If you make a contrite confession and do penance, yes.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.
- Thread starter natasha levchenko
- Start date
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
It's difficult to get into This Question since the global population has grown from 2.9 bol to 7.5 billion. Now let's say if the global population was say oh 50 million would this be a topic at all? I would say probably not. Since this would not even be a topic we would bother to discuss then the question why is it a topic we do discuss as opposed to we would not discuss the global population different? That actually does not fit into your original question yet global population density somehow impacts the question.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Seems to be a false dichotomy to me.
Altfish
Veteran Member
But surely 'god' is deciding to abort all the miscarriages. So if it is ok for god, surely the woman has the choice too.
arthra
Baha'i
For Baha'is any abortion that occurs because the child is unwanted is forbidden:
Abortion Merely to Prevent the Birth of an Unwanted Child is Strictly Forbidden in the Cause
"Abortion merely to prevent the birth of an unwanted child is strictly forbidden in the Cause. There may, however, be instances in which an abortion would be justified by medical reasons, and legislation on this matter has been left to the Universal House of Justice. At the present time, however, the House of Justice does not intend to legislate on this very delicate issue, and therefore it is left to the consciences of those concerned who must carefully weigh the medical advice in the light of the general guidance given in the teachings."
~ From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Ireland, March 16, 1983
Compilations, Lights of Guidance
Also note the following:
All around the world, the victims of this new practice are overwhelmingly female—in fact, almost universally female. The practice has become so ruthlessly routine in many contemporary societies that it has impacted their very population structures, warping the balance between male and female births and consequently skewing the sex ratios for the rising generation toward a biologically unnatural excess of males.
93% of all abortions occur for social reasons-worldwide Statistic
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
... So.... Bahai forbidden to terminate normal pregnancies.
....moving forward in the same document...
It already has! Pregnancy termination for Bahais is..... banned!
.... no it isn't..... the Bahai UHJ forbade pregnancy termination (save for vague guidance about medical situations).
..... moving forward...
...so nobody actually knows who wrote that letter, who made that decision?
If Bahauallah had made that decision then all that would be necessary would be to quote his words, surely?
It wasn't becessary to 'guide' the Irish NHJ further than, 'Bahais will obey the laws of the lands which they live in?'
Arthra..... That letter is just not impressive as an example of how Bahais would Legislate in a Bahai World, imo.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
If that were so there would not be such a high proportion of natural abortions.
Life is not sacred as it always leads to death.
The idea that life is sacred is man's words put into God's mouth.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
If the OP had done even a moment's research they'd know plenty of folk here are pro-choice and have heard the anti-choice arguments a hundred times or more. Also she's tarring abortion users with a very broad brush...
Do you think people should let that pass unchallenged?
stevevw
Member
It seems that when it comes to a miscarriage women will grieve like they have lost a human life. So maybe, in reality, a fetus mean more to a mother than is made out. Could it be that some will minimise what is really at stake when it comes to aborting their pregnancy? The length of time for when a miscarriage happens does not seem to make much difference either. A woman who has lost her child at 11 weeks may be as distraught as a woman who has lost her child at 20 weeks, says Jaffe's co-author, Martha Diamond, PhD. She goes on to say that "By labeling a miscarriage as a traumatic loss, we validate the experience." (my emphasis). So it seems some people may be in denial about how traumatic losing a fetus at any stage of a pregnancy and any loss can affect the mother.
To compound this a woman who miscarriages early in her pregnancy doesn't get as much sympathy as a woman who miscarriages later in her pregnancy which seems to make it harder for those women in their grieving process as they are not only going through a loss but that loss is not being recognised as significant. Research shows that women who miscarriage suffer depression and anxiety including postpartum depression. It seems men also suffer from the effects of a miscarriage as well and this is not being acknowledged. So maybe minimising the significance of this is also not acknowledging the true situation that is happening.
Research also shows that women who have an abortion are at higher risk of clinical depression than a woman who decides to carry their unintended pregnancy to full term. They also have higher rates of suicide and substance abuse. So maybe we are underestimating the significance of abortions and that in reality, any loss of a fetus is a loss of life because despite what is being said people react to the loss of a fetus at any stage of gestation like it's a loss of life.
