• 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!

Abortion: What's The Big Deal?

Skwim

Veteran Member
Some of what I've posted below I posted in another thread; however, because I don't believe it will get the readership I think it deserves I'm re-posting it here.

So often we hear strident denunciations of abortion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaking to the fifth commandment, "You shall not kill," says,

"2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion."
source
And even outside religion we hear denunciations that abortion is "the unnecessary taking of a human life" and so forth. And this is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion; however, lets put abortion, legal abortion, in perspective.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "in 2003 it reported that 26% of reported legal induced abortions in the United States were known to have been obtained at less than 6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, 15% at 8 weeks, 18% at 9 through 10 weeks, 9.7% at 11 through 12 weeks, 6.2% at 13 through 15 weeks,. Put into a more easily read format we see that:

......period........% in that period....cumulative %

within 6 weeks..........26%...............26% (26% of all legal abortions are performed within the first 6 weeks)
..."......7....."................18%...............44% (44% of all legal abortions are performed within the first 7 weeks)
..."......8....."................15%...............59% (and so on)
..."....10....."................18%...............77%
..."....12....."................9.7%...........86.7%
..."....15....."................6.2%...........92.9%
source

So, the vast majority, 93%, of all legal abortions are performed within the first 15 weeks. Sound pretty bad? Well take a look at what nature does.

"Miscarriage is the loss of a pregnancy in the first 20 weeks. (In medical articles, you may see the term "spontaneous abortion" used in place of miscarriage.) About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and more than 80 percent of these losses happen before 12 weeks. [note that 87% of legal abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks]

This doesn't include situations in which you lose a fertilized egg before a pregnancy becomes established. Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before or during the process of implantation – often so early that a woman goes on to get her period at about the expected time.
source

So if one is looking at conception, as the Catholic Church does, as the division between human life and not human life

‘‘Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual’’;
source

nature is "aborting" 40% (10% + 30%) to 70% (20% + 50%) of all human lives. Whereas, legal abortions only account for 19%.

"19 percent of pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) in 2014 ended in abortion."
source
That's a huge difference. Nature is "aborting" 40%-70% of all possible human births, whereas legal abortions only account for 19%. And if one only looks at miscarriages (not those instances where the fertilized egg fails to implant) which is 10-20%, legal abortions (19% of pregnancies) and miscarriages are both in the same ball park. So, the "killing of humans" is pretty much the same whether it's done by elective abortions or nature, OR vastly greater in nature's case if one use the Catholic definition of the beginning of life.

Then there's the matter of the human psychological factor. Whereas miscarriages often instill significant grief in parent(s), elected abortions are welcomed events, or at least greeted with relief. The regret that accompanies a miscarriage is seldom seen with abortions.


So this is my case for putting elected abortions into perspective. If one feels that any abortion, whether it's natural or elected is bad, then I would expect the same kind of condemnation of nature (god) for allowing it to happen as one would for elected abortions.


.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So often we hear strident denunciations of abortion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaking to the fifth commandment, "You shall not kill," says,

"2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion."​

.

Why would a non-Catholic care about what Catholics believe or recommend?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
It's about feeling, empathy, compassion. Not everyone feels compassion for the unborn. Some people do. Feelings aren't logical or driven by facts. Folks usually can't change how they feel about a thing.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
Feelings don't care about facts.

If you feel ok about abortion I wouldn't expect you to change your mind. If you feel abortion is immoral, I wouldn't expect you to change your mind.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Screen Shot 2018-08-15 at 3.05.49 PM.png



As we can see, nature is aborting most people at the age of 85+. So, as we take Skwims viewpoint, what would be the big deal if we just go ahead and eliminate those from 75-84?
 

Sanzbir

Well-Known Member
Let me start by saying I am not meaning to take a pro-life position here, I merely want to point out I see a flaw in your logic.

At first, I admit to thinking the logic seemed sound in the logic, "Nature terminates pregnancies all the time, so why is human-caused pregnancy a big deal??"

But looking at it in abstract, I don't think "Nature does X, so why is a human doing X a big deal??" is really an argument that you want to make or truly embrace. Just because nature does something doesn't mean a human doing the same thing is a good idea.

Because the Devil's Advocate part of my brain came up with this: "From 2005-2014, there were an average of 3,536 fatal unintentional drownings annually in the United States. The number of people murdered annually by drowning in the US is nowhere near the four digit mark. Nature is responsible for more people drowning per year than humans are. So why is a person drowning another person a big deal??"

Nature does plenty of things that we don't want other people to do, and we'd never accept nature doing those things at a greater rate as a justification for people doing those things. Thus I don't think your argument here is any good. I certainly don't think you'll change any minds with it. There are much, much better ways to argue for a pro-choice position than taking an appeal to nature fallacy.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
View attachment 23691
As we can see, nature is aborting most people at the age of 85+. So, as we take Skwims viewpoint, what would be the big deal if we just go ahead and eliminate those from 75-84?
Ah yes, the "rational" of KenS strikes again. If your "we" has some kind of legal control over the existence of those from 75-84 please produce it. As It stands, your "we" does not, so your point, aside from being quite silly, is moot.

