The following different laws are in place in the 1967 act:
1. For criteria 2 and 3, there is a 24-week limit placed on the abortion.
A) ii. Although there is no direct reference to abortion in the Bible as to whether or not abortion is allowed in Christianity, Pro-life and Pro-choice followers use references from the Bible, however indirect they may seem, to either justify or make unjustifiable, abortion.
Pro-life campaigners argue that all life is sacred in the eyes of God, and use passages such as this one to back their views up: ‘See that you do not despise one of those little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in heaven behold the face of my Father, who is in heaven.’ (Matthew 18:10). Here Jesus is saying that you must not look down upon the most insignificant of human beings i.e. the foetus inside the womb.
Another popular Pro-Life reference is (Genesis 1:26) where God says ‘Let us make man in our own image’: This implies that all human life is a representative of God on Earth or part of God, so if you kill a foetus you are wounding God. Another similar reference about the creation of Samson (Judges 13:6-7): ‘ You shall conceive and give birth to a son… they shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.’ This is saying that the child is a follower of God from the womb (although it does not mention when in the foetus’ development it is) and you have to be a person to worship God - so the foetus therefore must be a person and that ties in nicely with the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (the innocent). The foetus is clearly innocent; although some Pro-choice followers would argue that the foetus was oppressing the mother (based on the Liberation Theology).
Another popular set of references are the ones which relate to the Kingdom of God: they believe that it is the duty of man to make the Kingdom of God a reality on Earth, this means defending the rights of everybody, including the unborn.
Another point of view that is Pro-life is the view of the Eucharist, where it is believed that all Christians have responsibilities to the members of their family and community (Christianity), and the members include ...
the unborn.
However, what Pro-lifers consider to be the final word in saying that the Bible is Pro-life, is: “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty: life for life, an eye for an eye etc. (Exodus 21:22-23) Because someone else has caused the miscarriage, it is classed as an abortion, and it seems punishable by Biblical law… Does this mean that the Bible is against abortion? Some people and campaigners would argue No.
Firstly we have the Neutral Campaigners, who say that there is absolutely no reference in the Bible concerning abortion, so the Bible is therefore neutral on the subject, and they believe that that is how everybody should be, and leave it up to their consciences to decide whether to have a abortion or not.
If someone asked a neutral person: “Where does it say in the Bible that abortion is permitted?” They may argue back that the questioner is saying that every action must be permitted by the Bible, in order for it not to be a sin. So, is it therefore a sin to climb a tree? Or swim in the sea? Or kill an animal to eat?. So, they (Neutrals) are saying that the fact that abortion is not permitted on the Bible, and so therefore must be forbidden, is a ludicrous assumption to make.
Pro-Choice campaigners have also made some theories that are quite interesting to read or think about, because they force you to think, and put the whole issue into a more rational and easier-to-relate-to explanation. The first is the story of Judith Jarvis Thompson’s violinist. ‘Imagine you are kidnapped (the kidnap represents rape or unplanned/underage pregnancy) and you wake up next to an unconscious violinist (foetus), who is connected to you with leads and tubing. You are told that he will die if you do not keep yourself connected to him for 9 months (term of pregnancy). The society of music lovers (pro-life) does not want you to unplug yourself (have an abortion), but you do have a choice… remember that you did not ask for this to happen to you.’ What does this say? Well it says that it is perfectly justifiable to have an abortion in the case of pregnancy following rape or an unplanned pregnancy – because you did not want it to happen and the foetus is preventing you from going about your business as usual.
Another interesting point of view is this, and it helps explain Ensoulment (The idea of an immortal soul being implanted into the material body of the foetus at a certain point in it’s development, 46 days for boys, and 90 days for girls are the figures supported St. Augustine) and when it happens (from a Pro-Choice viewpoint).
A Pro-Choice campaigner says this on the subject:
‘Imagine that the owner (ovum) of a plot of land wants to build a home for his family (soul) to live in. All he has is a bunch of vague ideas and the resources to build the house. Along comes the architect (sperm). The architect puts the ideas of the owner and some of her own ideas down on paper as a set of blueprints (formation of zygote). The plot of land is provided (uterus) and the building work is started (nudation). But the house does not even resemble a home yet, and definitely not fit for the family to live in.
Even as building work progresses, and the wiring and plumbing (central nervous system and internal organs) are added – no-one can live in it yet.
Even when construction is nearly complete, it may look like a house, but it is not yet a home, because nobody has moved in yet – giving it an emptiness that can only be filled when the final touches are made and the family moves in (when the baby is born) – this is when Ensoulment occurs.’
The modern Church, Catholic, C of E, Anglican are firmly opposed to abortion of any kind from the moment of conception, although there are denominations of the Church that are Pro-Choice, sometimes only to a certain extent. Examples include the American Baptist Church and the Quakers.
B) Christians are normally started out, probably by parents, in the Catholic or Anglican Church (in Great Britain), but as they get older, they might have different ideas (about abortion) than those of their particular denomination and decide that it isn’t right for them; so they join a denomination with different views on abortion. An example is: Someone going from a Church with strong views against abortion (e.g. Catholic), to a denomination with perhaps less strict views (e.g. Methodist)
There are many other actions that Christians might take besides revolting from the teachings of their Church and obeying another, these can include actions like:
Praying, perhaps for the souls (for those who believe in Ensoulment) of the aborted babies – taken away before they could even live in this world. They might also pray for God to forgive people who have had abortions, or the doctors that perform them, or even ask God to end abortion by warning people that it is a sin (One extreme right-wing person said that the September 11th attack had been allowed to happen by God as a warning to all Pro-Choice supporters).
