ABORTION,
A WOMAN'S RIGHT
Click the following to Navigate this page
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
AND ABORTION
CATHOLICISM AND THE
LEGALITY OF ABORTION
IVF AND SPERM DONORS
THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH
The Catholic Church forbids abortion under all circumstances and even when it could save the mother's life. Some Catholics who believe in the ban think that abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life. But even if that is true, it has nothing to do with the ban on abortion. The Church would still ban abortion if say the vast majority of women needed abortion to live. There is a real hatred of women in the Church's attitude.
The Church condemns those who are pro-abortion. It also condemns those who are pro-choice because pro-choice means being pro-abortion when a woman chooses it.
The Church says it is wrong to kill the baby even if it is right to kill an unjust aggressor to preserve your own life for the baby is not an unjust aggressor (Question 1010-1011, Radio Replies Volume 2/ page 15, Moral Questions, A Statement by the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales). But this is an excuse for she would let you kill a insane person to save yourself though they would be as innocent as the baby. The Church is trying to murder women who need an abortion to live, by its obviously discriminatory teaching. It hates all women even if pregnancy kills no more for any woman could have a fatal pregnancy and the Church teaching would be the same if it were common.
The Church also says that when life starts as it does at conception, from that point on, the mother has no right to treat the child as her property that she can get rid of or dispose of (page 15, Moral Questions, A Statement by the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales).
The child cannot be its own property until it becomes a developed being that knows its alive. A ball of cells is perhaps nobody's property which is why the mother can dispose of it. Without intending disrespect, a dog is more developed than a human being and though it is nobody's property (for it is a conscious being and nobody can technically own a conscious being but merely treat it as if they owned it) the person responsible for its care has the right to have it put to sleep. Religion takes it for granted that the unborn child is its own property from conception but that stance is far from convincing and isn't even relevant.
Anti-abortionists contend that killing the baby to prevent the
death of the mother is wrong for it is making sure that one of them will die
and if they were let alone both might have lived. They are stating that it is better to risk
two lives than to take one. Medical
predictions aren't always correct. But
at the same time we have to take them as probably correct. This argument would proscribe killing unjust
aggressors. You aren't sure that they
will kill you. The pope knows this for
critics come at him from all sides.
The Church likes to claim that abortion hurts women. It is not abortion that hurts women but
careless doctors or perhaps the woman knew the risks and took the chance of
being hurt which is her concern and gives nobody else the right to say she
should not have the option of abortion.
Women having abortions are too often left without the counselling before
and after the abortion that is so vital to their mental well-being. It is not abortion that hurts but bad
attitudes in the woman having the abortion and bad preparation and bad consideration
of the consequences. Many liberated
women have had many abortions and do not feel any guilt and believe that it was
worth it. The Church doctrine that
abortion has babies dying outside the family of God and therefore excluded from
Heaven because they are not baptised brings horrendous pain to many women. Read my book, condemning infant baptism to
learn why this cruelty is so unnecessary.
Baptism is just a rite and has no magical power to make a baby fit for
Heaven. The rite is anti-feminist in so
far as it hurts women who have abortions.
It is not abortion that causes the remorse a woman may feel. It is the fear that she might have killed a
person. It is the teaching of the Church
that is to blame for that. The Church
does not put as much energy into feeding the starving millions of the world as
it does into the war against abortion.
What about the unborn babies inside mothers starving to death? The war is really about power over women and
to manipulate people into holding the Church in a regard that is waning in
other people. Pro-lifers pretend that
pro-abortionists do not really care for women but even if they don't that does
not mean the woman should not have an abortion.
They are trying to make women feel that abortion is bad by putting them
off the idea of going to these people to get one. That is conniving. Why? A
woman might not be treated right while and after having an abortion but that
does not mean that abortion is not the best option for her. Pro-lifers have a strange concern for women
when they say they love women despite often wanting a woman to die in pregnancy
rather than advise her to terminate it.
They insult all women by this for they would have the same attitude to
any one of the women they claim to love.
If Ann next door needed an abortion to save her life they would want her
to kill herself by not having one so if Ann has any sense she will take it
personally.
The Church says mother and unborn baby have an equal right to
life. But the mother is classed as a
sinner in the wishful thinking of the Church and the baby is not so the baby's
life should be preferred to her if sin exists.
It is obviously wrong to suggest that someone who has had a life has as
great a right to live as a baby that has had none.
The Church permits a womb or fallopian tube to be removed to save
the mother even though it entails the death of the baby inside. She says this is not murder or abortion for
it has to be done and is the only way.
