Abortion

Is abortion morally good?

Below we present how to find the answer, it is divided into a few sub-items that discuss issues related to the topic.

Morality

The question is what is morality? Morality defines what is good and what is bad.

So the question is what is good? Something that is just is definitely good, because if it is not just, it is definitely not good.

So the question is what is just? Something based on truth is just, because something based on falsehood is not just.

Truth

The beliefs of the Nazarenes operate on Truth, which is why we talk about truth, because Lord Yeshua is the Truth, the Way, the Life.
Truth is a double-edged sword, it can accuse me as well as you and it does not depend on the people and is always true and constant, but to obtain it, sometimes you have to deny yourself. Here you will learn the answers to something that you can determine by yourself whether it is true and just, although it may turn out that it is not entirely what we want.

Is truth different oppsite answers? Truth is always one, and falsehood offers many possibilities.

Does truth depend on our views? If it depends on our views, it can take many forms, so truth cannot depend on our views.

Is truth a consensus? Consensus means that it is generally accepted, but it does not mean that it is the only one. Therefore, it cannot be Truth, because truth is always the one answer. Therefore, this criterion for determining truth is false.

When determining truth, should we take into account the feelings of others? No, because truth is independent of feelings and cannot be manipulated by them. If truth were defined based on feelings, it would mean that it would have many variants depending on feelings, which means that this criterion is not truth, but falsehood.

When determining truth, should we take into account the opinions of authorities? No, because it would mean that truth is not absolute truth, but something that is a matter of recognition. For some person the authority will be one person, for another another, therefore the answer could depend on the recognition of the speaker presenting it. Therefore, one answer would take on many contradictory variants, therefore such a method is not the path to truth.

So having a few tools let's start the analysis....

Can a woman decide about her body because she has inalienable autonomy that allows her to get rid of a fetus?

Sometimes people say that a woman has an "autonomy" that is inalienable, this means that regardless of her actions (e.g. intercourse and giving a new life), she always has autonomy and can decide about her body and this is morally good, let's ask ourselves, is this so?
As we know, if a woman is dangerous, she will be detained and perhaps even shot by the police, therefore the claim of inalienable autonomy is false, because along with her actions she suffers consequences.
Similarly, if she has an accident, she may suffer bodily harm, regardless of whether she wanted it or not, therefore she suffers consequences.
Therefore, if we base justice on falsehood, it is not justice, therefore it is not good and cannot decide about morality.

Therefore, every action has consequences, and consequences are the result of accepting the risk associated with the action. Therefore, every action means accepting the consequences resulting from the action, and the argument presented in the title is false and cannot be the basis of a fair system, and is an unfounded claim.

But it is also easy to disprove it in many ways, if such a woman has the right to control her body, then for example let her endure migraines, induce her period (so that it comes exactly at a given minute), etc. If she does not have the ability to decide in these cases, it means that her ability to decide about her own body is limited, even biologically, hence the claim about the possibility of full decision about her body is false.

Is sex for pleasure?

Biologically, sex is for procreation, so the purpose of sex is to conceive a new organism, so it is naive to have intercourse and say that you did not know about the possibility of creating a child, because reproductive organs, as the name suggests, have some purpose.

A woman who has intercourse is aware that she can get pregnant.

Does using "protection" mean that it was an accident and therefore she may not suffer the consequences?

Let's assume that a woman is crossing a motorway, she knows that cars are driving fast, but she has good glasses, so she can see long distances and plan properly and thanks to this approach she has managed to cross it many times without problems.

But if there was an accident, does the fact that her glasses are fogged up and she could not see through them mean that she is not responsible and will not suffer the consequences for her act?

So on a similar principle, it is true that a problem with contraception is not an excuse for the lack of responsibility for sexual intercourse, which serves the creation of life.

But there is someone there who showed up uninvited

So let's see if this is true.

A child is created by the union of an egg and a sperm. So where did the child get the sperm and eggs from? Who provided them? So can we say that the child was there uninvited? Just because someone tried to bypass the rules for the sake of pleasure doesn't mean that the rules of biology have stopped working. It is naive to say that this is not a consequence of the actions of parents who were not clever enough.

But it is unfair that I have to carry someone

So let's see if this is fair.

There are people responsible for the child who conceived it. But does the child have the right to use the mother's body during pregnancy?

Let's examine this and if not, then it is indeed unfair, but if it is, then the claim made in the topic is false.
To consider this case, let's analyze another one:
A man broke his neighbor's arms and legs, should he be held responsible for bringing his neighbor to a state where he is dependent on other people?

If so, then similarly with a fetus - parents deciding to have sex know that someone may be created. Someone who will need their help to survive. This person did not want to be placed in such a state, so the state in which the child is placed is the result of the parents' decision.

Is it therefore fair for a person who:
- was placed by their parents in conditions where they need help,
- did not push themselves into the world, and is the result of the parents' actions,
to be killed/murdered just because the parents do not want to face the consequences?

A child is a result of the parents' actions and is not responsible for their actions, therefore it would be unfair for the child to be held responsible for their actions.

