Is abortion ever justifiable?
- Thread starter ThomasT
- Start date
- Status
There are many places in the world where abortions can be performed safely but where C-sections can't. You seem unwilling to acknowledge this.
Even in places where abortions are unsafe and risky, for a woman who has no access to a C-section, these risky abortions are often her only hope of survival. It's a cruel thing to tell a woman who's dying for want of a C-section that she can't take her chances on the local abortionist because his "clinic" doesn't meet AMA standards and his "training" isn't properly certified.
These objections are pretexts designed to prop up the grotesque lie that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother.
You're putting the cart before the horse. We haven't yet established that abortion is murder in all possible cases.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Scripture, notwithstanding, of course (Job 33:4;Ex. 20:13;Jer. 1:4–5; Isaiah 49:1–5;45:9-12;64:8;Psalm 51:5;139:13–16;Matthew 5:21-22;Luke 1:40–44).
The verses you’ve cited make a strong case for the humanity of the unborn, and I have no interest in making the opposite case. In general I view abortion as a grave evil.
But the verses you've cited do nothing to address the issue of self-defense. The Bible deplores the killing of (born) children, but nowhere in the Bible will one find the suggestion that only a soldier or policeman or other agent of the state may justifiably kill a child if the child is actually threatening someone's life. The Bible doesn't lead us to believe that ordinary people -- people not wearing uniforms -- are prohibited from using deadly force against children when the force is used in self-defense.
So if we agree that an innocent gun-toting tot may sometimes be killed with justification, even if the killer isn’t a cop, we can’t then go on to say that the unborn may never be killed in justifiable self-defense unless we can show a critical and inherent difference between a helpless innocent embryo and a helpless innocent child.
In any homicide case in which a claim of self-defense is made, we have to become familiar with the relevant details of the case before we can conclude that the homicide was or wasn’t justifiable; we can't just look at the age of the deceased. When courts are hearing a case involving homicide, and the defendant makes an affirmative defense (meaning that he admits he committed the homicide he’s accused of, but on grounds of self-defense he denies any guilt), the court doesn’t simply say, “Well, the person you killed was three years old, so that’s the end of it – guilty.” Nor does it say, “Well, you said your life was at risk, so that’s the end of it – not guilty.” The court looks at the case in excruciating detail to determine what alternative actions the defendant could have taken, whether the child really was holding an actual firearm, whether the child was capable of discharging the firearm, whether the adult bore any responsibility for the fact that the child found himself in possession of the firearm, whether there was a reasonable chance the child might have pulled the trigger, etc. Without these details no responsible ruling can be reached by the court.
You seem to be indifferent to details when they're associated with abortion. But this is an indifference we're not entitled to as moral beings. Practical morality is a serious thing, and it happens to be everybody’s business. If we believe that abortion is always murder, we have to provide real reasons for treating one innocent human as absolutely untouchable and another innocent human as a justifiable target of deadly force. Which means we're stuck with the messy details.
Abortion as self-defense against one's own baby is a horrible justification.
I live in arguably the most remote part of the world. If we can arrange medivac to a facility big enough to do an abortion that same facility can do a c-section.
You make up false scenarios to defend the indefensible.
I live in arguably the most remote part of the world. If we can arrange medivac to a facility big enough to do an abortion that same facility can do a c-section.
You make up false scenarios to defend the indefensible.
In my scenario, which isn't supposed to be either "true" or "false" but rather a hypothetical (although there's no reason the scenario couldn't have already happened), the woman is merely a surrogate. The embryo isn't hers. Moreover, the woman didn't choose to be a surrogate; an embryo was implanted inside her against her will. Her life is now in terrible danger as a result of her being forced to carry someone else's offspring.
Your experience living in a remote place -- and I don't care if that place is the South Pole -- poses no threat to the truth of the following statement: There are millions of women around the world who have access to a village abortionist (no medivac needed) but who have no access to the resources necessary for a C-section. No one's going to medivac these women anywhere when they find themselves in a troubled pregnancy. No one even knows they need a medivac. They either get the abortion or they die.
If a girl happens to come to the attention of the right parties (say if an NGO has essentially adopted the village), then lucky her: She's taking a flight that will end up saving her life. But for every girl like her there are thousands who will never see the inside of an airplane no matter how sick they get.
You cling to a very odd hypothetical scenario but won't accept the reality. I live very remotely and there is no scenario I have ever heard of where somebody can get an abortion "to save their life" but not other needed healthcare.
At the very most a doc may prescribe a "therapeutic abortion" to avoid some possible future complications, but that is killing an innocent with certainty to avoid a possibility and is not morally defensible.
You are making things up trying to suit your purpose. Intentionally killing a live baby in the womb is never needed.
At the very most a doc may prescribe a "therapeutic abortion" to avoid some possible future complications, but that is killing an innocent with certainty to avoid a possibility and is not morally defensible.
You are making things up trying to suit your purpose. Intentionally killing a live baby in the womb is never needed.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
I find it odd that if there is such a lack of medical care how is it deemed that she must kill or be killed?