The death of the baby is a side effect.
This is called the law of double-effect which means we have to do harm
when it is for the greatest good and the harm is a side effect for it is not
intended because there is no choice.
That permission shows us something. The Church gives the following as a reason
for forbidding abortion: “Abortion even
if ever acceptable might turn out to have been unnecessary to save the mother’s
life. So it is best to ban it.” This is only an excuse when it allows the
tubes and wombs removed with the babies inside.
The Church can't say aborting a baby to save the mother is doing a
certain evil instead of doing a less certain evil of causing the mother's
death. She cannot say that possible
evils are better committed than sure evils for she advocates the certain evil
of killing the baby indirectly. The
Church states that this is not abortion for there is no choice but to kill the
baby indirectly. That this is folly is
obvious from the fact that it is permitted to take away the tube and thereby
cut off the baby's life but not permitted to kill the baby and then remove the
tube. Moreover, if foetal life comes
first as the Church implies by her rancour towards women then it is best to let
nature run its course and kill the two of them if it wants to so indirect
killing is still abortion and freely meant to kill the baby. It is possible to be pregnant even if the
womb is taken away for the foetus can grow off other organs. It is no wonder some think that the Church
must ask that the foetus be frozen alive to wait for the day when science can
do something with it to give it a chance to be born or ask that the foetus be
implanted elsewhere in the mother or in another woman by force if necessary
when the Church permits the removal. Some feminists have said that the Church
would certainly rape women in the sense of forcibly implanting babies in
them.
If the baby's life comes before the mother's life when abortion is
not allowed it comes before it in double-effect too. Thus the baby's death would not be a side
effect for it is not morally necessary to kill the baby for the baby is all
that matters. It is killed indirectly
but that it is still as good as killing directly.
The law of double effect as used by the Catholic Church becomes
lethal when an omnipotent God is believed in.
Suppose a fallopian tube with a baby inside needs to be removed
according to medical opinion to save the mother. Nobody knows for sure if not having the
operation will kill the baby and/or the mother.
Statistically, most in this situation will die. But when there is a God he might change this
and most will live. The women then
should not be touched just in case.
Thus, the Church endorses an abuse of the law of double effect. The babies' deaths it allows are not
unavoidable. Moreover, taking away the
babies prevents God from showing the statistics reversing. Perhaps
if the tube was left inside, we would see a change in the statistics thanks to
God and there would be no need to remove them on statistical grounds
again. When he reverses the statistical trend
more babies lives will be preserved and the indirect
termination of ectopic pregnancies will be
forbidden. This thought alone condemns
the Church's teaching.
Abortion cannot be bad just because it hurts the foetus. The foetus will face more pain than that if
it lives.
Only if the foetus may have the need to live can killing it be evil. To have this
need it has to be able to understand what life is which simply means it has to
be conscious. It may not understand how
it comes to be alive but it knows it is aware so it understands what it is to
be alive. It doesn't have the need so abortion
on demand would be right if we are sure it does not know.
Since we have no free will and don't know what we are doing when
we "choose" it follows that the argument that the unborn child has no
needs for it does not understand anything and so cannot have a right to life is
incorrect.
The abortion of a foetus that has no consciousness is not murder
for it is just preventing a person from coming into existence. If this is evil then men should be
impregnating girls as soon as they start to ovulate.
What if the foetus has a soul?
A soul cannot be one with a body that has no mind. Abortion would just be removing a pile of
cells that a soul is waiting to control.
The Church says that unborn children have souls and should not be
aborted. How does she know that the same
is not true of animals? She can’t know
so her condemnations and showing off her pro-life badge make many think it is
about self-righteous power games. Plus
the Church allows life-support to be turned off when people are brain-dead
which only signifies that the person will never recover and that some of the
brain is damaged not that the brain is totally dead. The brain dead person will have more
consciousness than an embryo in the womb in the first months and they say it is
all right to end the life of one and not the other. The Church is just making a difference based
on dogmatic grounds and is just assuming for the sake of those grounds. People come before dogmas.
Catholicism claims that the Holy Spirit preserves it from
error. The constant teaching of the
Church is thought to be without error.
The Church says that new doctrines are novelties and are necessarily wrong. It was only in the nineteenth century that
the Church started to think that the soul was infused at conception (Vicars
of Christ, page 523). Since the
Church only makes a tradition into a dogma when it is questioned so that nobody
can doubt that it is a part of what God who doesn’t lie has revealed, it
follows that this doctrine denying that the soul is infused at conception is an
infallible revelation from God that the Church has turned her back on. The pope is a hypocrite and would know from
Aquinas that his doctrine of life starting at conception is false.