Christians can also vote, when the chance arises, for a political party or president that is against abortion (George Bush) or for abortion (Al Gore). They can also vote on other occasions, like referendums where the question might be: “Should there be tighter laws on abortion?”
Another action is protesting and non-violent demonstration. This action is performed frequently by parties on both sides of the argument, organisations such as ALRA and SPUC protest frequently. (Mainly the ‘hold...
placards in the air’ type protest). I mentioned SPUC and ALRA in the last sentence. These organisations are typical of the ones that Pro-Choice (ALRA) or Pro-Life (SPUC) Christians might join. Unfortunately, because there are so many groups on each side – the abortion ‘issue’ looks like it will never be resolved, people have written articles on the Internet as a form of protest, as the Internet is a way in which they can reach more people, but many of these articles could be described as ‘flame’ (similar to hate mail), which just go on at people from the various sides because of their views. I have seen scathing articles regarding sites like religioustolerance.org. Some people also speak out at public gatherings, esp. in the USA, to make their views known.
There are always some extremists who take things too far though: In America, the abortion argument has reached such an extreme that abortion doctors have been shot dead in the street and their clinics have been subjected to arson attacks including explosives and firebombs that have totally destroyed these buildings. The people behind these attacks claim that the doctors who perform the abortions are oppressors to the unborn children and so they have not broken the ‘Thou shalt not kill’ commandment.
In short, Christians will be prepared to do anything to make their views known: - not so much the conservative and less extreme Christians, who just protest without violence, but the extreme right-wing pro-lifers, who go to such lengths as to killing people; which probably won’t make the situation any better anyway; If anything, it will make it worse.
C) Is abortion justified…? Well, I like to take the most neutral viewpoint possible, although I have been swung towards the Pro-Life camp slightly, mainly because their arguments are convincing. The majority of the Church is Pro-Life, but I find the Catholic viewpoint a bit too extreme, that all abortion (except in the case of the mother going to die if an abortion is not performed), from the moment of conception, is murder. I believe that the stage when personhood begins is when Nudation (implantation of zygote in wall of uterus) occurs it is at this stage when the foetus becomes part of the mother -and I believe that she should have a duty to it when it becomes a part of her. I believe that before this stage- the taking of the Morning-After –Pill is acceptable in all circumstances, including underage pregnancy and rape, but after Nudation (about 72 hours after conception) I think that all abortions are not justified, with the notable exceptions of handicap, and when the mother’s life is threatened – I will explain my reasons for excepting these later, but first I will say why I chose to leave out the other reasons for not wanting the baby. The First is rape. This was difficult to decide upon- but in the end I believe it is up to the woman to terminate a possible pregnancy before the Zygote has implanted or shoulder the responsibility for having a child. This may seem harsh – it was probably a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time that led to the rape, but once the foetus is a part of you, it is a part of you. Pro-choicers would argue that the woman has a right to do as she pleases with her body and as the foetus is part of her, she can do as she wants with it. My argument against this is this: You wouldn’t just decide one day to gouge your own eye out unless you were mad in some way – and you would probably be taken to a mental asylum. I am saying that it is madness to ‘kill’ a part of your body – so you would be put in a nuthouse if you have an abortion after nudation. The same rule applies to underage pregnancy, in my opinion.
Now for the exceptions: Handicapped Child, this only applies for a child who will have a severe, severe handicap or abnormality (like having its brain on the outside of it’s head) and although Pro-life extremists and the Church (Catholic, Orthodox etc) will argue that all life is sacred… What Life? I call this a ‘Frost –bitten leg” situation, I compare it to a frostbitten leg because: Imagine your leg gets frostbitten and it really should be amputated- it can’t move and it can’t serve a purpose anymore. You wouldn’t say that you wanted it to say that you wanted it to stay and let it drop off on its own (if a leg was sentient) because it would suffer before it actually did drop off, and you, the bearer, would also suffer (in a pregnancy, you would suffer mentally), so it is an act of mercy.
I apply a similar sort of comparison to the situation where an abortion must be performed to save the mother’s life. I would say that it is comparable to a hospital accidentally replacing your heart with a clock. If you were Pro-life you might say “leave it there and see what happens,” and you would die along with the clock, which would be buried with you. If you were sensible, you would have a proper heart put in immediately (have an abortion), and you would save your own life, but the clock would be left to rust in a ‘medical waste’ bin. I say that to save one life is better than to save none.
I don’t think that any Church denomination would agree exactly with my views. But the Methodist, American Baptist and The Presbyterian Church of America seem to share similar views. As for the statement, I agree with it to a certain extent, but not in the case of severe, severe handicap or when the mother will die. I am not really Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, I find the whole issue a bitter propaganda war, and if there was a scale which shows where I stand in this debate… Well, here it is: Nearer the pro-life end of the scale than to the pro-choice end, but fairly near the middle.
_