As for me, I’m not sure whether women should be allowed to choose but I feel certain that abortion is immoral. For a comparison, one can believe that people should be allowed to become intoxicated, but genuinely believe that becoming drunk is immoral. Also, it’s legal to commit acts of fornication, although many in our society consider it to be immoral.
A better analogy would be if that intoxicated person were to get behind the wheel and kill someone; would that not be worth preventing, as well as calling it immoral (which it is?)
Do you suggest that we outlaw drinking because drunken driving is a potential danger?
Nobody has the right to murder innocent children. Comparing murder to alcohol overuse? Apart from the obvious difference in gravity, drinking alcohol does not immediately injure anyone else.
Women have as much of a right to abort a pregnancy as you and I have to murder our neighbor.
The difference between the actions you describe and abortion is the fact that abortion is the literal murder of a baby in the womb. Do we have the ability to choose to murder someone if we really want to? Sure! But, are we legally free to commit acts of murder in this country? NO! Why? Because our freedom ends where someone else’s nose begins. Therefore, despite the argument that it is only religious people who are against abortion and therefore those beliefs should not be imposed on all Americans, there is this very simple, common sense fact:
Abortion kills a human being, and therefore it is not acceptable under the laws of the United States.
May God bless you all!
The simple answer is “no”. Supporting the right to choose, indirectly supports the act itself.
As Ronald Reagan said, “Interesting how folks that support abortion have already been born.”
There are two issues here: the ‘right to choose’ question, and the question of legality.
In truth, everyone has a right to choose to act however they wish. We have the right to choose to murder (including abortion), steal, rape, etc. When people say ‘right to choose’, they mean the right to do something wrong without any consequences for it. This is impossible, since immoral acts violate nature and always have negative consequences (unless we use means to avoid them, usually unnatural). But, because we live in a fallen world, people frequently do immoral acts with very little immediate consequences.
Legally speaking, it’s more difficult to say. However, the basis of criminal law is whether something harms the common good of society, or violates human rights. The difficulty of making every single sin criminal is that many of them only affect one person directly, like blasphemy, or are entirely consensual and so are more of a private matter between persons, like adultery. Abortion, however, harms society, since it promotes a culture of death, a dehumanization of people, and a violation of the mother-child relationship which is vital to society; and because it violates the human rights of the unborn child, specifically their right to life. But, society says it is purely the mother’s business, and that any decision a mother makes about her child or body is necessarily right, so it’s legal. That is the fundamental reason abortion is legal: ‘privacy’, not the many reasons pro-life people often state.
Only in a dystopian society.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Say you said something that annoyed me and I took out a gun and shot you dead. Is that okay, because I have a right to choose to kill you? Of course not. Why should anyone have the right to arbitrarily kill someone just because its convenient to them to do so?
Well, as I have said many times before, it is not that simple…at least not in Judaism. The commandment is “Thou shalt not kill,” meaning “Thou shalt not murder.” If killing had been outlawed altogether, then self-defense killing (of human beings) would not be moral. For Judaism, this poses two problems. One is the issue of whether the killing of an unborn baby can be moral when it is a means of self-defense by the mother, whose life or health is most likely in jeopardy if she does not choose to abort her baby. The answer for most rabbis is yes it can. However, can self-defense also be defined in a situation where there are two unborn babies and one is threatening (unintentionally, of course) the life and birth of the other? On this issue, the rabbis have struggled to apply the meaning of self-defense. Many have come up with the response that abortion can be justified when one baby–the physically ill and weaker one–threatens to harm the other, so that if the pregnancy is allowed to continue without aborting the ill baby, the stronger, healthier one will most probably also die. Then there are cases of rape and incest, on which rabbis continue to argue. However, for some, this also fits into the definition of self-defense, in which the baby threatens to harm the psychological (as well as physical) health of the mother. A severely congenitally deformed unborn baby is yet another case. This may also fit into self-defense for the health of the mother, or even self-defense for the baby himself, who will surely lead a very short and painful life if allowed to be born. These are all tricky, problematic issues within Judaism. One thing all denominations agree with, however, is that abortion on demand is not permitted.
The other issue, in Judaism, is whether the unborn baby is a human person, even though it is a human being. This issue is too long to discuss here.
I am sure other religions have their own set of guidelines for whether abortion is allowed and in which set of circumstances, and these may very likely disagree with both the teachings of Catholicism and Judaism on the subject.
NO. And no amount of mental gymnastics can make it ok
Put your mind on higher things.
Who is it that makes evil seem acceptable??? I think you know.
Abortion is murder. Does one have a “right” to murder under any circumstances? Is murder a moral choice any where? Now I am talking about murder, the unlawful killing of an innocent person, not killing in self-defense, or killing an enemy in wartime.
So how can it be ok to believe that someone could “choose” to commit murder by abortion even if we are personally against abortion?
Just because someone may believe abortion is not murder, does not make it so.
“I’m personally opposed, but”…is the same as saying I support it. Abortion is always wrong. I believe in having mercy on women who’ve had abortions (and I have known a few), ask most of them (or at least the ones I know) whether or not they think abortion should stay legal. Most will say “no”.
Adam brings up a good point.
We support women who have been assaulted.
Abortion is a heinous assault on the body of a woman and the outright murder of her child.
Many people think this is nit picking about words, but I think it matters:
Abortion never saves the life of the mother.
Sometimes it is medically necessary for a woman’s life to end a pregnancy, but that is NOT the same thing as killing the baby. Abortion procedures (especially after the first trimester) frequently involve inducing labor and delivering the baby, though the baby is usually killed while in the womb and is not removed intact. But the baby could be delivered alive (either by induction or C-section).
Now, it is true that with current medical technology, the point where it is likely a baby will live with an early induction or C-section is at about the halfway mark. In an ectopic pregnancy, there is no way - currently - to end the pregnancy or relocate the embryo that will save the child. But that is not the same thing as *directly *killing the child.
I think when we speak about abortion in the culture at large we are really, really wishy washy about language and I don’t think that helps anybody. “Abortion to save the life of the mother” may be true in the sense that you are ending/aborting/stopping/terminating the pregnancy, but that doesn’t have to include, at all, the direct killing of an unborn child.
And in the case of American numbers of aborted infants… one cannot with a straight face assert that all of those millions of women were in danger of death.
Abortion is a convenience for those women, not a health option.
We are built to bear children, whether we do so or not. God did not create a method of bearing children that would ultimately kill all of the mothers in the process.
Genuine health issues such as cancer, and other legitimate health treatments, can be dealt with, as pensmama said.
Good quote from Ronald Reaagan.
If you read the Old Testament, it was OK to dash the heads of “enemy” infants against the rocks! This has always bothered me because I thought it to be immoral, but it seemed to be OK with God. Given this fact, could it be that God OKs women’s right to abortion? Again, this is something that disturbs me, just as the killing of infants in the Old Testament bothers me.