The doctrine that Mary was conceived in her mother's womb free
from original sin which was dogmatised in 1854 by Pius IX does not necessarily
imply that the newly fertilised egg is a human person. God might simultaneously make the soul but
not join it to the foetus until it is sufficiently developed. Killing it would still be murder just like it
would be murder to kill a person who could leave their body when they were
out. Or perhaps the egg gets the power
to transmit original sin to the soul though the soul won't appear yet. The idea of a cell that is not a person being
guilty of original sin is no sillier than a person having the sin because the
person is as innocent as the cell. Even
if the sinless conception of Mary does not imply that abortion is murder it has
done much harm to women for it seems to do that to many and is allowed to seem
that way. The Devil would have had good
reason to promote the doctrine by appearing to Catherine Laboure
and Bernadette of Lourdes and pretending to be Mary when it cause such a brutal
and tremendous catastrophe for women have had abortions or considered having
one.
The Church never properly disapproved of abortion as seriously
wrong for the Church for centuries did not officially teach that the human being
was a person from conception.
The Roman Church tell us that the unborn child might be a human
person and that this proves abortion to be wrong for it might be killing a
person. But this only proves abortion to
be evil when done for a trivial reason. If
the foetus is abnormal or if the mother-to-be could die then it would be right
to have an abortion in case the unborn child is not a human person. Religionists like to forget that the embryo
might not be a human person.
The woman who brings a child into the world to suffer is a callous
child abuser. Her child will have the
right to sue her.
Christian opposition to abortion has more to do with dislike of
women and sheer bigotry than anything else.
The interference of Christians which is geared to making abortion hard
to obtain results only in late abortions.
For them, early or late abortion is bad.
But the truth is, even if it is bad it is less bad in the early stages. Then there is a lesser chance that the baby
is a person.
The Catholic Church officially teaches that the war against
abortion and contraception are the same war.
It is believed that a woman using contraception will often choose
abortion if the contraception fails. The
Church is insinuating that contraception leads to abortion. This aims to trick women into thinking they
are assisting in murder if they use contraceptives for it is not necessarily
true and contraception would have to necessarily lead to abortion to be wrong
like abortion supposedly is. It is true
that the pill often causes a very early abortion but there is a world of
difference between this and having a later abortion requiring surgery. That you would use the pill does not
necessarily mean that you would have the baby killed at a later stage. That is why the Church's logic is
fraudulent. It is wrong to say that
contraception is bad for it leads to abortion for it does not. Using condoms does not mean you will use the
pill. Using the pill does not mean you
will have a later abortion if the pill lets you down. If you do use the pill or have a later
abortion the reason is that you made a new decision that nothing made you
make. There is no link. The Church needs this emotionally stirring
argument to put a veneer of respectability and compassion on its crusade
against birth-control. The woman has all
the trouble with pregnancy and the man does not. In a sense the man is in the same position as
a contracepting woman. It is clear then that the ban on
contraception and abortion in Catholicism really stems from a hatred of
women. It is pure sexism. It denies that women should have the freedom
with sex that men have. It seeks to
punish women for having sex.
The Church says that a child is a gift from God. This means that the suffering of having an
unborn child is a gift from God too. To
say that suffering is a gift from God which you have to say if you believe in
an all-powerful God who lets suffering take place for a good reason is to
discourage people a lot from fighting suffering. We will not take orders from believers in God
about whether abortion should be legalised or forbidden.
The Church will do a lot to stop abortions in poor countries but
it will not do much to stop the babies dying of starvation or malnutrition or
disease after they are born. Banning
abortion gives men the right to procreate through rape or through lying about
contraception. The woman’s body belongs
to men. The woman is sentenced to a
living death and to bondage and fear.
Her life is not valuable while the baby’s is. What the fight against abortion really is
about is stopping women from using their own judgment and being free. Women who campaign against abortion are
traitors to their sex and are conditioned by men and religion.
The Catholic Church and many other Churches claim to care about
the family.
If so why do they have no problem providing marriage for immature
people, sixteen year olds, and people who may be unsuitable for raising
children?
The Catholic Church condemns single mothers but nothing was said
about Pope Pius IX taking a Jewish boy from his parents and raising him himself.
CATHOLICISM AND THE LEGALITY OF ABORTION
Can you believe that
abortion is wrong and still support its legality?
