Early abortion is safer than pregnancy.  Pregnancy can lead to a major life threatening illness.  Deep vein thrombosis, high blood pressure, mental health issues can happen.  During birth, there are vaginal tears, post partum haemorrhage, perinatal asphyxia, excessive loss of blood and there are other deadly variables.

There are two forms of abortion.  One is removing the baby from the mother so it will die.  The other is ending its life while it is inside her body.

The Ban on Abortion is Dangerous 
Abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn child or embryo. Catholics say abortion is the killing of a person.  Catholic doctrine is that even if hypothetically it could be proven the unborn child has no soul it is wrong on contraceptive grounds to end the pregnancy.  Thus it tries to make out that the battle against birth control and abortion is one and the same battle. Sometimes abortion involves removing the baby to let it die.  The Church says that is murder by negligence.  Those who let abortion happen are accused of murder by negligence as well.

Not everybody agrees that abortion is murder. If abortion is never justified and is murder, the Church can’t tell a woman that she meant well by having an abortion. But it does for despite seeing abortion as murder it does not really care. The Church cannot upset the woman, psychologists or society by telling the woman what it really thinks.
Those who deplore abortion need to ask what we are supposed to do with hybrids which are made in labs and are human and animal mixed. They are destroyed at 14 days. The pro-life certainly cannot agree with that!
The huge majority of embryos starting off are aborted naturally without the mother even knowing. If they are real people, then is the afterlife nearly full of people who were never born?
A newly fertilised egg is supposed to be a person. But if it splits into twins then are we to believe that one person became two persons? Is it potentially a huge number of persons? Does it follow then that it is worse to kill a zygote than a later embryo for at least then it will not turn into twins?
When a woman is pregnant with say eight embryos after IVF or fertility treatment, that the Church still won't agree with her aborting some of them to save herself and some of the babies is utterly vile.
Abortion on demand should be permitted in the early stages of pregnancy.  This would be non-surgical abortion accomplished with pills.
The Roman Catholic Church forbids abortion even when it is needed to save the mother's life on the basis that the baby is not an unjust aggressor trying to take the life of the mother.
Bizarrely, the Church lets you kill insane adults - who then because of their insanity cannot be considered unjust aggressors. It permits you to kill an insane person who can’t be an unjust aggressor because he doesn’t know what he is doing. Killing is permitted when you are reasonably - though not completely - sure that you have to in order to prevent them killing you. To make rules as inconsistent as this shows obvious hatred for women. 
The Church says that killing the baby is rarely necessary to save the mother nowadays with medical advances. But one thing is for sure, if we were still in the old days in which childbirth frequently killed the mother it would make no difference to the Church.
It is strange also that you can murder a chimpanzee which is more advanced than a human foetus a few months old without any condemnation from the God or priesthood of Catholicism. Many apparitions that seem convincingly miraculous are proven to be not worth listening to when they issue the same rabid and hysterical condemnations of abortion as the Church does. Abortion on demand should be allowed in the early stages of pregnancy. An embryo in the early stages is not a person but something growing into a person. The embryo is not a person yet so abortion is not murder. When the foetus is older and possibly a person or known to be a person, abortion should only be permitted to save the mother’s life.
As world population goes out of control, it is clear that abortion will be encouraged all over the world to help keep numbers down a bit. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that some people may justifiably use abortion as a means of birth control and even allow abortion on demand at the later stages of pregnancy.
The abortion pill is a great way to cut down on the number of late abortions and murderous abortions. The Church forbids it and thus ensures that murderous abortion rates are kept high. It has women having abortions when the baby is very well developed. Later abortions can be very harmful psychologically to women.
The thought that a cluster of cells is equal in rights as a grown-up adult is crazy. To ban abortion at that stage is just bigotry and an insult to the life of the adult. The Church needs proof to say things like that. Where is it?  And a person who believed in respecting life in the womb would not really want a few cells equated with a baby in the womb ready to be born.  Terminating one is not the same as terminating the other.  The message that they are says, "If you are going to have an abortion then it does not matter what stage you have it at."  If abortion of a few cells is not murder and the abortion of a viable baby is this equation of the two as murder leads to real murder.
The Church itself indirectly encourages believers in abortion rights to endorse or at least become desensitised to the murder of born babies - infanticide. The Church says they cannot disapprove of one while condemning the other!
The thought that pregnant young women who have cancer forgo chemotherapy to protect the unborn baby from its terrible effects is shocking. And it happens due to the influence of the Church. Women have died because they had their babies and they ended up starting the treatment far too late.
An ectopic pregnancy is extremely dangerous. The baby grows in the fallopian tube. The Church demands that in an ectopic pregnancy the tube must be removed. Normally an injection to remove the baby is given, with no further surgery. The Church has the woman mutilated with a risk to her future fertility. It argues that you cannot kill the baby directly but if you take the tube away it is fine for you intend to remove the tube and not kill the baby. That is nonsense. You can intend to kill it by removing the tube. If life is as important as the Church says then causing the baby's death is still evil.
To teach that it is murder to abort an unborn child is slander. The Church cannot prove that a woman who aborted her early stage foetus is a murderer. It’s not proven that a foetus in the early stages is a person. You cannot prove it the way you can prove a five year old is a person with rights.
The Church denies it, but the doctrine that abortion is murder implies we must kill abortion doctors when we are sure we will be saving unborn babies by doing so. Catholic cannot be expected to take the Church seriously when it says these murders are never right. Church teaching says that even war is sometimes right. The Church leaves it up to the leaders to decide if war is just or not. It does not claim to be infallible in relation to whether or not a war should be waged. Then what is to stop pro-life Catholics from killing abortion doctors and nurses to “save the lives of the innocent”?
When the Church condemns the killing of abortion doctors does it mean it? It says it is wrong for there is a chance that the doctor may have repented so that killing him is not saving lives at all. But that is actually an admission, "If you are sure that the doctor will murder the babies then kill him." It is not the killing that is the problem but knowing if it needs to be done. And the Church does not say, "If a burglar points his gun at you, do not kill him in case he will not pull the trigger." Oh the hypocrisy!
It is safe to say the Church advocates murder even though it pays lip-service to the sanctity of the life of the abortion doctor.
It is safe to say the Church advocates murder even though it pays lip-service to having an absolute respect for human life.
Teachings such as that abortion of the unborn results in unbaptised children dying alienated from God imply that it is more important to keep the child alive than the mother if she has been baptised.
Catholicism advocates strongly for a pro-life position but does not tell people the whole truth. It is not the true friend of woman.