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the eastern Congo, but in any case it's a region that's been devastated by war. Rape is common, and women (this includes girls as young as ten) who get pregnant have no access to modern medical care. Much of the area is cut off from outside contact by rebel armies. Women with life-threatening pregnancies are forced to choose between taking a chance with a local abortionist (abortionists are ubiquitous in Africa) or taking a chance carrying a child to term. Many of those who elect to carry a child to term end up dying. No one -- exceptions allowed, as always, for the very lucky -- manages to escape her dilemma by hopping on a bush-flight to Nairobi and checking into a hospital.
And please let's not pretend that the eastern Congo is the only place in our sad world where similar conditions prevail. Your world, the one you keep calling our attention to, seems to be a much happier place than the real one. And that's great for those who live there. I'm concerned with those who don't.
How do you know it is a life-threatening pregnancy? How do you know the solution is to abort? How do you know they are "forced to choose" between their life or the baby's life?
Many women end up dying in childbirth here, too. The solution is not abortion. Women end up dying from botched abortions, too, in Africa. Is this an argument to get them done more professionally?
Maybe you should start putting trolley cars into your ethical dilemmas.
Many women end up dying in childbirth here, too. The solution is not abortion. Women end up dying from botched abortions, too, in Africa. Is this an argument to get them done more professionally?
Maybe you should start putting trolley cars into your ethical dilemmas.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
Although some have said similar things to me. I want to state clearly my position.
My simple maxim is and has been:
_Just my 2 worth...
PS - I know I wandered from the OP. Sorry for that.
My simple maxim is and has been:
Never kill a baby to protect the mother from a merely potential, even probable death.
In killing there's a world of difference between a definite death and a potential death.
_Just my 2 worth...
PS - I know I wandered from the OP. Sorry for that.
YES. Exactly! You didn't wander at all but hit the nail on the head.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
"If the choice is between allowing nature to kill the mother or man to kill the baby, I would choose the passive
action of possibly letting a woman die from natural consequences rather than intervening to directly kill the unborn child."
Src: Abortion: a rational look at an emotional issue {<--free}
action of possibly letting a woman die from natural consequences rather than intervening to directly kill the unborn child."
Src: Abortion: a rational look at an emotional issue {<--free}
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
Prepare for a wordy scolding...
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
A man walks up to a woman and beats her so badly that it disfigures her face. Now the the only thing she is reminded of when she looks in the mirror is her attacker. Is it fair that she has to live with that face or should she be allowed to kill herself in order to run from the remembrance of her attacker? Abortion is never right unless the mother is inches from death.
A woman is raped. So she cannot bear the thought of having a rapist's baby. So she has it aborted to help her forget.
Abortion is never right. Period.
We never really know when she is inches from death. There is a huge calculation problem of weighing probabilities. We don't have psychic abilities.
...and if she is already dying, killing a baby probably won't help her...better to deliver and save the baby.
Abortion is never right. Period.
We never really know when she is inches from death. There is a huge calculation problem of weighing probabilities. We don't have psychic abilities.
...and if she is already dying, killing a baby probably won't help her...better to deliver and save the baby.
The argument you’re making here is brought up frequently by those who oppose abortion in all cases. You and others on this thread seem committed to it.
But I think it’s a bad argument – it suffers from a consistency problem. The driving principle behind the anti-abortion movement is that the unborn are fully human and as such have the same rights as adults. And yet what’s really happening is that the anti-abortion movement is assigning more rights to the unborn than to the born.
What you're saying is that we can't kill the unborn simply on the possibility that the mother will otherwise die. Abortion is a definite end for the fetus, while death in childbirth for the mother is at most merely probable – it’s never certain.
Yet if we followed the same rule for adults (and for the born in general), no one would ever be able to use deadly force in self-defense. It’s never certain that a man pointing a gun at us will actually pull the trigger. It’s never certain that even if the man does pull the trigger, the gun won’t backfire. It’s never certain that even if the gun doesn’t backfire, the bullet won’t hit its target. But no one will object when we kill the man anyway. He was pointing a gun at us; that counts as a reasonable assumption of threat.
And by the way (and I have a feeling that this point will be overlooked), even if it's a three-year old who's waving the gun at us, the same rules apply. We may, depending on circumstances, have the right to kill the toddler (he thinks the gun is a toy and that we're playing a game), but when we (sadly) kill the kid, in what we believe to be self-defense, we can't say we really know for a fact that killing the kid was necessary.
Look at any case of justifiable homicide in the news recently and you’ll see that the man who used deadly force did so on a mere probability that the person he killed posed a threat to his life. No one has ever used deadly force in self-defense with an absolute certainty that deadly force was necessary. We operate in life on probabilities.
So assuming that you believe an adult has the right to use deadly force against another adult (or child) on a reasonable assumption – not a certainty – of mortal threat, you’re stuck with explaining why an adult can’t use deadly force against the unborn for the same reason.
I think a lot of mothers would make that same choice for themselves. But that's a choice -- it's not an obligation of justice.
If a 3 year old is waving a gun at people, I would hope the police are trained not to shoot to kill or even use deadly force. There are options. To go straight to the option of a sniper's round to the head is not the best. We don't know enough to know if the gun is loaded, if it is on safety, etc. I believe an officer trying to sneak up behind or using a riot shield so that death for the infant is never the goal is an obligation here.