You can if you believe that you have no right to force your belief
that the embryo was a human person from conception on others for it cannot be
fully proved. You can if you believe
that saying the embryo has the same right to life as a fully grown person is
based on the idea that it has a human soul for the soul is a religious
hypothesis and religion and politics cannot be legitimately mixed. The Church by campaigning for no votes in
abortion referendums is interfering in politics. The Church does not like abortion legalised
for then the numbers having abortions will be known and it will be known that
there are many in the Church who pretend to be pious members and who go and
commit what they believe to be murder.
The Roman Church excommunicates for having an abortion or
procuring it which shows that calling yourself a Catholic cannot mean a thing
when you have millions of Catholics who because of excommunication are not
Catholics at all. Logically since
voting for abortion does more to bring it about than anything else this vote
must bring on the sentence of excommunication.
About half of Catholics would vote for it so they are not real Catholics
and yet the Church has the nerve to use the appearance of being a huge
corporation to get its way. That’s
devious.
Many believe that if you believe the unborn child has the right to
life which is the supreme right then there is no way you can tolerate the
legality of abortion for you have to do what you believe in and it is your
right to. This is the official view of
the Roman Church. They would say that
you can’t let somebody kill a mentally handicapped person even if they believe
the person hardly knows they are alive and so if you believe an unborn child to
be a human person you cannot allow the killing of the child.
The Humanist view is that there is good reason to understand how
people can say the unborn child does not have the right to live that its mother
has. It is a possibility that they are
right therefore liberal abortion laws should be brought in even if they mean
abortions will happen outside the boundaries that Humanists believe in. We believe in abortion on demand in the early
stages and only to save the mother’s life after that.
HYPOCRISY ABOUT ABORTIONISTS
It is usual for religion to teach that it is correct to kill one
person if it is absolutely necessary to save more. Even pacifists have to subscribe to this
though they will tell you they do not believe it.
Anyway, Catholics and most Protestants claim that it is right to
kill some to save more. And even if the
law of the land does not approve for God's law comes first.
Amazingly, this rule is dropped when it comes to
abortionists. The Church will savagely
condemn anyone who shoots abortionists to prevent the so-called murder of
hundreds of unborn children. This is
because approbation will hand her into hot water with the law. She will lie about the law of God and about
morality to protect herself. She would
rather be an accessory to the mass-murder of what she sees as innocent persons
and the most reprehensible form of murder than be in jail. This is the same religion that instructs
people to be ready to go to jail for the sake of her Jesus. People are not allowed to condemn their faith
to get out of being victims of persecution.
This is the religion that claims to be true to a man who was crucified
for his beliefs. She is spitting on the
cross metaphorically speaking. She is
loathing the man she calls the Son of God and who said that whatever we do to
the least of his brethren we do to him.
If the Church wants a stop to doctors being shot dead the Church should
agree with abortion.
You can’t defend the Church by saying that it may think that
killing the doctors will not stop abortion.
It would if enough of them were killed.
And it would put many doctors off becoming abortion doctors. People agree that they would shoot the Nazi
killers dead to save some lives even if it meant shooting only one at a time. These people might say that the excuse that
there is no point in shooting them for somebody else will do the killing for
them is nothing more than an excuse. The
Church says life is supremely precious which would mean it was worth it to
shoot an abortion doctor so that many abortions would be put off for at least a
few days over it which would grab the babies more time and prolong their lives
a bit and maybe some mothers would even decide to keep the babies.
To teach the extreme pro-life view that life begins at conception
is undeniably an incitement to murder and hate abortion doctors.
If the Church really believed that unborn babies were human beings
she would decree that women who terminated their pregnancies should be tried
and imprisoned for murder. She does
not. If abortion is murder then it is
the worst type of murder there is. It is
a woman killing her own child in a brutal fashion to save herself a few months
bother and refusing to get it adopted out at the end of these few months. It is more evil to commit a murder when you
won’t have to pay for it for that is dodging your due as well. Church, if you really believe abortion is
murder then campaign for prison sentences for women who abort. Don’t pretend you believe they are any
different from women who give birth and then murder the child. You are trying to butter people up by
pretending this very thing to get influence over them and money off them. Campaign for it will never work. We will stand by women who have abortions as
we should. We will not let you hurt
women with your cruel attitude to them but thankfully you don’t have the nerve
to put into practice.
One wonders what kind of mentality the Church has. She is definitely making sure that the babies
are treated as nothing and then she has the nerve to proclaim that she really
believes in their pricelessness.