.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Ah yes, the "rational" of KenS strikes again. If your "we" has some kind of legal control over the existence of those from 75-84 please produce it. As It stands, your "we" does not, so your point, aside from being quite silly, is moot.

.
It's the principle. And yes, it is very rational and not so silly.

You see, my friend, if life becomes unimportant before you are born and we teach our children not to respect life (after all, if you can't supply their needs and they won't be loved, euthanasia is the next step. After all, if you can't supply their need and they won't be loved, just knock them off!

.
Euthanasia or assisted suicide—and sometimes both—have been legalized in a small number of countries and states. In all jurisdictions, laws and safeguards were put in place to prevent abuse and misuse of these practices. Prevention measures have included, among others, explicit consent by the person requesting euthanasia, mandatory reporting of all cases, administration only by physicians (with the exception of Switzerland), and consultation by a second physician.

The present paper provides evidence that these laws and safeguards are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions and that transgressions are not prosecuted. For example, about 900 people annually are administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent, and in one jurisdiction, almost 50% of cases of euthanasia are not reported. Increased tolerance of transgressions in societies with such laws represents a social “slippery slope,” as do changes to the laws and criteria that followed legalization. Although the initial intent was to limit euthanasia and assisted suicide to a last-resort option for a very small number of terminally ill people, some jurisdictions now extend the practice to newborns, children, and people with dementia. A terminal illness is no longer a prerequisite. In the Netherlands, euthanasia for anyone over the age of 70 who is “tired of living” is now being considered. Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide therefore places many people at risk, affects the values of society over time, and does not provide controls and safeguards.
Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls

Abortion started off about "for the safety of the mother" and look where it has taken us... abortion of full term and viable babies.

No different for the other spectrum.

Life is precious and equating "natural abortions" and "deciding" are two completely different animals and in no way should be compared.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
At first, I admit to thinking the logic seemed sound in the logic, "Nature terminates pregnancies all the time, so why is human-caused pregnancy a big deal??"
Might want to rethink what you've said here and rephrase it.

But looking at it in abstract, I don't think "Nature does X, so why is a human doing X a big deal??" is really an argument that you want to make or truly embrace. Just because nature does something doesn't mean a human doing the same thing is a good idea.
And I never said either was good. I'm simply putting abortion in perspective. It and nature do the same thing, so if you're going to condemn those having elected abortions then I would expect a person to condemn nature (god).
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
PS. In that people do exercise the decision of abortion, our answer should be love, caring, understanding and helping in any way we can.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
So this is my case for putting elected abortions into perspective. If one feels that any abortion, whether it's natural or elected is bad, then I would expect the same kind of condemnation of nature (god) for allowing it to happen as one would for elected abortions..

Now, don't get me wrong - not defending God here in any way, shape or form. Nor would I ever. I feel I need a shower just thinking about it. But I feel there's a gap between the intended abortion and the "natural" abortion. I feel the following example illustrates what I mean:

Think on the difference between the following two scenarios:
  1. 150 people are killed in a hurricane.
  2. 150 people are killed in a wind-storm produced by a particular corporation's new, malfunctioning weather-control program.
Where can you turn to pin the 150 deaths on in the first scenario? Is there actually anything to hold "accountable?" I think the ideas of accountability and responsibility (two things that it makes no sense to apply to nature or [in my opinion anyway] God) remove the "oomph" from your argument.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
It's the principle. And yes, it is very rational and not so silly.
Sure it's silly. The decision to have an abortion is the legal right of the expectant mother. No such legal opportunity is given your "we" to kill anyone 75-84.

You see, my friend, if life becomes unimportant before you are born and we teach our children not to respect life (after all, if you can't supply their needs and they won't be loved, euthanasia is the next step. After all, if you can't supply their need and they won't be loved, just knock them off!
WOW! You can't teach your children to respect the living unless you can convince them abortions are bad. That's pretty sorry.

Abortion started off about "for the safety of the mother" and look where it has taken us... abortion of full term and viable babies.
Other than aborting a full term baby so as to save the life of the mother you're really reaching here. Elected abortions are unlawful at this stage of pregnancy.

.


 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
A 2000 study cited by Hush and prepaired by Dr. Brenda Major, a Professor of Psychology & Communications at the University of California, recorded that approximately 21% of American women who receive an abortion believed that their abortion did more harm than good. This percentage grew to 28% within two years of the abortion. This means of the one million women who have abortions each year in the US, more than 280,000 of them believe, within two years, that their abortion did more harm than good.

Sadly, the emotional scars of these hurting mothers are unacknowledged by the media, policy makers and the mainstream medical community. Instead of compassion, these women have been labeled “statistically insignificant” by those who wish to protect abortion as a policy in America.
Researchers Discover Abortion Regret Is Not A Myth


So, 1 out of 4+ women go on to claim that an abortion did them more harm than good.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Sure it's silly. The decision to have an abortion is the legal right of the expectant mother. No such legal opportunity is given your "we" to kill anyone 75-84.


