I have no idea as to whether or not a fetus has a soul. It might, it might not. When I read the verse from Jeremiah, I am not sure whether it refers to Jeremiah, whether it refers to every fertilized egg, or whether it refers to some subset of them. When I read the verse from Psalm 139, I’m not sure whether it refers to every fertilized egg, some of them, or just those of us who make it out of the uterus alive. Though I believe that life begins when it there’s a soul attached - I don’t know whether that attachment happens at conception, at birth, or somewhere between - I’m not even sure that it’s the same answer for every zygote.
The reason that I do not think I would have an abortion is that I do not think it’s a chance I would be willing to take. While I do not encourage abortion, I feel that I have enough logs of my own to deal with to go about pulling specks out of other women’s eyes, especially given my uncertainty about the existence of the speck in the first place.
As far as legality - for me the test is not so much whether a behavior is moral, it is whether the consquences of making a behavior illegal are better or worse than the consequences allowing the behavior to remain legal. To me, the consequences (both positive and negative) of allowing abortion to remain safe and legal are far preferable to the consequences (again both positive and negative) of making it an illegal practice.
Since we’re on the issue of ensoulment, I should point out that the Catholic Church’s document Humanae Vitae discusses that the developing embryo should be treated “as a person.” Commentators find the language interesting, because it doesn’t explicitly state that the embryo “is” a person. This is, of course, because the Church has no position on when ensoulment takes place, be it at conception, quickening (although this view came from Aquinas, it’s largely discounted, particularly since Aquinas wasn’t an M.D.), or whatever. In other words, there’s a large “risk element” there: since one should not act on a doubtful conscience, one shouldn’t presume that there is no soul present in the developing child.
Good point. It seems fairly common to compare views on abortion w/ views on the death penalty. Do you know the pope’s position on the latter? And I’m not saying that “il papa” has the final say for all Christians, but he does have more influence than most of us… I’d guess that he’s against.
You’ll want to give yourself a reading of *Evangelium Vitae * for the best description of John Paul II’s views on the death penalty. I don’t recall him making any distinct comparisons between it and abortion anywhere in there, although he does speak from a larger standpoint of defending all human life.
In short, and from my best recollection, JPII’s view is that the role of the death penalty is to protect society from a specific murderer (the classic example being the life-sentance prisoner who starts killing guards). He specifically states that using the death penalty as either a deterrent or as a means of vengeance is not permissible, mainly because it violates the murderer’s inviolable human dignity (meaning that you can’t use anyone, no matter how awful, as a means to fulfilling an end). This doesn’t mean that the death penalty is per se objectionable, but it does mean that society needs to seriously rethink why and how it’s used.
I would add that an encyclical like Evangelium Vitae tends to be largely theoretical. That is, even though it’s coming from the Pope, it’s not necessarily a church pronouncement. Or, as the chaplain at my school likes to say, “Popes say a lot of things.” The best short explanation I can give is that the Pope is offering theoretical (but highly persuasive) guidance on how Christians should act. I.e., “abortion is wrong” or “Jesus is God” is a church law and cannot change; “the death penalty should not be used for x” has a little more wiggle room, and a future Pope might modify or even disagree with JPII. On the other hand, this doesn’t mean a Catholic is free to disregard a papal statement, as he is the pontiff of the Church, standing in for Christ, his very office meaning that he needs to be given a great deal of deference.
Thanks. Is this the whole “dogma vs doctirne” thing? In that case, are you saying that church dogma does not forbid the death penalty, but that it is generlly against chruch doctrine?
John Mace, let me put it to you this way. I believe that, like abortion, divorce is always morally wrong. Neither position is especially arguable for me, although I do acknowledge that there may be times when either is necessary. I would also be horrified at the prospect of turning my morals into Federal law. Basically, in my opinion, abortion is none of the government’s business!
It does help a bit, but suppose you substitute “murder” for divorce in your statement above. In other words, divorce is not a potentially life threatening act. Abortion is.
But what I was really trying to get at is: If you are a Christian, and you believe that, at some point, a baby gets a soul, how do you know when it gets one? And if you don’t know (and no one has answered that yet), then how can you support abortion (ie, think that it is anything but murder).