The pope and Mother Teresa have claimed that abortion leads to a
downslide in reverence for life and so it leads to war and other terrible
things by the attitude it instils. What
about the Christian insistence that it is not people who matter but God and that
God alone is to be loved? It will lead
to less reverence for life and any believer who loves to preserve life is doing
it in spite of their faith. If abortion
seems to do what they say then it is not abortion that does it - unless it is a
very late and needless abortion - but their doctrine that abortion is murder
all the time. People who say abortion is
murder and don’t advocate the imprisonment of abortionists or their
assassination are hardly a good example for the reverence of life. They are like, “Let us pretend to oppose
abortion because we love to see life protected and nurtured. It is only the troublemaking we are into, we
don’t take the life thing that seriously.”
MICHAEL
TOOLEY
Michael Tooley argued that to be a
person was to have desires and that rights are based on desires. To have the right to live one had to want to
live and understand what live meant.
Babies can't do these things so he believed that abortion and
infanticide were permissible as long as they were done as humanely as possible.
Rights are not based on desires but on needs and you can need what
you do not desire. We have right and
wrong desires so just wanting something does not mean we are entitled to it.
Tooley
doesn't remember what it was like being a baby so for all he knows babies might
desire life and understand what life is though this knowledge would be very
primitive but it could be there.
Killing the baby even humanely will still hurt it and sometimes the
baby is extracted bit by bit when things go disastrously wrong. Tooley would have
to justify this by saying that it is right for there would be greater pain for
it or its mother or both if it lives.
Tooley's
views give no real grounds for abortion.
Judith Jarvis Thomson argued that because
the woman owns her body she has the right to get an abortion if she doesn’t
want to be pregnant. She said that
though the baby has a right to life, the mothers right to control her body
comes first.
If you give birth to a child and the child
needs your kidney or it will die there is no law that has the right to force
you to donate. Your bodily integrity
comes first. Therefore Thomson was right. If she is wrong then frozen embryos should be
implanted by force in women to save them.
Suppose there was a
machine that could grow babies to full term.
Girls are forced to contribute eggs to it. Your egg was fertilised by mistake and now the
baby will be aborted so that another baby can be brought to full term in the
system instead. Unless your baby is
implanted in you, it will die. It will
die by being pulled to bits by the machine.
Is it your duty to allow this to be done to you and save your baby’s
life? What if the baby was genetically designed to be the most compassionate
doctor possible?
Thomson was right. Getting pregnant, even on purpose, doesn’t
give the mother the duty to keep the child alive. She can have an abortion if she wishes.
Some argue, "We do not know if abortion is the killing of a
human person. The foetus may seem to be
a mass of tissue and still be a person.
We don't understand how we are persons.
Abortion for a small reason is wrong for we don't know if abortion is
murder or not. Even a ball of cells
could be a person in some way we do not understand so abortion for no serious
reason is wrong in case it is murder. It
is replied that carrots and onions might be persons and we kill them. But the difference is we have no reason to
think they might be and do have reason to think that the foetus might be a
human person."
The truth is that though foetus has more hope of being a person
than a carrot it is absurd to imagine that it is a human person when it has no
developed brain. To accuse a woman who
has an early abortion of murder or killing a person is an extremely dangerous
and serious allegation and the proof that the baby was a person then needs to
be put forward but the proof is unsatisfactory so pro-life is anti-women.
Abortion is not always wrong.
Much of humanism agrees with abortion on demand in the early stages for
there is no reason to think that the baby is a human person then. Even if it has a brain it would be too
primitive to make it conscious to any important degree. We don't think that animals are as personal
as ourselves. A baby should be aborted
when it would be destined for a life of agony.
It is wisest in this case to terminate the pregnancy in case it is not a
person. Abortion at the later stage is
never right unless it is the only way to save the mother's life and if both
will die.
We must see the value in the fact that if we prohibit abortion
desperate women will die and suffer at the hands of back street abortionists so
it should be allowed to keep them away from such butchers. It is countered that this is like saying that
since people are going to steal or molest children that we should allow these
things. But these women are desperate
and believe they have no choice and there is the possibility that they are not
harming a human person in having the contents of their wombs emptied. An abortion should be performed to stop a
woman going to a back street abortionist.
The mothers come first for we are more sure they are persons than we are
that their babies are.
The pro-lifers know that they have no business expecting everybody
to believe that a few cells is a human being.
It’s plain commonsense.
It is clear that if the world populates at the rate it is doing
that the destruction of most of us will come one day through famine and
plague. In this sense, abortion does
save lives. It saves the people who have
not come into being yet.
