Abortion and Christians Series

In addition to the “Re-Thinking Calvinism” series – which I am still working on – I want to also start on a series about abortion. 

Unfortunately, the issue and debate has been mishandled by both sides of the issue and has been debated to the point that people are tired of it. My goal, however, is to first show why abortion is an issue worth debating, why it is morally wrong, and then even use consequentialism and pragmatism to show why it should be outlawed. 

At the same time, I want to approach this matter with the utmost respect and sober mind so as to avoid previous mistakes on the subject. My hope is that people are are pro-abortion (or “pro-choice,” a misnomer I will deal with in this series) will approach this with an open mind, just as I have evaluated and looked at the pro-abortion side with an open mind. 

Most of all, I hope this will open up the discussion in a rational manner.


6 thoughts on “Abortion and Christians Series

  1. What I have to say will probably offend you, but I still feel it has to be said.

    If you are pro-choice you are not neccersarily pro-abortion. You can be pro-choice and still feel that abortion is wrong, the idea with being pro-choice is to let others make their own decisions. Pro-choice means to choose whether you have an abortion or not.

    I honestly do not want to have an abortion ever, but that does not mean I am going to dictate to others what they should do with their bodies. If they cannot choose what happens to their bodies then I can’t really say that is much of a life.

    I am going to ask you on your opinion on something, please don’t be offended but the way pro-lifers go on it is almost as if suggesting that the woman that carries that child is unimportant. Pro-lifers go on about the rights of the unborn child that in reality cannot live without the woman carrying it. Sure in a perfect world people wouldn’t have sex and possibly create a child until they are ready to have one but surely the woman should be important too? Its almost as if as soon as the woman has concieved she isnt important anymore, she has done her job now its time to care only about that bunch of cells that has the potential for life and not the person that is currently living.

    And then there are the cases of women who do not want to have abortions but are forced to for medical reasons. You say that abortion is “morally wrong”; that is your opinion and you are intitled to it, but what if the women that are forced to have an abortion because for example they have an eptopic pregnancy, also have the same belief as you. If a woman were to go through with an eptopic pregnancy, she is risking her life. So it almost as if you are saying that her life doesn’t matter anymore. In that sitution (if continued) both the mother and the child would die. So surely in situations such as these it is better to save one life then lose two? I don’t know what your stance is on medical abortions so please don’t think I am trying to goad you.

    I would really like to know your opinions on what I have said. I have more literature about pro-choice on my blog if you would like to see it. I would also be grateful if you could add “anti-choice” as a tag. If you want to be balanced and unbiased I feel it would be best to add. But it is up to you.

    – Rogue

  2. Rogue,

    I would encourage you to read my latest two posts on the issue of abortion. They really help to answer a lot of the questions you have.

    I have no problem labeling something anti-choice – I don’t think humans should have the choice to murder other human beings.

    The problem with your argument on the value of the woman is you are assuming that it is just a bunch of cells. As I have already shown in my most recent post, this is a flimsy definition and one that can’t be accurately defined by the pro-abortion side. It is not that the woman is devalued, but instead that she does not hold the right to murder another human being, even if that human being is dependent upon her.

  3. We are never going to agree, I can see that any argument I make, to you, will be wrong. So I am not going to bother. If I do I will get angry and then what I say wont be particularly nice.

    You have your opinions and I have mine, and nothing you say is really going to change my mind. I believe in valuing the life that is already here, that is my choice. You may have problems with what I say but at the same time I have problems with your arguments too.

    I guess here all we can do is agree to disagree.

  4. All I am asking for is an open mind and an open discussion.

    I think the best way to begin a discussion on abortion is to establish when you believe life begins. Obviously you don’t believe it begins at conception, so when do you think it does begin?

  5. I’ll agree that it is hard to say. I suppose I would probably say that when the organs have developed sufficantly to survive outside the womb. I know it sounds clinical, but it is a hard one to say. For most it probably feels like life from conception but for others it could be from birth.

    One of my best friends in currently pregnant, she’s happy about the baby but she didn’t honestly feel like there was a person inside her until she reached the 3 month mark. If differs. I do think though that to say it begins at conception is wrong because at that time it really is a bunch of cells that are developing, when it starts to look more like a sea horse, I’m more willing to think that it is a baby.

    Scientifically the body first sees the cells as a virus, thats why the woman throws up at the beginning. Some could argue that if you want this bunch of cells to continue growing why not let diseases grow? – Off point I know but I just thought I’d mention it.

    I am more willing to think of it as a human being when I feel confident that it could survive if it had to come early.

  6. I’d point you to the argument I made in my post on June 2. If the life must be viable outside of the womb in order to be considered human, what do we do with children put on ventilators, or babies that require a shunt in the heart (pre-natal surgery/implant)? None of these children are viable outside of the womb – they all require some technological advance in order to be viable.

    This would mean that before the shunt was created (pre-1920’s) children born without this pre-natal surgery would have died once outside the womb. Does this mean back then they weren’t human, but today these children in the same circumstances are? Is humanity (ontology) really subjective (this raises a whole host of other issues)?

    In other words, if a child is not viable outside of the womb, but can be rescued through modern technology, is this child still human? If so, then your definition no longer works. What if we develop a technology that allows a child to live just a few weeks after implantation? Hypothetical: in 2050 they develop a device that women can wear when going to the restroom that will collect any miscarriage and preserve the child. The child is then taken to the emergency room where the child is allowed to develop inside an incubator. If this child, inside the incubator, still human?

    If no, then we must also argue that children who require pre-natal surgery in order to be viable outside of the womb – and would not be viable without modern technology – are also not human.

    Do you see where your definition leaves you?

Comments are closed.