Issues such as abortion and homosexual behavior can be very complex psychologically while being simple from a moral standpoint. It helps to distinguish between the two in order to have a more productive conversation.
For example, the circumstances surrounding an abortion decision are almost always psychologically complex. Women/girls get pressured from their parents and/or boyfriends/husbands and even their friends. People think they are too poor or too young or that having the baby will impact their education, career or social standing. These are real pressures and real fears that need to be addressed.
However, from a moral standpoint abortion is not complex. It is always wrong to kill an innocent human being. And the unborn are unquestionably living human beings (they have human chromosomes and unique DNA, among other things, and if they weren’t alive and growing there would be no need for the abortion.) Life begins at conception.
So while we shouldn’t gloss over the very real psychological challenges an unplanned pregnancy brings about, we also shouldn’t be bashful about making the moral case for the pro-life position.
P.S. Please note that now and forever when I say “abortion” I mean “abortions besides those required to save the life of the mother.” Pro-lifers are quite consistent in that we want to maximize life. Abortions are ethically permissible when the woman’s life is at stake. It just gets too wordy to always add, “except for the life of the mother.”
Hat tip: Stand to Reason pro-life materials
Filed under: Favorites, Pro-life reasoning | Tagged: homosexuality, Pro-life, religion
“Please note that now and forever when I say “abortion” I mean “abortions besides those required to save the life of the mother.” Pro-lifers are quite consistent in that we want to maximize life. Abortions are ethically permissible when the woman’s life is at stake. It just gets too wordy to always add, “except for the life of the mother.”
Where do you stand on the rape or incest exception?
“Where do you stand on the rape or incest exception?”
Good question. I addressed it more fully here –
http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/the-hard-cases/
The short answer: If you want to kill the rapist, I’d entertain that idea. But we shouldn’t kill the children of the rapist. And the kind of incest we’re talking about in these situations are usually rape as well.
There aren’t easy answers when someone has been raped or a victim of incest. But deliberately killing an innocent human being improves remarkably few situations in life.
Neil,
i would go even further. If abortion is murder, it is still murder when the moms life is at stake.
Most moms I know, myself included, would gladly give their own life for the life of their child. We moms love our kids the minute we know they are inside us.
We must not give one life more importance than another.
Remember, your life being at stake, where there is a possibility of not dying is different from killing another human to ensure you live.
kw
Hi KW, there are certain situations where its either the mothers life or zero lives, such as ectopic pregnancy. It’s not really a debate that I want to get into right now, but I thought I would bring up that point.
i agree, ectopic is the one. the baby is not where is should be in the first place.
kw
KW,
I disagree with your statement regarding abortion in cases of saving the mother’s life. Though I will say that I don’t think there’s a doctor alive who can ever be 100%, in such cases, A mother, if not most, might not have the courage to take the chance. I’ve never taken the time to understand the conditions by which such a decision would come into play. I’ve simply saw it an easy distinction to make. When the mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy, it is an act of self-defense to abort, not murder. Plus, I’m sure that in many such cases, the mother can’t even make the decision (being unconscious), and the decision is made by the husband. Now, a third party must choose between losing one or the other, and possibly both if no decision is made at all. Still, not murder. None of these situations fall within the definition of murder. Still one more variation occurs to me, which is a case where it isn’t the first pregnancy and the woman’s other children would be affected by her decision. All of these situations are tragic. None of them constitute murder.
self defense means you are defending yourself against an attacker. i don;t think that applies here. one is till placing more emphasis to one life over another. i know it is a harsh stance, but it is the logical conclusion. it either is or is not murder.
kw
If there is no desire to kill, but rather a one or the other reluctance, it is not murder. There is no malice aforethought, but a vein hope for an alternative. And since the mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy, she is indeed defending herself against an attack by aborting. It doesn’t need to be a malicious attack, only that the life of the mother is threatened for it to be a defense of her self. It is NOT murder.
on the abortion-is-allowable-to-save-the-mother’s-life argument, I think medically these circumstances are insignificant. I don’t have the figures to back it up, but I have heard that cases where a pregnancy is terminated in order to save the mother’s life have nothing to do with the pregnancy but that the termination is simply an undesired result of a medical procedure to save the mother.
ie. the procedure is performed with the express intent to avoid having the pregnancy terminated. Yet the procedures are done with a great risk to the unborn child.
I don’t believe there are cases where a surgeon says something along the lives of: the only way we can save your life is to terminate the pregnancy. Moreover, the line will be: in order to save your life, we risk terminating the pregnancy.
The latter implies that the termination is a side-effect that is avoided as the surgeon is able; the former implies that the pregnancy is THE problem for the life threatening circumstance of the mother.
I’ll see if I can find any research on this …