Print Page | Close Window

Any Grounds for Abortion?

Printed from: Christian Church Today
Topic URL: http://www.christianchurchtoday.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3696
Printed on: 10/20/2014

Topic:


Topic author: Red
Subject: Any Grounds for Abortion?
Posted on: 02/14/2007 11:41:22 AM
Message:

Well.....are there?

Replies:


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/14/2007 11:46:06 AM
Message:

Let's not go there.


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/14/2007 12:01:49 PM
Message:

That's like asking, "Are there any grounds for picking off the toddler in your front yard with a deer rifle."

The answer is, "No."


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/14/2007 12:25:58 PM
Message:

I agree with Buckeye. Murder is murder. However as I think about partial birth abortion, maybe a deer rifle would be more humane.


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/14/2007 12:44:16 PM
Message:

NO!


Reply author: scdave1
Replied on: 02/14/2007 12:57:51 PM
Message:

For those who would answer an emphatic "NO" under any circumstance, I would ask the following--completely in the spirit of wanting to understand, not of wanting to create controversy--what about the (rare) circumstance where it is a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the newborn?


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/14/2007 1:15:36 PM
Message:

Do any of you have the racial stat's/ From what I understand something like 35% of all abortions are performing genecide to our African America brothers and sisters, And that 80% of the clinic's are in minorty area's.
Things that make you go hmm....


" I don't know when life begins, but i do know when it ends" - Dr. Andy Brown, Everwood


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/14/2007 2:05:51 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by scdave1

For those who would answer an emphatic "NO" under any circumstance, I would ask the following--completely in the spirit of wanting to understand, not of wanting to create controversy--what about the (rare) circumstance where it is a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the newborn?

My wife and I still couldn't make the choice to take an innocent life.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/14/2007 2:27:08 PM
Message:

I believe that abortion is not God's desire in any circumstance. Neither do I believe that it is God's desire for a woman's life to be at risk in the event of medical complications due to an abnormal pregnancy. Nor do I believe God desires to see women or girls who have been impregnated against their will through rape (although extremely rare, it is not non-existent) suffer the agony, both physical and mental, of bearing that child.

Sometimes the choices are not as simple as we would like to think they are. I am solidly pro-life, but there are more lives at stake than that of the unborn baby. Abortion is not an alternative option for birth control, and should never be seen that way. But, in those very unusual situations where damage will be done (as in the situations stated, not those merely of inconvenience) it is wrong for anyone to make a hard and fast judgment that is "all-encompassing".

Don't misunderstand this next thought, but what happens to the unborn when it is aborted? Since he or she is already a viable, living being in God's image, and since he or she has not sinned, heaven awaits. Is this such a terrible thing? This child will never have the opportunity to do many things that other people do--including the opportunity to reject God and be lost for eternity.

Again, abortion is not an option as such, yet sometimes decisions aren't easy. Asking for God's forgiveness and grace are options that are still there.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/14/2007 2:31:35 PM
Message:

One more thought: don't compare abortion in cases like I mentioned before, to offering up children to Molech...there is no similarity in sacrificing babies to a false god to be burned alive, in situations like I was talking about.


Reply author: scdave1
Replied on: 02/14/2007 2:34:04 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by ima Browns fan

quote:
Originally posted by scdave1

For those who would answer an emphatic "NO" under any circumstance, I would ask the following--completely in the spirit of wanting to understand, not of wanting to create controversy--what about the (rare) circumstance where it is a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the newborn?

My wife and I still couldn't make the choice to take an innocent life.



Ima, I think that really speaks well to the commitment of both you and your wife to life. That is to be applauded as it would be an extremely hurtful circumstance to lose her in a situation like that.

I can honestly say that I'm thankful that I've not had to make that type of decision with my wife--but if I did, I would lean heavily towards my wife rather than the baby. I don't think it's selfish, I do think it's preserving life that's already been alive for longer--at least that's how I see it.

Would you be able to respect someone such as myself who might make a different decision from the one that you and your wife made, or would you see that as "murderous"?

BTW--just so I've made it clear where I stand--the Psalms make it clear that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" from the womb. Furthermore, the Old Testament gives clear examples--and in a very condemnatory manner--of people "ripping open the bellies of pregnant women." Some less honest so-called "Christians" (I'm sure no one on this site) have stated that since the New Testament doesn't specifically address abortion, the Bible can't be used as an authority on this issue. I think it's clear that--as was stated in another thread--that abortion for the sake of "convenience", "birth control", and/or "economics" is grave sin before our God. I think cases of rape/incest are probably trickier, and I definitely think that instances where the mother could die present a dilemma where justification could be found for either position.

The only part I struggle with, from a practical standpoint--if abortion were illegal in this country and were treated as murder, who would we arrest and place in jail for doing it--the doctor, the woman, or both? And would that really solve the problem?


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/14/2007 2:49:06 PM
Message:

Ima Browns fan, you said you and your wife couldn't make that decision. Did you ask your wife before you posted? (That's a joke, by the way).

Seriously though, I don't know if you have any other children, or how old they might be, but what about a woman who has three or four small children, is having serious complications with her pregnancy, and is told her life is at high risk. Would it be a wise or prudent decision to run the risk of leaving other small children without a mother, and leave the husband in great difficulty? Truly God could protect the mother, if he chose, but for whatever reason, he didn't choose to protect her from having the complications to begin with. There would be no guarantee that he would choose to spare her life if she chose to risk it.