I don’t know when “a baby gets a soul.” Actually, nowadays I find I’m leaning toward the idea that a baby is ensouled when he or she takes his first breath outside the womb, but basically, I have no idea what so ever.
Making abortion illegal is also, in my opinion, a potentially life-threatening act, just as forcing a someone to stay in a physically abusive marriage. My political belief that abortion must remain “safe, legal, and rare” as I’ve heard it put is hardnosed and practical. If abortion is made illegal, based on what happened in the US prior to 1973, women will continue to seek it out and women will die as a result of illegal abortions, sometimes in a horrible fashion. Why should I expect other people to die because of my beliefs?
I believe abortion is awful; I also believe the alternative is also worse. I also believe it is immoral to directly insult someone because doing so harms the person insulted. So, should we make that illegal? If so, what should the penalty be?
I hear the “safe legal and rare” statement a lot. Sounds great, but I never hear anything concrete about the “rare” part.
What specific steps would you propose to keep it rare? I’ve never heard a proposal that didn’t allow a woman to get an abortion (assuming within the legal time limit) for any reason whatsoever, eg. I just don’t feel like having a baby.
At the risk of drifting into a new topic, I’m not sure what you mean by “doctrine” vs. “dogma.” To the best of my knowledge, they’re the same thing. The only distinction I might see is that I’d use the word “doctrine” when referring to laws (i.e., go to church on Sunday) while I’d use “dogma” for more supernatural matters (i.e., the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ). Denotationally, I don’t know if there’s a separate meaning; conotationally, there probably is.
I’ll try to reword it: theory is something that you can’t state is absolutely “right” or “wrong;” it comes down to a question of whether or not it’s effective in whatever you’re trying to achieve. For an example of a running debate: the Church is opposed to artificial reproduction (sperm donation, test-tube babies, etc.). So, is it immoral for a single woman to “rescue” unused frozen embryos from a lab, allow herself to be implanted with it, and grow it to term? (By “rescue,” I don’t mean theft, but signing up for the process like any other customer.) The church has no teaching on this, although many church leaders have taken opposite sides on the issue.
IIRC, the Pope himself made a plea for women to make such a rescue, since it would be a tragedy for unborn children to simply be disposed of from a laboratory. Other church leaders and theologians disagreed: to do so would be a participation in the process of an illicit form of procreation. If you look through church pronouncements, however, you won’t find a clear answer. While the Church might make a doctrinal ruling on it some day, it hasn’t. It’s open to debate.
The best I can point you to on what’s “dogma” would be to look in either the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Code of Canon Law to get an idea of what church pronouncements are unchanging. Generally, if something is in either sacred scripture or the Catechism, you can assume that a Catholic (and the Church itself) is bound to obey/believe it. If it’s in the Code of Canon Law, a Catholic is bound to it, but some of what’s in there might be changed in the future if it isn’t a moral matter, but more regulatory (i.e., priests can’t marry, but the church could reverse this). If it’s in an encyclical, it’s probably only theoretical (unless it’s directly referencing either the Catechism or scripture, in which case at least that part is binding).
How about promoting contraception, adoption, and abstinence? To be more specific, make sure that a wide variety of reasonably-priced contraception is available, and tighten up adoption laws so that people who do decide to adopt don’t have to worry about losing custody because either parent changes his or her mind about the adoption. Unfortunately, there are elements within the anti-abortion movement which are also against contraception, as well as those which are only against forms of contraception which they consider abortifacients.
In my perfect world, all sex is consensual and only takes place after all parties have known each other for at least a year, know each other well enough to discuss contraception, if relevant, and what to do if contraception fails. Contraceptives do fail, of course, and some provision has to be made for that. The most reliable forms are only available by prescription, and rapists don’t ask if you’re on the pill first.
Also, while neither you nor I may like it, “I just don’t feel like having a baby” is, in my opinion, a valid excuse. Even if it isn’t, what business is it of ours? Producing a healthy baby is a nine-month commitment on the woman’s part. I don’t have any children myself, nor do I plan on it, so I don’t know what the actual numbers are, but, in addition to paying particularly close attention to diet, there are costs involved in delivering a child. I’m unemployed at the moment, with no health insurance. Right now, I literally cannot afford to have a child, even if I were to put it up for adoption. I’m not married, so right now abstinence is a legitimate option for me, but I wouldn’t inflict that on any married couple.