But is it a human being? After all, there are claims that it is a fetus, and a fetus is not a human being

To find the Truth, one must consider whether life is a continuous process?
If life is a continuous process, then it has only one beginning and one end.
The beginning is the beginning of life, the end is death.
Knowing that life is initiated, the question is, when does new life begin?
As we know, the earliest moment of new life is the union of a cell with a sperm, therefore this is the beginning of life, because later there is continuity until death. A sperm alone will not create a child, nor will an egg cell, hence their union is the earliest moment - that is, the beginning of life.

So the question arises, is this life at every stage a human being? If so, then the beginning of humanity comes from the beginning of life, if someone thinks otherwise - then let's define when the beginning of life as a human being is.

So when is the beginning of humanity?

Short answer:
- if the beginning is defined by the consensus of certain agreements, it means that it expresses the views of a certain group, but it is not the only one. The majority view is the majority view, and this is not the same as truth. Hence, the beginning of humanity, which defines the right to life, cannot be based on something that may or may not be true. Justice based on "maybe the truth", may be unjust, hence it is not just.
- if the beginning is defined based on the time from conception, it means that a fetus at the same stage of development will sometimes be counted as a human being, and sometimes not - depending on the rate of growth. Because a fetus that develops more slowly will be a human being even if it is in an earlier phase of development, than a fetus that develops more quickly and is in the same stage of development, but before the time of recognition as a human being. So a fetus at a given stage of development will be called a "human being" at one time, and a "fetus" at another time, depending on the rate of development. The truth is always certain, hence a true definition based on such a criterion is not possible, therefore it is not a fair definition.
- if the beginning is defined based on the level of development of the fetus, we are not able to say exactly when a given level of development of the fetus is. What can be a certain level for some person, might not be for others. Therefore a fetus that has already been established as a "human being" by one person, might not be considered as a "human being" by another person. Truth is not a matter of recognition and does not depend on who said it. Therefore, recognition cannot be a factor in determining humanity, because it is not always true.

We know that an adult is a human being, humanity is a continuous state with a beginning and an end and lasts throughout life. If we cannot define the state based on time from the beginning of life, consensus, or level of development, this naturally means that it is independent of these factors.

So what can be the beginning that is independent of time from procreation, level of development and consensus?
Such a beginning of humanity is the beginning of life, therefore a human being becomes a human being at the moment of procreation.

If we accept other definitions of the beginning of humanity, then they will not be based on truth, if they are not based on truth, it means that they will not be just, if they are not just, they will not be good, if they are not good, they will not be moral either.

But is this an abortion of a fetus, not a human being?

If we terminate a human being's life, it means that we either kill or murder a human being, regardless of the age at which we do it.

But such definitions do not take into account the feelings of the person performing the abortion

Yes, truth is independent of feelings. If we took into account the feelings of people who do not want to take consequences for their actions, it would mean that we are not just, and therefore we are not good either. A judicial system based on this could not convict any criminal, because criminals also have traumas, health problems as a consequence of their actions.

But if I take the "Emergency contraception" pill as a preventive measure, nothing will happen, because there could also have been no fetus

If the "emergency contraception" pill makes it harder for the embryo to implant, then that's also an abortion.

To check whether we are responsible for potential abortion, I think this example will explain: 
if we were shooting at the neighbor's gazebo - we know that it might appear, but we don't know when. The fact of shooting means that if the neighbor does appear, we are guilty of murder, because we didn't have to shoot, and we could have expected someone.

But a pill that makes it harder for the embryo to implant is nothing bad

Hindrance of implantation is similar to the perpetrator in the example of the neighbor who refuses to make amends for putting him in a difficult situation. Therefore, the claim from the topic is false.

Okay, but what about rape?

Analyze it yourself using the following example and judge for yourself: 

there was a woman who was severely beaten by an unknown man and he abused her very much. One day he handcuffed his son to her, whom he did not want. Is it fair for the woman to kill this son? After all, he is the son of a that man. When you consider this, add the fact that he is also the woman's son and what should she do then? And how would you assess her actions if she hurts the child?
Answer this question for yourselves, because the truth is not necessarily what we want.

My partner forced me, is it my fault?

There is murder and killing. Murder is for one's own reasons, killing is due to certain circumstances that contributed to it. The sin can be one's own or someone else's. If someone forced someone to do something and the person would not normally do it, it is known that it is not the same as murdering a child resulting from one's own desire. It is fair that the person who deceives should not have a lesser punishment than the person deceived, therefore the main culprit is the person who is the source of the sin and this is how it will be considered at the final judgment, because the cause of the sin will be verified.

I had an abortion and I regret it, will God forgive me?

God is good and just, it is not given to us to judge who will have what kind of future, but God is also good and merciful and gives us the opportunity to convert. We are still alive, even if we do something bad, so we have a chance to change our life, but the change must be true.

Will the child forgive us?

If a child did something bad and regretted it very much, would you forgive them? If so, then assume that a soul without sin is very good and better than us. There is no "birth sin", hence the soul of such a child is without sin.