One of our duties is to uphold the Christian principle of self-defense.
Let’s bring this argument back to its essentials. You’re asserting the following (the first four points are assumptions; please let me know if I'm misrepresenting you):
1. It’s not always murder to kill a young child intentionally.
2. It’s not always murder to kill an old person intentionally.
3. It’s not always murder to kill a physically handicapped person intentionally.
4. It’s not always murder to kill a mentally retarded person intentionally.
but…
5. It’s always murder, under all possible circumstances, to kill the unborn intentionally.
If you were teaching this principle to an ethics class, you’d have every hand in the room raised. Your students would present you with a million hypothetical cases, most involving highly unlikely circumstances, to determine if your principle could stand the test it’s clearly crying out for. If you responded to those hypotheticals by dismissing them on the grounds that they’re not what we encounter in everyday life, you’d lose your audience. And deservedly so.
My Congo scenario is admittedly outlandish, but I think it combines all the conditions necessary for the surrogate mother to justify killing the embryo she’s been forced to host.
Self-defense is a legitimate Christian principle; it can’t be dismissed out of hand.
So all cases involving cops shooting gun-wielding toddlers are murder cases? There's never been a single such case in which the police (or private citizen) had no other choice but to use deadly force? Please tell me you're not serious. In 2015, toddlers shot people at a rate of one a week in the US. And you want us to believe that in all of those cases there was a non-violent way to prevent the shooting?
"Last year, a Washington Post analysis found that toddlers were finding guns and shooting people at a rate of about one a week. This year, that pace has accelerated. There have been at least 23 toddler-involved shootings since Jan. 1, compared with 18 over the same period last year."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-23-people-this-year/?utm_term=.a3f47c1dd038
Self-defense against a willful attacker is much different than trying to defend the lives of all, including the innocent child/baby.
The baby is not "attacking" anybody.
Alan Guttmacher, former Planned Parenthood president says, "There are no conceivable clinical situations today where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. In fact, if her health is threatened and an abortion is performed, the abortion increases risks the mother will incur regarding her health."
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, American Bioethics Advisory Commission, "There is only one purpose for abortion — ending the life of the child. The "life of the mother" situation for abortion is simply bogus."
The baby is not "attacking" anybody.
Alan Guttmacher, former Planned Parenthood president says, "There are no conceivable clinical situations today where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. In fact, if her health is threatened and an abortion is performed, the abortion increases risks the mother will incur regarding her health."
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, American Bioethics Advisory Commission, "There is only one purpose for abortion — ending the life of the child. The "life of the mother" situation for abortion is simply bogus."
The presence of a fetus in a woman’s body can undermine the conditions necessary for her to sustain her own life. There are women who are advised by their doctors never to get pregnant because pregnancy will probably result in their death. The Catholic Church, which couldn’t be more strongly opposed to abortion (or to artificial contraception), allows women to take the pill when they suffer from conditions in which pregnancy will likely kill them.
When such a woman (a woman with pre-existing susceptibility to pregnancy-related death) gets pregnant as an involuntary surrogate (see my scenario), the embryo inside her, while helpless and innocent, isn’t just a serious threat to the life of the surrogate – it's also occupying a space it has no right to occupy. The woman has every right to remove it if its presence presents a mortal threat to her. Now if she’d gotten pregnant voluntarily, we’d have a grey area to deal with. But when another human being is put inside her without her consent, a human being that didn't even come from her own body, the woman needn’t stand by helpless; her body is hers to protect from a life-threatening intruder. The embryo in my scenario is an intruder despite being free of malice.
It’s the embryo (in my scenario) that’s occupying space it has no right to occupy. If someone drugs me, rendering me comatose, and dumps me in your house, I’m an intruder despite having no intent to intrude. You and I don't have equal standing in your house. And if my presence is somehow a threat to your life (say because of an infectious disease I carry), and you can’t a) leave your house to escape the threat I pose, or b) remove me from your house, you have every right to kill me. It doesn’t matter that I’m free of malice.
You may choose, as a matter of charity, not to kill me. But as a matter of justice you're entitled to do so. Justice doesn't require you to die because an intruder -- however helpless and unwitting -- puts your life at risk.
Because we as Christians have a duty not to make false statements about Christian ethics.
Steve Curtis
Puritan Board Senior
Such was our case - and God was pleased to bless us with not one but two babies! We never for an instant considered taking the life of either to avoid the potentiality of danger for my wife.
I also think that you are carrying the "self-defense" position too far. I am not so concerned with my own material existence that I would kill a toddler to preserve it. Period.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
Do you think toddlers are more of a threat than self radicalized Jihadis? They are kids who have stupid parents and they are fooling around with a gun not knowing better. Do you believe that they have intent? And yes, I do the cops who 'kill' kids should be tried for murder. I babysat a kid who was nuts once, about 7 or 8 years old running around, weidling a knife threatening me, his brother and my sister. I tackled him.
I have followed your logic and your attempted rebuttals. To the non-trained they sound good but, weak analogies and plot holes ruin it.
- Status