I think we’re destined to disagree on this, but it’s nice to be able to discuss it civilly.
i believe that the soul enters the body with the first breath.
many stillborn children are perfectly normal, healthy and no cause can be found for why they never breathed.
if it is a spiritual matter, then it is between the woman and g-d. i have no right to interfere.
if it is a medical matter, between the woman and her doctor and ditto.
thus i’m pro-choice, although my choice would never be to have an abortion.
Well, guess I’ll throw my 2 cents in. Can a Christian support abortion? Not this one, I’m afraid. The only exception probably being if the life of the mother is at stake. In the case of rape or incest, that’s a hard call. It’s not the baby’s fault how it was conceived.
I myself believe that life begins at conception. Also I disagree with CJ that “I don’t want a baby” is a valid reason for an abortion. When a woman has sex, she knows there’s the possibility of a pregnancy. Should a baby have to die because someone just had to have sex? There’s a way to prevent having babies, it’s called abstinence.
In case of accidental, unplanned pregnancies where the baby isn’t wanted, I’m in favor of adoption. I find it difficult to understand that Christians would support abortion on demand or just because “I don’t want a baby.”
Then the word of the Lord came unto me saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Jeremiah 1:4-5
A quick question for those who have commented against abortion: Can you draw a distinction between what you may consider moral or immoral and what the laws regarding that might be. From the POV of someone who considers every abortion a murder, I can see sound reasons for advocating its legal prohibition. But my own stance is a bit more nuanced – I believe that the woman has a moral duty to carry the child to term in most cases, but that it has to be her moral decision whether or not to honor that duty, not one forced on her by law. One could almost make a case for the legislature’s forcing her to have the child as the moral equivalent of rape – it’s a violation of her right to decide what to do with her body. (Yes, the unborn probably has rights, too – I’m addressing the woman’s rights in that comment.)
That’s all right, His4Ever, you and I disagree on all sorts of things. I would like to restate something I said earlier, though. I’ve read about what happened when abortion was illegal. While I understand that people who are pro-life consider abortion deeply morally wrong, I consider it just as deeply morally wrong if someone dies because I force my beliefs on them. To me, that is what would happen if abortion were made illegal. Awful choice, isn’t it?
Actually, I have to admit, I wouldn’t have much respect for someone who had an abortion because she “didn’t feel like having a baby.” Quite frankly, I’d probably feel inclined to grab her by the scruff of the neck and say, “Then why didn’t you think of that before you had sex?!” That said, I can’t bring myself to say that the government should deny her an abortion, regardless of my personal views.
I just want to make it clear that I make a clear distinction between things which I believe are morally wrong and things which I believe should be illegal. Abortion, divorce, breaking one’s word, and being deliberately cruel are all morally wrong in my book, but of those, only breaking one’s word is remotely illegal, and that in the sense that it applies to contracts. One of the reasons I would not support a move to make abortion or divorce illegal is that even I can see circumstances in which they would be necessary, although I’d prefer people not put themselves in positions where they become necessary. I find cruelty hardest to justify, but it is the most common of the three, and if we sent everyone who did it to jail, I’m not sure how many people would be left. I’m wouldn’t be one of them, I’m afraid.
Also, John Mace, I’d better warn you that I am far from a typical Christian, although I am a devout one.
I fully believe that abortion should be legal for any reason up to some point during pregancy. I’d probably put that at 3-5 months, and can understand that there are valid scientific reason to argue about moving that date around.
However, I find it hard to accept that IF abortion were illegal, and a women chose to have a back alley abortion and died as a result, that it’s the law that’s at fault. The woman did not HAVE to have an abortion. She could have carried the bady to term, put him/her up for adoption, and gotten on with her life. Heroin is illegal. If some shoots up with some bad stuff and dies, is it because of a bad law or because the person made a bad choice? I’m not trying to make light of a woman’s plight, but the priciple seems to be the same.