Against Abortion

Against Abortion

There is a clear mention in the Bible that abortion is wrong. The Bible teaches that humans are different from other types of life, as humans are made in the very image of God. The accounts of the creation of man and women in Genesis reveal that God created man in his image; in the divine image he created man and women. The image of God is what is meant to be human. Humans are not just a collection of randomly thrown cells through some impersonal forces. Instead, we genuinely mirror an eternal God who knew us prior to when we were made and definitely called us into being. Not just did God make, but He also values us. According to the Bible, God loves us to such an extent that He became one of us and also died for us while we continued to offend Him. In this backdrop, can we mention that human beings are disposable? God does not make us obsolete. If Bible is to be believed, one has to regard that human life is sacred, even more sacred compared to what we have ever imagined. According to the Bible, the child in the womb is truly a human child, who also has a relationship with the Lord. (the Bible's teaching against Abortion)

The fundamental theological concerns posed by the debate on abortion focuses on the personhood of the fetus. Those working for a constitutional "human life amendment against abortion contends that Bible teaches: (i) 'fetus is a person' (ii) 'abortion implies murder'." (Baird; Rosenbaum, 27) Harold Brown was of the opinion that "Bible banse taking away of innocent human lives." (Baird; Rosenbaum, 27) if the developing fetus is depicted to be human being or in case human life has started, then abortion is to be considered as homicide. Even though the starting point is completely different, the statement of Brown is an important agreement with that of Holy Pope himself who has stated that innocent human life, in any condition is found, is to be withdrawn from the very fist occasion of its existence, from any direct purposeful attack. The religious concept of the image of God does not have any biological counterpart. Hence there has to be identification of image with genotype. Therefore the unborn should be considered as persons from the time of their conception. (Baird; Rosenbaum, 27)

Radical conservative groups which consisted of Roman Catholic clergy considered that abortion was exclusively justifiable in cases when the life of the mother would be at risk during childbirth. It was liberals, reformers, and feminists who stressed the person's right to control her own body, and regarded that the interests of completely formed, adult women dominated those of the fertilized egg, the zygote, the embryo, or the fetus. It was the moderates who attempted to split the difference and backed abortion rights under some situation, but shunned the concept of abortion on demand, considering that some boundaries on abortion were needed. (Rubin, 53)

Advocates of abortion try to dismiss abortion as if it is a case of personal autonomy, i.e. "a woman's right to choose." (Intentionality: A way to argue against abortion) However a fundamental idea of justice warns all of us that innocent human life cannot be taken away. Few would agree that a person's "right to choose" to terminate the life of another human being for no other reason than the apprehension that in the absence of such a "choice" personal autonomy is lessened. Supporters of abortion like to consider the unborn child as being a collection of tissues which is less than human. They choose to shift the argument away from any reflection upon the humanity issue of embryo or fetus. Regrettably many supporters of abortion have attained a stage where they overlook the fact of an unborn child being a human being. Considering such people any logical argumentation would be fruitless as they are sometimes "the causes of personal liberty resolute to preserve the alleged 'right to choose.'" (Intentionality: A way to argue against abortion)

Fetuses are indeed human life because they intend to have human life through a process change. When it is regarded that embryos or fetuses plan to evolve into humans it is in the pre-conscious state of the unborn child, decisions and plans are not a possibility. Hence it is not derived out of conscious forms of reflection or preference that the embryo or fetus has the ownership to be called human. The implication in which it can be said that the child in the womb will go on to be human is that its body perform with the definite even if insensible, objective of sustained growth and development as a human being. Truly, by the very fact that a life plans to live it is alive. The point to be noted here is that only by life can someone seek life. Hence the message drives home that planning to live is living. (Intentionality: A way to argue against abortion)

This can be observed albeit more distinctly when we inspect the function of the embryo. Starting from the stage of conception, the embryo is active in a biological point-of-view. The subdivision of the fertilized egg, the growth of neural tube depicts that that the embryo is definitely alive. And its actions are obvious. It progresses to continue its existence more fully, in order to develop as a human being. Since it acts so as to continue in its path to life demonstrates that it has live. It acts to live as a full blown human being, although in a nascent stage of development. This understanding of the intention of the embryo' function is indispensable in disproving those who say that it is no longer a part of the mother's body. The variation remains that whereas the other organs are definitely active, they function to preserve the woman's life. The embryo acts to preserve its self. Therefore, it is basically different from all other organs of a woman's body. It acts to sustain its own life. An unborn child is evidently not simply a part of a woman's body. Also it possesses human life. (Intentionality: A way to argue against abortion)

The embryo acts to preserve and grow its own early human life. Supporters of abortion fail to acknowledge the humanity of the embryo. Since it has scanty similarity to an adult, or even to a child, they deny the embryo the same right to life which is given to the most vulnerable baby when it has been born. Whatever "right to life" belongs to any human being at any stage is the outcome of the reception of life at a stage which was totally passive. The embryo wants to transform fully into human form. How could it plan to become what it is not? To put it differently, how could it become human if it were not already human? Life is received at the embryonic stage of its existence. The continuum which is life never permits partition into such watertight stages like trimesters which permit us to state with much reliability. At this stage, the life is human; prior to this stage, it was something different which does not possesses the privilege to life given to humans. Before conception, the intent to continue with life is just perpetual. (Intentionality: A way to argue against abortion)

Nature has shaped the human reproductive system, which has the potential to form new human life. Just with the existence of the embryo, there is a form in which the intention of new life is crafted. As the embryo pursues human life in a greater active format and can be called as a new living being. Hence, one again we visualize the reasoning of conception as the starting point of a…