 100% effective, pregnancy often occurs, then the natural sequence is to abort the child.

We will never eliminate abortion from our midst, as long as we have artificial contraception  The key to promoting the Culture of Life is to promote Natural Family Planning.  This educates couples in the Natural Law and the accuracy of the scientific basis for such a law.  True science and true religion will never contradict each other.

Yours for "LIFE"  Rose Mary

[mario]

I need a little more clarification on the poll you set up.  What  "circumstances" are you talking about.  Does the "circumstances" include "rape" and "incest" ?.   Or are you talking about medical "circumstances" where the life of the mother is in grave danger.Please clarify. thanks.

[Seeker]

Hi mario!

Tina hasn't been around for a long time so let me answer.

She originally meant it to mean "specifically is if the mother's life is in danger." 

IMHO, we should change that to mean rape and incest.  If the mother's life is in danger it wouldn't be abortion, but would be the unintended side effect of saving the mother.