Abortion Essay, Research Paper

Abortion

The 1967 Abortion Act ne’er said that abortion was moral. It merely said that certain abortions would non be the concern of the condemnable jurisprudence. But practically that legitimised abortion for 1000000s. So, how, do you make up one’s mind the morality of abortion? Many people play a game of & # 8220 ; ethical catch & # 8221 ; . Person cites a instance of a adult female or miss in despairing poorness who wants an abortion ; person so & # 8220 ; snaps & # 8221 ; that with hideous exposures of dead fetuss and dismembered fetal limbs.

The pro-choice people accuse the anti-abortionists of being sentimental in the operating theater. The pro-life people accuse the abortionists of being sentimental in the guidance room. Others say it is all a affair of motivations. If people have good motivations that is adequate. If they decide with moderately unselfish motivations, that justifies an abortion. But the Bible suggests that while bad motivations make good actions morally hypocritical and incorrect, good motivations do non do incorrect actions good. Peter, no uncertainty, had some good motivations in opposing the manner of the Cross for Jesus ; but Jesus saw that activity as Satanic.

Abortion was common in ancient Greece & # 8211 ; hence the Hippocratic Oath for physicians: & # 8220 ; Thou shalt non give a adult female a pessary to bring forth an abortion. & # 8221 ; It was besides common in the Roman Empire. By the clip of Christ abortion was well-known and common in the ancient universe.

But the coming of Christ and the spread of the Christian religion brought a challenge to the pattern of abortion. In the period instantly following that of the Apostles & # 8211 ; the period of the Fathers & # 8211 ; one of the distinctives that marked off the Church from its heathen environment was its resistance to abortion. This was a fruit of the Gospel & # 8211 ; the extension of attention to the humblest of human & # 8220 ; existences & # 8221 ; , including human fetal life. So early canon jurisprudence, and so subsequent dictums, in general have defended the fetus as & # 8220 ; human & # 8221 ; or & # 8220 ; human on the manner & # 8221 ; and so worthy of Christian love and protection.

More late an morals of & # 8220 ; justifiable foeticide & # 8221 ; has evolved. This, excessively, claims a Christian footing, viz. that human life itself does non hold an absolute, but merely a really high value. There may, therefore, be occasions when life can be taken or

protection withdrawn. But such a really serious action has to be justified. As with “the merely war” , the right to make this can non be presumed. It has to be argued for.

Most would hold that a serious menace to the existent life of the female parent is a warranting ground. Some argue that some inborn malformation is a warranting ground ( although they would reason that this has to be such that no life outside the uterus can be maintained ) .

But these and other hard instances are really rare. As we have seen, most abortions are for & # 8220 ; societal & # 8221 ; grounds. That is why the issue is a serious moral issue that Christians can non disregard. It is the pickings of guiltless life.

The Bible

But is it guiltless life? Is & # 8220 ; human life & # 8221 ; being destroyed in abortion or in embryo research? And why should construct be so of import? What does the Bible say?

Exodus 21.22 refers to an hurt to a pregnant adult female. If she miscarries, the claims of the fetus are assessed as less than her ain. But force to the fetus is an offense. Largely, nevertheless, the Bible speaks at a more general degree. Ecclesiastes 11.5 says:

As you do non cognize & # 8230 ; how the organic structure is formed in a female parent & # 8217 ; s uterus, so you can non understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.

Probably the RSV interlingual rendition is better & # 8211 ; & # 8220 ; you do non cognize how the spirit comes to the castanetss in the uterus of a adult female with kid & # 8221 ; . This suggests that there should be a certain agnosticism or humbleness in our believing about ante-natal life. We, so, are non confronting a blob of tissue, but a godly enigma ; the uterus contains non merely a organic structure but a & # 8220 ; spirit & # 8221 ; .

The philosophical and basic inquiry is this: whose is the history of that which is in the uterus & # 8211 ; the female parent & # 8217 ; s or person else & # 8217 ; s? The Psalmist had no uncertainty. It was his history. He was in the uterus:

For you created my inmost being ; you knit me together in my female parent & # 8217 ; s uterus ( Ps 139.13 ) .

Isaiah said much the same thing:

Before I was born the LORD called me ; from my birth he has made reference of my name ( Is 49.1 ) .

Most significantly this is the apprehension of the New Testament in the birth narratives of Jesus. The embodiment of the Son of God began non with his birth but with his construct.