Comments on: A New Perspective on Pro-Life

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:10:12 +0000

I’m a med student, and I find the hope-approach to the abortion issue interesting, but maybe a little too basic and beside the point. It is very right, but it lies outside of where the problem really is. I think that anyone, christian or not, scientist or not, will agree that a new life is a wonderful miracle, and that it is only worth hoping for. And if there was always only hope for a new life, there would be no problem (except for the demographic one, as you mentioned
The problem begins when there is no hope for this new life, or when it is even actively unwanted, which can happen (and happens) for many different reasons. If the question of abortion rises, it means that the needed foundation of hope has already failed.
So I do think that Hauerwas’ approach to new lifes is right, of course, but it doesn’t help much when the question of abortion is already posed.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:02:33 +0000

The choice of becoming pregnant starts with the choice of having sex. Knowing pregnancy is a consequence of sex, when someone chooses to have it, they are also choosing to accept the possibilities of these consequences. Believing that life begins at conception means that abortion is murder. No one has the right to murder another simply for the inconvenience of having to accept a consequence of their actions.
Legally, you have the right to pursuit of happiness as long as your right doesn’t infringe upon the rights of another. Looking at the case of carrying a child for 9 months or the life of a person that will live on average 76-78 years. I would have to say that the greater infringements of rights here is on the life of the fetus.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:58:04 +0000

You can be pro-life and still think that abortion should be legal. I’m anti-smoking for instance, but I don’t think it should be banned. I am pro-life in that I believe that it is wrong to have an abortion because you are, in essence, ending a life. However, I am also pro-choice in that LEGALLY I believe that it sets an unsettling precedent for two human beings to have equal say over the same body. If someone needed your kidney, let’s say for the sake of argument that it’s your child to have a stronger parallel, and they would die without it, should you be legally obligated to give that person your kidney? Morally, sure - but LEGALLY? Most people would argue that the great majority of parents would gladly give up their kidney to save the life of their child and it would be a poor parent indeed who would not. However, should the law require you to do so? I see abortion in the same light. By creating a law that forces a person to yield their own right to their body over to another human being is unconsionable. I believe that up until a child’s body is capable of sustaining life on its own it is, and I hate to sound clinical here, a parasite of the mother’s body. As much as we may hate the decisions that mother may make regarding her body - it is HER body. I truly believe that life begins at conception and that it is most certainly a sin to abort a child. I agree that a child, any child, is a miracle of God. However I do not think these reasons alone are enough to outlaw abortion. In the same way as the person who does not provide their kidney is not killing the person who needs the kidney, a woman who aborts her child is not killing it. She is merely removing her body from the equation. If the fetus cannot sustain life on its own, that is not LEGALLY her problem. I hope I did not offend. Great blog by the way.