Why is life in the egg protected but not in the womb?

It is argued that there is more protection for the eggs in a bird's nest than there is for a child in the womb.  But the fact is there is no protection for the fertilised eggs at an early stage.  The argument fails to ban all abortion - it allows for early termination.

How would you like to have been aborted?!

Is there an answer to those who ask you how you would like it if you were aborted? Say "I was not. So what?" This is a valid answer in a world where some are lucky and the most adaptable struggle to survive at the expense of those who are adapting poorly.  If you battle for babies just because you would not have wanted to be aborted or killed at birth then you are doing it for you not the babies so you cannot look an abortionist in the eye and claim to be a better person.

And if the aborted baby is not a person then the question is like saying, "Contraception is wrong for you would not like it if your conception had been prevented".

Back street abortion

Many seem to argue for abortion not because they believe it is morally acceptable but because even when banned women will access it and put their lives at risk.  That argument is not declaring abortion a right thus it is not a friend to the pro-choice position.

Right to life of unborn child

Some say, “If you make somebody have to kill you in self-defence you forfeit your right to life.”  You can do that unwittingly or wittingly.  But forcing somebody to kill you does not mean you give away your right to life. You still have the right but that right gets overridden by other considerations. 

If a building was on fire with a 5 year old and a container with 1000 embryos that have grown to twelve weeks you could only save one or the other which would you choose? The answer can only be the 5 year old and that shows that there cannot be an equal right to life between an undeveloped foetus and the mother. It is a thought experiment and helps us find the right principle. Even if abortion is wrong the any law that gives an EQUAL right to life to barely there baby and the mother is wrong too. It fills religion with horror to think that Jesus' mother Mary at 10 or 11 had a pregnancy that was not explained and under Gods law at the time she could have been stoned to death and thus was entitled to abortion if it was possible. They cannot believe that she had the right to choose.  Any law that makes a woman's life and therefore death no more important than the life or death of a twelve week old foetus she is carrying is not pro-life in their attitude.

Core teaching?

Abortion is not really a core matter to most people. A leader who forces it on his nation will still be respected as a leader and be cutting ribbons.  Even if you are pro-choice there is something cold about not making it a central issue.

We have to admit something

It does not make any sense to argue that a late abortion baby that survives abortion cannot be killed. Usually it is left to die.  Being out of the womb cannot give you a right to life that you don't have in the womb.

To summarise:
The Church forbids a mother to have an abortion. It did it in the past too when ending pregnancy was often the only hope for saving a woman’s life. Nowadays it dares to use the point that women rarely die these days of pregnancy. This it has no right to do for it is trying to make people feel that it's antagonism against abortion is not a big deal and could even be endearing. But it is deceptive for the Church would still oppose abortion if it did kill and the ban still murders most women in the poorer countries. If abortion is so bad that you cannot remove the baby to save the mother’s life then the Church is acting murderously as regards intention when it permits the removal of a cancerous womb though the woman is pregnant. The excuse for this is that the intention is to remove the womb not to kill so it is not murder! But that is not the point. The point is what is the worst evil? If you are as extreme as the Roman Church then the greatest evil is to kill the baby. Since when did stabbing somebody to death be not murder but trying to get blood on the blade?

It is the law's job to look after public order and public morality.  Abortion is none of its business for a woman having an abortion at any stage is a private matter and does not affect public order but those who protest outside abortion clinics certainly do.  It is up to her alone with the help of her doctor and not up to the doctor and her.  Butt out I say.  Nothing gives you the right to call a person who facilitates abortion a murderer and that is hate speech.


No Copyright