WOW! You can't teach your children to respect the living unless you can convince them abortions are bad. That's pretty sorry.

Other than aborting a full term baby so as to save the life of the mother you're really reaching here. Elected abortions are unlawful at this stage of pregnancy.


WOW! This is your answer? Feels more like I hit a nerve.

You DO have legal opportunity to kill in Oregon and Washington. I believe it is the beginning.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Now, don't get me wrong - not defending God here in any way, shape or form. Nor would I ever. I feel I need a shower just thinking about it. But I feel there's a gap between the intended abortion and the "natural" abortion.
Yes there is.

I feel the following example illustrates what I mean:

Think on the difference between the following two scenarios:
  1. 150 people are killed in a hurricane.
  2. 150 people are killed in a wind-storm produced by a particular corporation's new, malfunctioning weather-control program.
Where can you turn to pin the 150 deaths on in the first scenario? Is there actually anything to hold "accountable?" I think the ideas of accountability and responsibility (two things that it makes no sense to apply to nature or [in my opinion anyway] God) remove the "oomph" from your argument.
You're talking about legal human beings. Abortions don't deal with them. Abortions deal with fetuses, which legally are not human beings. Now you can label fetuses "human beings" all you want, but they still don't qualify.


U.S. CodeTitle 1Chapter 1 › § 8
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
prev | next
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

.

.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
A 2000 study cited by Hush and prepaired by Dr. Brenda Major, a Professor of Psychology & Communications at the University of California, recorded that approximately 21% of American women who receive an abortion believed that their abortion did more harm than good. This percentage grew to 28% within two years of the abortion. This means of the one million women who have abortions each year in the US, more than 280,000 of them believe, within two years, that their abortion did more harm than good.

Sadly, the emotional scars of these hurting mothers are unacknowledged by the media, policy makers and the mainstream medical community. Instead of compassion, these women have been labeled “statistically insignificant” by those who wish to protect abortion as a policy in America.
Researchers Discover Abortion Regret Is Not A Myth


So, 1 out of 4+ women go on to claim that an abortion did them more harm than good.
Not to mention those who later cannot have babies and other effects.

Worst Long Term Effect Of Abortion

Substance abuse is one of the leading worst long term side effect of abortion. In order to feel better after abortion, the drugs are taken even without prescription. A woman's dependence on the substances may lead to drug abuse or addiction.
http://genledonline.com/pages/women...dium=www.sciencetimes.com&utm_campaign=plecon
Physical dangers are also associated with women who had an abortion since they are 2.3 times more at risk of having cervical cancer compared to those who don't have a history. This can lead to hormonal change and unnatural disruption accompanied through pregnancy that also affects the immune system.

Another effect is uterine perforation wherein two to three per cent of women who had an abortion was diagnosed with the case. The damage uterus will require a hysterectomy (uterus removal) which could result in a more severe complications and injuries on their health.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Let me start by saying I am not meaning to take a pro-life position here, I merely want to point out I see a flaw in your logic.

At first, I admit to thinking the logic seemed sound in the logic, "Nature terminates pregnancies all the time, so why is human-caused pregnancy a big deal??"

But looking at it in abstract, I don't think "Nature does X, so why is a human doing X a big deal??" is really an argument that you want to make or truly embrace. Just because nature does something doesn't mean a human doing the same thing is a good idea.

Because the Devil's Advocate part of my brain came up with this: "From 2005-2014, there were an average of 3,536 fatal unintentional drownings annually in the United States. The number of people murdered annually by drowning in the US is nowhere near the four digit mark. Nature is responsible for more people drowning per year than humans are. So why is a person drowning another person a big deal??"

Nature does plenty of things that we don't want other people to do, and we'd never accept nature doing those things at a greater rate as a justification for people doing those things. Thus I don't think your argument here is any good. I certainly don't think you'll change any minds with it. There are much, much better ways to argue for a pro-choice position than taking an appeal to nature fallacy.
@Skwim, see? Same application that I had in reference to euthanasia. It's your logic that was wrong.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
A 2000 study cited by Hush and prepaired by Dr. Brenda Major, a Professor of Psychology & Communications at the University of California, recorded that approximately 21% of American women who receive an abortion believed that their abortion did more harm than good. This percentage grew to 28% within two years of the abortion. This means of the one million women who have abortions each year in the US, more than 280,000 of them believe, within two years, that their abortion did more harm than good.

Sadly, the emotional scars of these hurting mothers are unacknowledged by the media, policy makers and the mainstream medical community. Instead of compassion, these women have been labeled “statistically insignificant” by those who wish to protect abortion as a policy in America.
Researchers Discover Abortion Regret Is Not A Myth


So, 1 out of 4+ women go on to claim that an abortion did them more harm than good.
I'm afraid your pro-life source, CARE NET, has spun the truth. (Who's surprised!)

See HERE what Dr. Brenda Major, really has to say about abortions and there mental after-effects.

.

 
Top