My MySpace Blog Concerning Abortion


#1

I recently spent a considerable amount of time to write the following blog concerning abortion. I would like some feedback by all of you about it.

Her Body, Her Choice?

By Christopher LaRock

One of the most important principal upon which our civil law system rests is the notion that one’s right to swing their fist ends at somebody else’s nose. This is to say that we have the freedom to do with our bodies whatever we choose, as long as that choice doesn’t directly violate the rights and civil liberties of others. It’s a basic principal I think that we can all agree on. Our rights and liberties are, and should, only limited when the rights and liberties of others are at risk of being violated.

The most important liberty we have as human beings is the right to exist, the right to live. This basic right is the foundation upon which all other liberties rests. To put it another way, if you don’t have even the basic human right to live, you can have no liberties at all.

Let’s apply this principal to the issue of abortion. Pro-choice advocates are fond of arguing that abortion should remain legal because of the woman’s right to choose when it comes to her own body. In principal, this seems like a reasonable argument. However, a woman choosing to have an abortion isn’t just making a decision concerning her own body. She is also making a decision that results in the death of another human being, who has just as much right to live as anybody.

Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here. Women should have the right to do with their bodies as they choose. What I’m saying is that when another person’s right to live is directly threatened by what a woman does with her body, the right to choose must be limited to protect the right of that person to live.

It’s because of this basic truth that the #1 argument used by pro-choice advocates is proven flawed, and contradictory to the basic principals of our civil laws. Millions of innocent babies have been murdered because the U.S. Supreme Court failed to recognize that a person’s right to do whatever they want with their body should end once the life of an innocent unborn child is present.
So, can the rights of a woman over her own body and the rights of the unborn child to live be reconciled? YES! It is medically possible for a doctor to remove an unborn human life from one woman’s womb, and implant it into another woman’s womb. Under such circumstances, the woman is making a choice with her own body that doesn’t harm or kill anyone else. This is completely consistent with civil law. Also, there are many woman who want to have children and are unable to.

A woman who doesn’t want to keep her child could very easily allow someone who wants to have a child to have hers. In this scenario, everyone wins. The woman who doesn’t want a child can end her pregnancy, the baby gets to live, and the woman who is unable to conceive her own children can have a child of her own. This is the only acceptable solution to the issue of abortion, but why isn’t it done this way?

I would like to urge everyone who reads this to print this off and send it to your political representatives. The lives of innocent children are being ended unjustly every day and it must be stopped. The goal isn’t to deprive women of their rights, but to put an end to the senseless murder of children through abortion as it is carried out today.


#2

While not an expert on the subject, I suspect that your solution to the abortion problem would not be consistent with Church Law.


#3

I don’t see how it would be inconsistant with Church Law to preserve the life of a baby through this method.

I think it’s the only solution that will appeal to everyone, and thus putting an end to the murder of children in the womb.


#4

Implanting a child into another woman’s womb would simply be a late term IVF method which has been condemned by the Church as morally wrong. You cannot separate love from life, nor life from love - thus, both contraception and in-vitro fertilization are wrong.


#5

Please give references to the medical ability to remove an emplanted embryo and successfully re-implant it in another woman.

By removing said embryo, you sever the placenta, the ‘lifeline’ of the embryo. A placenta will not reattach itself to another uterus like a suction cup, it doesn’t work that way.

This would be another form of abortion, IMO.

References please.


#6

I too want some references because if this were true we would I think hear more about it with ectopic pregnancies.

I also agree with those who are saying it would be akin to IVF, just another form.

The only thing we can do is to continue to pray for the pro-aborts, the women who are fooled into an abortion and to work on legislation to change the laws.

OP, your argument was going well until you got to the last part about re-implanting a fetus.

Brenda V.


#7

conceptualoptions.com/surrogacy.htm?gclid=CP616oXRx5ICFRMHxgodCWeGcA


#8

I didn’t explore this link extensively, but with a quick glance, it seems to promote surrogacy, which is also against Church teaching.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=63055&highlight=surrogate+mother

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=81419&highlight=surrogate+mother

I didn’t see anything on the site you provided that gave support to the possibility of removing an implanted baby from one woman and re-implanting him/her into another woman. Did I miss something? :smiley:


#9

My apologies, Shorty, I didn’t realize you weren’t Catholic until I checked your profile just now. :blush:

The links I provided from Catholic apologists may not mean too much to you. :wink: Sorry about that.

I am still interested in any references you can give that it is medically possible to transfer an implanted baby from one place to another (which would be simply awesome for ectopic pregnancies). Thanks!


#10

If it can save lives, why would the Catholic Church apose it? I don’t get it.

Exo 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Exo 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Exo 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.


#11

I’m sure you are aware that babies can be made in a lab, placed into an artificial womb, and develope as any normal child does. I think that this could be duplicated with a child taken from a real womb.


#12

Not at this time. (reimplantation)
Perhaps sometime in the far future, but not now.
It would kill the child.

And though an egg can be fertilized in a lab, it will only divide so far before dying if not implanted. Implantation is absolutely necessary for the next stage of development. Without it, the blastocyst deteriorates and dies.


#13

How about surrogate motherhood?


#14

Surrogate motherhood is of course, possible at this time.
But that is implanting the blastocyst within the 'survivable’
time frame. Other wise, it dies. It has to be implanted, or
frozen for preservation.

A blastocycst left in a lab dish will divide only so far. It will
not grow into an embryo. It will die.

Removing an already implanted embryo cuts the ‘lifeline’ , the
placenta. This leads to death. The placenta will not re-implant.

Perhaps in future this may be an option, but not right now.


#15

No, I was not aware that IVF babies could be placed into an artificial womb. :eek: Do you have references for this? It is quite intriguing (and scary, too). Thank you!


#16

Assuming the science was available to support what the OP proposes, the suggestion amounts to a sort of “compelled Good Samaratinism.” Imagine the scenario of one in a position to legally avoid a perceived harm (pregnancy) via an abortion. Instead of taking the direct and legal route to avoid the harm (abortion), the OP argues we should, in effect, impose a duty to rescue infertile women upon women seeking an abortion by compelling them to donate the fetus instead of destroy it.

While perhaps morally admirable, there is almost no social or legal precedent for enforcing Good Samaritan gestures of this nature.


#17

Couple of basic difficulties in the post by o.p - our bodies are called a ’ temple of The Holy Spirit’ - means it does not belong to us but to God and hence we are to seek out what He has willed for our body ,( which is to be treated as pure and holy) ; this in turn help us to seek out what His plan is for our whole life too and set us off in the right direction ! ; if He chose to breath in a new life into it related to the parents actions that give implicit consent , in the act of sex , then the just and righteous course is to honor what God has chosen to do and help out that eternal soul to fulfill God’s plans, finding fulfilment for one’s own life in that act of choosing to do God’s Will !


#18

I understand that, but there are people who insist upon murdering their children through abortion. They think their body is theirs, not Gods. So the issues becomes; how do we preserve the human life of the child in such an instance?


#19

I’m not sure if science has come that far, but I think it’s something that should be done to preserve life.


#20

Artificial wombs? Uhhhh, NO. Doesn’t ANYONE read Brave New World anymore?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.