The Humanist recognises that not everybody agrees with her or him
on abortion. So whose opinion should be
enshrined in the law? Should it be the
Catholic one that always forbids abortion or should it be the opinion of women
who believe abortion should be carried out even at a late stage just because
the woman finds it convenient? Should it
be the more moderate stance of Humanism?
As the adult is more certainly a person than even a foetus at six months
in the womb the women's opinion should come first.
The Catholic Church officially teaches in its vicious and
notorious Dictionary of the Family that any democracy that allows
abortion is not a democracy for it does not respect the lives of its unborn
citizens. This teaching then urges
Catholics to force the law of the land to forbid abortion no matter how many
want it legalised. We will not stand for
such interference.
THE
BIBLE AND ABORTION
Jeremiah 1:5 has God saying that before he made Jeremiah in the
womb he knew him.
Psalm 139 says that God knit its author together in the womb. These passages are used to support the
delusion that life begins at conception.
But even a person who believes that a foetus only becomes a person say
at three months after conception could agree with these statements. If the unborn John the Baptist jumped in his
mother's womb for joy when she met Mary about the five or sixth month that does
not prove that life begins at conception.
The Bible uses the Greek word brephos for a
child before and after birth but that poses no problems.
The Torah, first five books of the Bible, says that a man who fights and hurts a pregnant woman so that she loses the baby must be fined by her husband though it says that to kill requires that you be killed yourself. This suggests that the Torah denies that babies are persons. It does not even say how far on the woman has to be so it is very liberal.
The Bible, supposedly written by God, says at Deuteronomy 21:18-21, that if a son is too much for the parents they can have him stoned to death if they wish. This is the abortion of an adult son not an unborn one! The Church may say there was no evidence that this law was ever used. But it still approves of such killing even if it never happened. The wish of the Church to defend itself by saying the law was never used shows that the Church is uncomfortable with the law and therefore sinning in trying to treat a law of God as a bad thing. The Church should be saying, "The law may never have been used but we would welcome it if it were needed". With this in mind, the Church's attitude towards abortion reeks of hypocrisy. The Mormon Church uses similar hypocritical tactics in relation to the Mormon doctrine that certain sinners need to be ritually murdered so that their blood runs to atone for certain sins. They claim that the killings required by the doctrine never took place as if that absolves them for advocating and reverencing evil doctrine. They are trying to turn off people's revulsion and turn them on to Mormonism.
IVF
AND SPERM DONORS
The Catholic Church forbids In Vitro Fertilisation for it is unnatural and because the man has to masturbate to provide sperm. More serious is that a lot of embryos have to be created most of whom are destroyed or die.
When a woman is pregnant with say eight embryos after IVF or fertility treatment that that the Church still won't agree with her aborting some of them to save herself and some of the babies is utterly vile.
The Church believes that sperm donation is bad because it too
involves masturbation and because it means women will be fertilised by men
other than their husbands. Despite the
fact that the records are kept to prevent a girl unknowingly marrying the son
of her natural father and that the sperm is screened for diseases the Church still
has a problem no matter how desperate a couple is to have a child when the man
is infertile.
The Church says that people don’t have a right to have a child and
that is why it is wrong. It is wrong to
go that far to have a baby. But the fact
that this has nothing to do with IVF at all or using
a sperm donation. You could have no
right to a child but have the right to use this method.
The Church will not listen and will still give out the same futile
arguments against IVF. Its concern about sperm donation is that is
against marriage for the wife to have a baby by another man. But the fact is that marriage is wrong and
consists of empty vows.
CONCLUSION
Abortion is a woman’s right and should be freely available.
BOOKS CONSULTED
Abortion The Great Injustice, HP Dunn, Irish Messenger
Publications,
Abortion, John R Rice Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee,
1971
Eunuchs for the Kingdom
of Heaven, Uta Ranke Heinmann,
Penguin, London,
1991
Human Life is Sacred, Irish Bishops Pastoral, Veritas
Dublin 1975
Is Abortion Sinful? Mike
Willis, Guardian of Truth Publications, KY
Moral Questions, A Statement by the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1971
Practical Ethics, Peter Singer, Cambridge University Press, England, 1994
Reason and Religion, Anthony Kenny, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, 1987
The Catholic Church and Abortion, Catholic Press and Information
Office
The Doctor's Dilemmas, Donal
Vicars of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi,
BIBLE QUOTATIONS FROM:
The Amplified Bible
Wednesday, 05
March 2008