Also filed here:
- Categories
- No categories
Abortion Discussion
March 20, 2005 · Print This Article
Recently people have been revisiting the debate on abortion. Some of these conversations have been about conservative politics and its love of the fifties while others have been worried about the ethics and rights of women and the unborn. The UCA has been talking about these issues for a while and has reminded us of some of this thinking
And here http://vic.uca.org.au/media/releases/2005/ from the Synod Committee on Bioethics who has specific concerns about late-term termination of pregnancy and makes the following statement to the church:
(a) That late-term termination of pregnancy, beyond 20 weeks gestation, should only be performed if at least one of the following indications is present:
(i) there is serious risk to the mother’s life;
(ii) there are foetal abnormalities that are incompatible with life;
(iii) the foetus has severe malformations. In these situations there are no hard and fast rules as to whether the foetus should or should not be aborted.
Judgments based on the best available scientific information, and ethical
and theological considerations, is required.
(b) That late-term termination should not be carried out for the purposes of sex selection.
And the Presidents response herehttp://nat.uca.org.au/news/mediareleases/2005/
I was wondering where your thinking is at with this issue?? Some thoughts running through my mind are:
When does life begin?
When does the value or preservation of one life overrule the life of another?
What is the role of the church?
What is the best way to care and support those in our midst struggling with abortion as an option?
What is the best way to care and support those who have had an abortion?
Copied Over reader Comments
Comment on ‘Abortion discussions’
re: Abortion discussions
Posted by Dave on 2005-03-23 18:50:20
One of the main questions “when does life begin?” is easy to answer, the moment a sperm and egg are fused. A 1 day old chicken already has a beating heart, which is a reminder of this. The question really is, when do we exist in our physical body, and the only answer I have found is ” I knew you before you were formed in your mother’s womb” (jer 1:5). the scary part is most stem cells are harvested from unused IVF embryos. Is this any better than the human batteries in the Matrix?
Reply to ‘re: Abortion discussions’
IVF Batteries
Posted by Age on 2005-04-01 15:26:27
It would seem that the IVF embryos are being treated in a similar way to the matrix pods. The lack of consent and value of the life is an interesting link.
I heard a chat about stem cells on JJJ the other day. There was some discussion that stem cells from adults were just as useable for the important research being undertaken. One opinion seemed to be that not using both embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells limits the chances of finding cures and insights. The opposing view held that more research was needed using the adult stem cells and core blood before jumping into the use of embryonic cells. That the embryos value as human life should give it special status.
Reply to ‘IVF Batteries’
re: Abortion discussions
Posted by MoreTim on 2005-04-05 20:29:53
I’m not sure that the chicken example does actually serve as a reminder. You might notice that you aren’t saying “a 1 day old human embryo has a beating heart”. Because it doesn’t, have a beating heart. We’re talking about human embryos, not chicken embryos.
One thing that for me helps, is the term “human being”. It means a human … being. A human embryo is a potential human life. It’s a potential human being. However it isn’t a human being.
Reply to ‘re: Abortion discussions’
Being and Hearts
Posted by Age on 2005-04-08 19:55:04
A human being? Interesting thought, and the potential verses lived life is a helpful perspective. But what does a human have to ‘do’ to be ‘being’? Does a human siting on the couch become less human or is ‘being’ entertained or bored or lazy enough ‘being’ to be a human ‘being’?
In relation to hearts my understanding is that at 6 weeks the human embryo has one that pumps and by 9 weeks it is a four chambered fully formed organ. An interesting legal type of fact is that from about 21 weeks you are required to have a funeral if you have a miscarriage.
Reply to ‘Being and Hearts’
re: Being and Hearts
Posted by MoreTim on 2005-04-10 00:28:54
The potential for human life is the part of this question which makes it an emotional issue. Defining when various recognisable body parts are functioning is something which makes a particular perspective sound scientific. The lines really are blurred.
Terri Schiavo has been a case which addresses a similar question, but from a different moment. There’s no denying that she was a human being, but was she ‘being’ … or was she ‘just’ being.
Some people are very strongly of the conviction that a human life “is” from the moment of conception. Some see that a human life “is from” the moment of conception. It’s easy when you pick a point like that. Religious and emotional questions aside, if you don’t take the first one then you’ve got a sliding scale, all the way to the moment of birth.
Once there’s a sliding scale, and when combined with other pragmatic considerations, the question of abortion becomes infinitely more complex.
Reply to ‘re: Being and Hearts’
re: Being and Hearts
Posted by Dave on 2005-04-10 16:48:30
Must be my turn again :). In s scientific sense, life is from the moment a sperm and egg fuse, thats easy. Where that life is human is not easy and the verse I quoted earlier is the only thing I have found which (partly?) answers this. The chicken example was for the many people who don’t realise life exists at an early stage even if its “there before anyone knew I existed.” Sure humans hearts don’t form until later…but a heart beating isn’t life. If someone was to absolutely sure they would have to take conception as the start of a human being. And if thats correct, you WERE an embryo not you came from an embryo. Just thought I’d throw up some more difficult thoughts:
-When does someone have the right to choose consent for the umborn and
-When a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother….who chooses which life is more important-(do we have the right to make that choice?)
The stem cell “Matrix battery” is something that has occurred out of convenience. Their certainly are other means of gaining stem cells that are increasing by the day, a QLDer of the year in recently got awards for treatment using stem cells from peoples noses. It’s because IVF embryos were readily available and were “leftover” that the early research and a lot of current research uses them. Basically they are a cheap source. The loopholes that allowed the use of these embryos also (unless it has been addressed) allowed the use of embryos for human cloning. I think from memory once that was realised, the laws were rushed through.
Reply to ‘re: Being and Hearts’
One life over another
Posted by Age on 2005-04-12 16:32:36
The example of a mothers life being valued over that of the unborn child when the pregnancy threaten the life of the mother shows the potential life argument. The choice would be made by the mother (and father) of the unborn. This choice would seem to value the actual life being lived or fulfilled over the potential life of the unborn child. Who has the right to make that choice? Very hard? I assume the mother whose life is at risk would place her at the top of the decision maker list. Either way a life will be lost the choice becomes whose.
Reply to ‘One life over another’
re: human cloning
Posted by moretim on 2005-04-17 18:22:23
Human cloning has been happening naturally since the dawn of time … it’s called twins.
Also, if you’re of the same opinion as me - i.e. a nonreligious point of view, which is happy to recognise a human life from much later in the process, questions about saving the mothers life over a potential life are easily answered: the mothers life wins. Obviously, as the foetus develops closer and closer into a human capable of being on its own, the choice becomes both - if possible. Or whichever is possible.
The same applies to stem cell research.
Reply to ‘re: human cloning’
re: Abortion discussions
Posted by Pro-Life Supporter on 2005-06-22 13:02:15
If people are going to sit back and let human lives be destroyed then they will go to Hell, God created every ova and every sperm to preserve the human race. As President Bush said “The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo. Every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being. And each of us started out our life thhis way. These lives are not raw material to be exploited”