Before I start to discuss whether decisions about abortion can be a morally absolute I shall start by defining what a moral absolute' is and what the 'sanctity of life' means. A Moral Absolute is the theory that there are absolute values. What this means is that it does not depend upon evidence or circumstance, it is either true of false no matter what the situation, there is always a fixed answer for every condition. By linking this to the question, a moral absolute would mean that abortion is wrong no matter what the circumstance, it will always been wrong with no exception.However there are Catholics, Priests Bishops who believe that abortion is right if the mother in danger.
Ex Governor Gray Davis was criticised for supporting abortion rights yet he was in the minority. 20 The main rebuttal was that we should never interfere with Gods creation, yet we do with many other things such as cloning, so why not abortion. Therefore, to a Protestant moral thinker the rights of the mother and the exercise of agape (doing the most loving thing - situation ethics) and the rights of the foetus must all be considered.Even Roman Catholics argue that 'indirect abortion' is permissible; an example of this would be in the case of the fetus threatening the life of the mother. The 'sanctity of life' is seen to be sacred because God gave it to us as a gift, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness;"1.
Therefore many Christians believe that we all reflect the image of God and as such our physical forms are part of God. So God is a part of us and we do not have the right to interfere with his gift of life, nor to make life or death decisions concerning others.Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and that temple you are.
"2. Our bodies were created by God and are the way they are because he made them that way, we should not interfere with his ways and if there are problems then that is because he wanted it to happen, but what if we have the power to change when we die? If god is omniscient then surely he would know that we would invent abortions, have them and then it is ok?If he disagreed surely he would not have allowed them to be carried out successfully? Conclusively the sanctity of life is "The value of life exceeds all other values. No other value overrides the value of life except possibly more life" Now that we know that both our lives and our bodies are seen to be sacred and we know what a moral absolute is we can now discuss this in relation to abortion. There are two central issues surrounding abortion these are whether the foetus is a person or a potential person and what rights does it have.The bible tells us that the foetus is a child and it has all the rights as a human and that because God gave it life so therefore it is sacred. "For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother's womb.
" 4 God also knows us intimately from the moment of conception as he would know any other human. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,"5. This therefore shows that God has given the foetus life and a soul as soon as it is conceived, and we already know that we should not tamper with God's creations because they are sacred.This mean that if the mother were to have an abortion then this would be tampering with God's creation and this would be wrong. However if abortion was wrong, then why has abortion never appeared in the Ten Commandments to not interfere with Gods creations and ways, God only tells that it is wrong to kill in the 10 commandments, and he also tells us "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined,"6 this lets us know that hurting the woman or child is a punishable action.Yet it does not clearly define about the fetus and abortion specifically.
The fact of the matter is when does the fetus gain the soul and become all of the humans' rights. As stated above God says that at the moment of conception we have our soul therefore a fetus must gain all human rights and consequently having an abortion is murder. If abortion really is murder, then the doctor performing the abortion should be treated like a murderer, while the mother should be treated like accomplices to murder.Socially there are many reasons why it is seen as being wrong to kill a foetus, a major issue is that fact that you are killing; now, if it is seen to be right to kill a foetus due to abnormality or poverty then it would be seen correct for euthanasia and infanticide, as there is no real difference between all three. So abortion should always be seen as murder. There are criticisms of the view that the foetus is fully human; if the mothers' life is in danger and the foetus and the mother will die then it is better to save the mother's life then let them both die.
This is allowed to happen because they are not trying to kill or abort the foetus but trying to save the mother's life. If the mother had uterine cancer or the foetus was developing in the fallopian tube then it would be seen as correct to save the mothers life over the foetus. If it is argued that all fertilised ova are human then even natural abortions are wrong and we should save them.However one could argue that God chose death for this person and if we try to save it then we are undermining Gods will. And just as it is appointed for men to die"8 With regards to the thought that the foetus is a potential human as it develops it gains more rights, so if an abortion is wanted at a later into the pregnancy then a more significant reason for an abortion is needed. This is because that the foetus is gaining the rights and the respect that any human has and deserves.
Yet it is not until birth that it is a complete person and thus gains the full human rights.Yet the foetus still has more rights than an animal or an object so when considering abortion there must be a compelling reason for it. Even though the foetus has rights these must be weighed against the mothers because she is a full human her rights are more important than the foetus' yet she must have a legitimate reason for an abortion. So in the example of rape, incest or deformity an abortion would be valid.However I feel some reasons such as "already having too many, not having enough money, career comes first" are ridiculous and a child should take priority over these factors as it is the parents fault for not being fully aware of the contraception and also they could always hand over the baby for abortion because there are thousands of parents who long for children of their own but unfortunately cannot conceive.
There are both Biblical and non-Biblical reasons for the belief that the foetus is a potential human.The non-Biblical are the fact that you are not conceived with the knowledge of who you are, you go through gradual processes of development. You can only develop your identity through interactions with others so it can be argued that you are not even human until later than birth. So before this stage you are a potential human.
It is also argued that because not all body organs are there at conception that human personhood is developed with having a human body. This will mean that once the foetus reaches viability i. e. it has all of its organs and could survive on its own, the foetus could be seen as being human.
Legally the foetus is regarded as "A potential (human) life"9, this therefore tells us that the foetus is not a full human, therefore cannot have the right of life as a person who is already born. Jonathan Glover 10 spoke about abortion as being yet another contraceptive, because pro-abortionists argue that because of the abortion this is a potential person whom we shall never know, well, a contraceptive does this too. Many people today in society seem to think that if they conceive by accident they can easily have an abortion. However I personally feel that this should not be allowed for these circumstances.Jonathan Glover went on to discuss how abortions have been rising in the years and many are charging on the national insurance and claiming for mental anguish however when it comes to their check up there are no signs of any mental pain.
The biblical arguments that the foetus is only a potential human and not so until birth are the fact that "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.... "11.
This verse shows that if the foetus is killed then he should be punished yet with accordance to capital punishment if he then kills the mother then he should be killed. This shows that the mothers' life is more important than the foetus' potential life. The bible also shows that the foetus has to develop to become fully human. "For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother's womb. "12.
This shows that the foetus is not fully human because it is in the process of being 'knit'.There are problems with both the biblical and non-biblical reasoning for the foetus being a potential human. The biblical face the problem that the interpretations are debatable. Because Umberto Cassuto13 said that from Exodus 21:22-23 it can actually be interpreted that if men strive to hurt a woman with child yet they do not die then he should be punished, yet if they both or either die then it is the case of a life for a life. This shows that the foetus' life is just as important as the mother's.
