"abortion is never justified?"你认为正确吗?给理由,用英文的
发布网友
发布时间：2024-09-15 03:30
共2个回答
热心网友
时间：2024-10-22 15:54
I believe that abortion is never justified because I agree with the fact that life begins at the moment of conception and that life is sacred. I feel that a foetus has a right to life and that the only decisions made should be by God, as He caused the foetus to be conceived and I believe He has decided the life of the unborn child.
I can appreciate, however, that it could be very difficult for instance to bring up a disabled child. But in this instance, as in every other, abortion is not the answer. There are people in this world that cannot have children themselves, for whom any child would be a blessing. The same applies to conceptions as a result of rape. The sins of the child’s father are not the child’s fault, and rather than just try and brush over the matter by terminating the pregnancy, the effort should go into trying and bringing the rapist to justice.
Many Christians believe that the life of the mother is more important than that of the unborn child but this is a tricky situation. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own, but were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your body." Here, Paul is saying that we must be careful what we do with our bodies, because God lives within our bodies as the Holy Spirit. Killing the foetus harms the body, not only does it kill a new life within the female body, but it can also damage her.
PS.-- Couldn't spend too much time on this issue, the above opinion is part of my personal view. Just for your referrence. Good Luck!! 也就只能帮你写这么多了，估计也能给你起到部分提示作用。如果你需要的是一篇完整的文章，那实在很抱歉！无法完全为你抓刀。
热心网友
时间：2024-10-22 15:54
I can appreciate, however, that it could be very difficult for instance to bring up a disabled child. But in this instance, as in every other, abortion is not the answer. There are people in this world that cannot have children themselves, for whom any child would be a blessing. The same applies to conceptions as a result of rape. The sins of the child’s father are not the child’s fault, and rather than just try and brush over the matter by terminating the pregnancy, the effort should go into trying and bringing the rapist to justice.
"Children are a gift from God" (Psalm 127:3)
"Do not shed innocent blood" (Jeremiah 7:6)
"He didn’t kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave" (Jeremiah 20:17)
"I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live" (Deuteronomy 30:19)
But if A woman who becomes pregnant e to an act of either rape or incest is the victim of a horribly violent and morally reprehensible crime. Although pregnancy as a result of either rape or incest is extremely rare, there is no getting around the fact that pregnancy does occur in some instances. Bioethicist Andrew Vargas summarizes the abortion argument from rape and incest in the following way:
It is argued that in these tragic cases the great value of the mental health of a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest can best be safe-guarded by abortion. It is also said that a pregnancy caused by rape or incest is the result of a grave injustice and that the victim should not be obliged to carry the fetus to viability. This would keep reminding her for nine months of the violence committed against her and would just increase her mental anguish. It is reasoned that the value of the woman's mental health is greater than the value of the fetus. In addition, it is maintained that the fetus is an aggressor against the woman's integrity and personal life; it is only just and morally defensible to repel an aggressor even by killing him if that is the only way to defend personal and human values. It is concluded, then, that abortion is justified in these cases.
Despite its forceful appeal to our sympathies, there are problems with this argument.
1. It is not relevant to the case for abortion on demand, the position defended by the popular pro-choice movement. This position states that a woman has a right to have an abortion for any reason she prefers ring the entire nine months of pregnancy, whether it be for gender-selection, convenience, or rape. To argue for abortion on demand from the hard cases of rape and incest is like trying to argue for the elimination of traffic laws from the fact that one might have to violate some of them in rare circumstances, such as when one's spouse or child needs to be rushed to the hospital. Proving an exception does not establish a general rule.
2. Since conception does not occur immediately following intercourse, pregnancy can be eliminated in all rape cases if the rape victim receives immediate medical treatment by having all the male semen removed from her uterus.
3. The unborn entity is not an aggressor when its presence does not endanger its mother's life (as in the case of a tuba pregnancy). It is the rapist who is the aggressor. The unborn entity is just as much an innocent victim as its mother. Hence, abortion cannot be justified on the basis that the unborn is an aggressor.
4. This argument begs the question by assuming that the unborn is not fully human. For if the unborn is fully human, and then we must weigh the relieving of the woman's mental suffering against the right-to-life of an innocent human being. And homicide of another is never justified to relieve one of emotional distress.
Although such a judgment is indeed anguishing, we must not forget that the same innocent unborn entity that the career-oriented woman will abort in order to avoid interference with a job promotion is biologically and morally indistinguishable from the unborn entity that results from an act of rape or incest. And since abortion for career advancement cannot be justified if the unborn entity is fully human, abortion cannot be justified in the cases of rape and incest. In both cases abortion results in the death of an innocent human life.
As Dr. Bernard Nathanson has written,” The unwanted pregnancy flows biologically from the sexual act, but not morally from it."
Hence, this argument is successful only if the unborn are not fully human.
Some pro-choice advocates claim that the pro-lifer lacks compassion, since the pro-lifer's position on rape and incest forces a woman to carry her baby against her will. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the rapist who has already forced this woman to carry a child, not the pro-lifer. The pro-life advocate merely wants to prevent another innocent human being (the unborn entity) from being the victim of a violent and morally reprehensible act (abortion), for two wrongs do not make a right.
As theologian and ethicist Dr. Michael Bauman has observed:
"A child does not lose its right to life simply because its father or its mother was a sexual criminal or a deviant."
Furthermore, the anguish and psychic suffering caused by rape and incest has been treated quite effectively. Professor Stephen Krason points out that…
"Psychological studies have shown that, when given the proper support, most pregnant rape victims progressively change their attitudes about their unborn child from something repulsive to someone who is innocent and uniquely worthwhile."
