Tag: Abortion

Where In the Bible does it say that abortion is wrong?

Where In the Bible does it say that abortion is wrong?

Full Question

My friend contends that the Bible can’t be used to argue against abortion because nowhere in the Bible does it state that abortion is wrong and that life begins at conception. How do I respond?

Answer

Though we don’t find the word abortion mentioned in any biblical text, we can deduce from Scripture, not to mention natural law, reason, Church teaching, and patristic witness that abortion is intrinsically evil. On abortion, consider these Scripture passages: Job 10:8, Psalms 22:9-10, Psalms 139:13-15, Isaiah 44:2, and Luke 1:41.

In addition:

  • Genesis 16:11: Behold, said he, thou art with child, and thou shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Ismael, because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.
  • Genesis 25:21-22: And Isaac besought the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and he heard him, and made Rebecca to conceive. But the children struggled in her womb…
  • Hosea 12:3: In the womb he supplanted his brother, and as a man he contended with God.
  • Romans 9:10-11: But when Rebecca also had conceived at once of Isaac our father. For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand) . . .

The truth that these verses tell is that life begins at conception. Rebekah conceived a child—not what would be or could be a child. Note James 2:26: “. . . a body apart from the spirit is dead. . .” Since the soul is the principle which gives life to the body, then a child carried in the womb of its mother has a soul because it is alive. To kill it is murder.

By: Peggy Frye

Read Also: Do You Know The Difference Between Direct And Indirect Abortion? Which Of Them Is Sinful?

 

Was It wrong For A Mother To Abort One Of Her Unborn Triplets To Save Her Life And The Lives Of The Other Two?

Was It wrong For A Mother To Abort One Of Her Unborn Triplets To Save Her Life And The Lives Of The Other Two?

Was It wrong For A Mother To Abort One Of Her Unborn Triplets To Save Her Life And The Lives Of The Other Two?

Full Question

A very petite lady could only carry two of her triplets to full term without killing herself and two of them. So she chose to abort one. If she had not, there’d be only one baby with no mother. What should someone do in such a situation?

Answer

She had another choice, and it is the only right one: She could have chosen to not abort any and put the matter in the Lord’s hands. He is never outdone in generosity. Why is it that we always think of him last? I know of a case in which the doctors removed a cyst the size of a fist which was next to a baby in the womb. Such surgery always causes a spontaneous miscarriage. But the family prayed and put it in God’s hands. Not only was the baby not expelled from the womb, he is now the priest who is answering this question.

By: Fr. Vincent Serpa O.P.

 

Read Also:

 

Do You Know The Difference Between Direct And Indirect Abortion? Which Of Them Is Sinful?

US House Has Voted To Permanently Ban Federal Abortion Funding

US House Has Voted To Permanently Ban Federal Abortion Funding

The U.S. House of Representatives passed its first major pro-life bill of the new year on Tuesday, one which would solidify in law the current policy of no federal funding of abortions.

The bill would “protect Americans’ conscience rights by ensuring that their hard-earned tax dollars are not used to fund the destruction of innocent life,” Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) said on the House Floor before the vote.

Federal funding for abortion is largely prohibited under the 40-year-old Hyde Amendment, named after its original sponsor Rep. Henry Hyde. However, that amendment has to be passed by Congress every year as a “rider” to appropriations bills, clarifying that the taxpayer dollars cannot abortions. 

The amendment enjoyed decades of bipartisan support. The most recent Democratic National Committee platform, however, called for its repeal. 

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, passed Tuesday by a 238-183 vote and sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), would solidify this policy in law, so that it does not need to be annually reapproved by Congress. 

It would expand on current protections against taxpayer funding of abortion to other areas, such as federal employee health plans. It would also extend to the Affordable Care Act, ensuring that no federal subsidies fund abortion coverage in plans offered on the exchanges. 

A 2014 report by the Government Accountability Office found loopholes where insurers were not following the protocol to make sure abortions were billed and itemized separately from other health coverage paid for by federal subsidies, leaving open the possibility that federal dollars were funding abortions. 

“More than 20 peer-reviewed studies show that more than two million people are alive today because of Hyde,” Rep. Smith stated on Tuesday. 

He said there is a “megatrend” showing “that the American public not only does not support taxpayer funding for abortion but the public increasingly supports actions to protect unborn children and women from the violence of abortion.”

According to a Marist poll released earlier this week and commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, 61 percent of respondents opposed the use of tax dollars to pay for abortions. That included 53 percent of Millennials and even 41 percent of Democrats. 

President Trump has signaled that he would sign the bill if it was passed by Congress. The Senate will have to pass it first. 

Rep. Black stressed that pro-life women would be represented by the bill.

She recalled that “it was just a week ago that the groups of women marched in the streets of D.C. and other cities across the country,” referring to the Jan. 21 Women’s March on Washington where pro-life groups were explicitly denied official partnership in the march by its organizers. 

“There were millions of pro-life women who were explicitly told that they were unwelcome at this event,” Black said. “So today, the people’s House is giving them and the more than 60 percent of Americans from all political persuasions who oppose taxpayer funding of abortion, a voice.”

As a registered nurse who worked for decades in health care, Rep. Black said she opposed abortion and any funding of the practice with tax money.

“During my years in the health care industry, I saw the joy in young parents’ eyes when they met their newborn for the very first time,” she said. “And sadly, I witnessed a young woman lose her life due to the effects of a botched abortion. These experiences inform my view that all life is a previous gift from God. I pray that in time, this truth will be reflected in our nation’s laws. But until then, can’t we at least do this much?”

Abortion is not women’s health care, Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.) insisted. “What we are vehemently opposed to is the killing of innocent lives,” she said, adding that “there is no place in the federal budget for abortion funding.”

“Madame Speaker, someday future generations of Americans will look back and wonder how and why such a seemingly smart and enlightened society could have permitted over 60 million children to be exterminated by abortion often with government enabling and subsidy,” Rep. Smith stated. 
Share 
Source: EWTN

The Glories Of The Holy Innocents (2) – (The Fifth Commandment).

The Glories Of The Holy Innocents (2) – (The Fifth Commandment).


…continued

​The Fifth Commandment

from the Commandments Explained

By Arthur Devine, 1898.



Willful murder
is one of the sins that cries to heaven for vengeance. Blood is a loud and clamorous cry, and the first that ever was shed was heard as far as from earth to heaven.

3. The prohibition of not killing extends to all human beings–that is, not only to adults, but to infants, and to the children in their mother’s womb. A recent writer thus speaks on this subject: Every child coming into this world has a right to live.
God gave the child life, and whoever robs it of life sins against its Creator. So in Christian lands the law extends its protection to the tiniest baby. No one can starve, or hurt, or kill any baby without becoming answerable to the law. But it was not always so.

Read More Read More

%d bloggers like this: