QuestionQUESTION: ok so i was thinking about abortion and i wanted an exerts view on it...
do you think that abortion goes against the value for life?
do you think that abortion is killing and taking away the life that god has given and only he can take?
please clear my mind
thank you
ANSWER: Hello, Angela,
The fertilization of egg and sperm results in a zygote, which is the earliest stage of life. According to science, the zygote has a complete complement of human DNA. That makes the zygote a member of the human species. At that point, the only things that will be added prior to birth are time and nutrition; there are no qualitative changes. Development is simply an inevitable process. The zygote has different DNA from his or her mother. It takes a special mechanism to quell the rejection mechanism so the baby can grow and not be rejected by the mother's body.
According to the Bible, God made human beings in His image. He also said, "Thou shalt not kill."
I do, however, know a number of atheists who believe abortion shouldn't be allowed. They accept the evidence of science. Some people who support legal abortion also agree. They say this is a human being, but it doesn't matter.
People who believe in the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of the United States, think that rights come from God, and that includes the right to life. I am not familiar with any comparable documents in UK. Perhaps you are aware of some. Is there anything in the Magna Carta?
Which of these things will a person accept as authoritative? And why?
Perhaps the best answer for any individual who is uncertain is to look at the reactions of women who have had abortions. There are several typical reactions. One is to feel relief and then try to forget they had an abortion. If they have to forget, that in itself is a warning. Another is to reach a point where they say, "I killed my baby!" They react as if they have violated something deep within themselves, within their own ethics as well. No woman ever called an unborn baby a "fetus" until people wanted to justify making abortion legal. They always referred to what they were carrying as "my baby".
Abortion itself is a violent act against a woman's body, not to mention her mind and spirit. I focus on the women. How will they react? Two possibilities mean that I try to help women find another answer. The first is medical complications. These can do grave damage to a woman or even kill her. The second is how she will react emotionally once she has stopped to think about it. Abortion is forever. You can't take it back. Even women I have known who were sure they wanted an abortion can become suicidal afterward. I have lived through this with some of the women I have tried to help.
Our instincts tell us this is one of our children. And we will react according to our instincts.
I don't know how helpful that is, but let me know. Take care.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: do you think then that we should give a fetus value of life?
what if it is terminally ill and will regret living when it is born? will an abortion be correct then?
AnswerHi, Angela,
It's too bad we can't ask the unborn whether they would want to be given the short life they could have. But most people who are born with severe disabilities still are glad to be alive. They often relish life more than we do. If the baby is terminally ill, it's not a long term problem. And I have to be honest. I think abortion because the baby is damaged is more for the convenience of the mother, who is projecting her feelings on the baby. Babies struggle against abortion. They see it as a threat, and they want to avoid it. I think that right there tells us all we need to know.
But you never know. Sometimes when the claim is made that the baby has such a problem, the baby turns out to be normal. The tests are not totally reliable.
I went through a situation where I knew my baby was not at all healthy. I could have had an abortion. I am very glad I didn't, because it's not on my conscience. If the baby lives a short time after birth, most parents really cherish the short time they had with their child.
If your two year old developed a terminal illness, what would you do? Kill him, or let him have what life is left? Personally, I don't see disability as a reason for a death sentence. We all have various degrees of disability, but some are more severe than others. We will probably all face it as well, unless we are violently killed earlier. It's part of the human condition. If one person doesn't have a right to the life he has been given, then neither does anyone else. People can be killed for any number of reasons, such as being Jewish.
People nowadays don't think clearly like they used to. I think we all knew that the right to life needed to be protected, and that it was a threat to all of us if it wasn't. But nowadays, people seem to have a problem with what I'd call "cost accounting". Some considerations just weigh more than others. Certainly life is more precious than convenience. Life is even more precious than most medical problems. I can't think of any time when it isn't.
I used to keep a lot of animals. There comes a time when you have to face the decision on whether or not to put an animal to sleep. I never wanted to do that. I only did it twice. I prefer to let the animal decide whether it is tired of life. The first time, I had a goat who was in labor, and she couldn't survive giving birth. I didn't have the money to have the vet perform a Caesarian, so I let her put the goat to sleep. The other time was when I had a dog who had parvo. We tried very hard to save her, even though it's not really possible. In the end, we let them put her to sleep. I wasn't happy about either occasion, but I couldn't see the sense of letting the goat live a few hours of agony. As for the dog, I couldn't tell if she was suffering or not. But I have had a lot of other animals die a natural death, and usually, it's not a problem to do that. So you can probably tell from that how I feel about shortening the life of any animal or human who has a medical problem where death seems inevitable. It doesn't make sense to me. Human beings are more than animals. But regardless, my position extends even to higher animals. Perhaps that helps explain.
Regardless of whether I think euthanasia is ever acceptable for an animal, I don't think it is for a human, and we have ways of easing a person's suffering. Most of the time, when a person with a medical problem is tired of life, it's a clinical depression, and it's malpractice for the doctor not to treat it. If the doctor treats it, that usually solves the problem.
My sister has a son who has Down syndrome. He's now 19. She never even let them test because she wouldn't have an abortion anyway. There's no doubt that raising a child with DS is an unusual challenge. But the blessings that came with him far outweigh the challenges; he brought love and unity back to a family that needed it very badly. You may know that most babies with DS are aborted. But that doesn't make sense to me because there are couple who have specifically asked to adopt a baby with DS. They may not have the highest IQ in the world, but their LOVE IQ is astronomical. They love unconditionally. And they may also have a very high IQ otherwise. My nephew had the language development of a 5 year old when he was 3 1/2. I could talk about him a long time, but suffice it to say he has his own significant gifts, and I love him dearly. My only reaction when I heard was jealousy that God didn't give him to me. But God knew exactly what He was doing.
Sometimes a child with a serious disability or a terminal illness has something to give to us. Every life has a purpose. Sometimes we don't know until much later what a blessing such a person has been. It's rough, but so is abortion, and the advantage of letting nature take its course, as I have said, is no regrets. Sadness and grief, yes, but you did what a mother is supposed to do: protect her child.
So the answer is, no, I don't think abortion is correct for that reason. If nothing else, it does grave damage to the emotions and spirit of the mother. And it's far more dangerous to the mother than letting the baby live. There's no reason to risk a mother's life like that, and no excuse, really.
I hope this helps.