Miscarriage and loss
Abortion and Clinical Depression Linked in Major Study | After Abortion
Higher Death Rates After Abortion Found in U.S., Finland, and Denmark | After Abortion
To compound this a woman who miscarriages early in her pregnancy doesn't get as much sympathy as a woman who miscarriages later in her pregnancy which seems to make it harder for those women in their grieving process as they are not only going through a loss but that loss is not being recognised as significant. Research shows that women who miscarriage suffer depression and anxiety including postpartum depression. It seems men also suffer from the effects of a miscarriage as well and this is not being acknowledged. So maybe minimising the significance of this is also not acknowledging the true situation that is happening.
Research also shows that women who have an abortion are at higher risk of clinical depression than a woman who decides to carry their unintended pregnancy to full term. They also have higher rates of suicide and substance abuse. So maybe we are underestimating the significance of abortions and that in reality, any loss of a fetus is a loss of life because despite what is being said people react to the loss of a fetus at any stage of gestation like it's a loss of life.
Miscarriage and loss
Abortion and Clinical Depression Linked in Major Study | After Abortion
Higher Death Rates After Abortion Found in U.S., Finland, and Denmark | After Abortion
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
In the Bible, the penalty for causing a miscarriage is a fine. (exodus 21:22-25) If the bible saw fetuses as of equal value to a fully formed human, wouldn't the penalty be death?
Edit: Whoops, someone already raised this point.
It's not for us to say what is a violation in another's eyes, especially "god," who created a world that includes abortion. In moral issues we are never talking about anyone other than ourselves. That it's a violation means in our own eyes.
Nah, family can be stressfully depressing too.
Mary Blackchurch
Free from Stockholm Syndrome
Of course I disagree with your Canon laws which no one could ever live by with or without penance, but I hope it was obvious that I personally was not "dog-piling" onto the OP. She asked a question which I believe was from her heart as a mother, and as a religious person, and I responded to it with her own Holy Text in her query about "just thinking." I gave her something to ponder from that very book.
The problem with this idea that the religious are being dog-piled upon is just an excuse in my view. Because the religious have no problem dog-piling their dogmas onto society, even going so far as to go door-to-door and even integrate themselves into political legislation. That is the ultimate dog-piling. In that context it would be no wonder that a woman who sought an abortion might have some anxiety.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I still can't get over the word "choice" - it is such a ridiculous characterization of the circumstances.
If it were really as simple as a "choice", then a woman wouldn't even need medical help to carry out the abortion - she could just "choose" for the fetus to fail coming to term, and it would.. Much like one "chooses" to move his/her arm, or to walk from here to there, given that one is able. A person with no arms cannot choose to move their arm. A person with no legs cannot choose to walk from here to there.
And before someone starts spouting off things like "I can choose to buy a house, even though I can't build a house!" - building and buying are two separate actions. You can choose to buy a house, even if you can't choose to build it. You can "choose" to eat eggs for breakfast - but if you don't have any eggs, there's not much reality to your choice.
If it were really as simple as a "choice", then a woman wouldn't even need medical help to carry out the abortion - she could just "choose" for the fetus to fail coming to term, and it would.. Much like one "chooses" to move his/her arm, or to walk from here to there, given that one is able. A person with no arms cannot choose to move their arm. A person with no legs cannot choose to walk from here to there.
And before someone starts spouting off things like "I can choose to buy a house, even though I can't build a house!" - building and buying are two separate actions. You can choose to buy a house, even if you can't choose to build it. You can "choose" to eat eggs for breakfast - but if you don't have any eggs, there's not much reality to your choice.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
When did women receive the right to kill other people?
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
How is that relevant?
We've never had the obligation to provide others with the use of our bodies, even if it kills them.
If someone wants the use of your organs, blood, tissues, or even one hair off your head, you have the right to refuse. And so does a pregnant woman, even if the fetus was considered a person (there's good reason not to consider a fetus a person, but for argument's sake).
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
Yet, your actions caused another person to need the use of your body in order to survive.
Someone would be justified leaving an unconscious woman lying in the road, because no one is obligated to use their bodies to pick her up and move her to safety?
What if your actions were what led that woman to be in such a dangerous situation in the first place?
Robbing someone of the consequences of their actions is usually not a good thing.
So, if I had previously decided to give someone my kidney, I could afterwards decide to take it back after the operation is complete?
It isn't like some random baby walked into a woman's uterus against her will.
Her actions created life, and therefore, requires a certain level of responsibility.
I don't see how a fetus could not be considered a person.
If nature was left alone to run it's course, it would be just like any other baby.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
This is usually due to an inability to empathize. Read up on individual cases of abortions; read about why women do it and what their situations are. If you truly try to see things through their eyes, I'm confident your opinion will change.