Again, the choices aren't always cut and dried.


Reply author: scdave1
Replied on: 02/14/2007 2:49:21 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by F. A. Syndicroud

I believe that abortion is not God's desire in any circumstance.

Sometimes the choices are not as simple as we would like to think they are. I am solidly pro-life, but there are more lives at stake than that of the unborn baby. Abortion is not an alternative option for birth control, and should never be seen that way. But, in those very unusual situations where damage will be done (as in the situations stated, not those merely of inconvenience) it is wrong for anyone to make a hard and fast judgment that is "all-encompassing".


..said in a much more articulate manner than I did. I agree 100%.

One other thing: yes, abortion is a sin, a heinous sin. However, it is not the only sin that we as individuals and as a nation commit. I sometimes wonder if we as Christians take the "beat them over the head" approach towards abortion or towards sexual immorality (all in the name of "taking a stand") yet sins such as cheating on your taxes, gossiping about one's neighbor, envy and jealousy, are very freely under the umbrella of "Christ's Blood and God's Grace"? Didn't Jesus die for the abortion doctor or the woman having an abortion, too? Or did he just die for those of us and provide grace for those of us with more "acceptable" sins?

I can understand us taking strong stands in this forum; however, I hope we realize that unless we happen to (sadly) be caught in the "Christian Ghetto" that about half of our co-workers and family probably take pro-choice or pro-abortion positions. Are these opportunities for us to prove and argue for what great defenders we are of God and his morality, or are these opportunities to show the grace, understanding, and forgiveness that the Lord who we worship shows to all sinners?


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/14/2007 2:49:38 PM
Message:

I struggle very much with this issue. However, I myself have never had an abortion nor do I ever plan too (Dear God, I paid $800.00 for a tublal ligation...please keep it intact). And even if I was unlucky...I would never have an abortion...I'd just be a old mother. But I do have a hard time telling others what they can and cannot do. Particuallary when there is always differnt circumstances that play a part. I am not for using abortion as birth control or out of convience. But as a woman, being the one who carries the child and feels the affects of the preganancy, and the circumstances surrounding the preganancy, I can see where it could be an option in exstenuiating (spelling) circumstances. And because of the exceptions that sometimes have to be made is what makes me pro-choice. I think abortion should be legal but handled in a case by case manner.


Reply author: scdave1
Replied on: 02/14/2007 2:59:07 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Malsteem

Do any of you have the racial stat's/ From what I understand something like 35% of all abortions are performing genecide to our African America brothers and sisters, And that 80% of the clinic's are in minorty area's.
Things that make you go hmm....


" I don't know when life begins, but i do know when it ends" - Dr. Andy Brown, Everwood



That is a true tragedy. I would ask this, though....how many people looking to adopt babies would out-of-hand reject one that was not of their race? It is troubling to note that the "adoption shortage" referred to earlier seems to be for white babies for white couples. African American or biracial babies have a much more difficult time getting adopted. While I really don't want to "racialize" the issue, I think we have to accept the fact that this is reality in today's so-called "color blind" society.

The answer, as posted earlier, is to address the root cause--sexual immorality and its tolerance (which I can say, from my own experience, is no more or less of a problem in the African American community as in the white community). Many economically disadvantaged blacks have less access to "acceptable" methods of birth control and therefore end up engaging in the "ultimate solution", whereas a middle-class white person would have more access to "the pill", injections, or condoms.

Again, until we attack the root cause--this will continue to be a problem for African Americans and any other ethnic group one cares to name.


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/14/2007 3:08:59 PM
Message:

scdave1

quote:
Would you be able to respect someone such as myself who might make a different decision from the one that you and your wife made, or would you see that as "murderous"?
I can love, respect, and forgive anyone for aynthing if I let the love and mercy of Jesus flow through me.


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/14/2007 3:14:39 PM
Message:

quote:
Again, until we attack the root cause--this will continue to be a problem for African Americans and any other ethnic group one cares to name.
Throw poor whites in there too.

Pro-choice before sex
Pro-life after!


There are many choices out there one can make for birth control including morality and abstinence. Is that the "root cause" lack of morality?


Reply author: scdave1
Replied on: 02/14/2007 3:16:32 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Malsteem

Let's not go there.



I'm afraid we "went there", my brother.


Reply author: scdave1
Replied on: 02/14/2007 3:18:14 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by ima Browns fan

quote:
Again, until we attack the root cause--this will continue to be a problem for African Americans and any other ethnic group one cares to name.
Throw poor whites in there too.

Pro-choice before sex
Pro-life after!


There are many choices out there one can make for birth control including morality and abstinence. Is that the "root cause" lack of morality?



Yep Pir!! We may be more in agreement than it might seem.


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/14/2007 3:27:28 PM
Message:

My wife and I lost our first child during pregnancy. We almost lost our now 4 year old. The first 3 months my wife's body "rejected" the baby. The Last 3 months the baby tried to kill mommy; my wife was on complete bed-rest, after we rushed to the hospital at 6 months. She also suffered from pregnancy induced high blood pressure.

We had to have the talk. What happens if we have to choose? My wifes condition was that serious. She told me that she could not bare to loose another child, I could not stand the idea of loosing either or both of them.

God blessed us with not having to make that descion. For some people, they are not blessed that way, they have to make a desicion, and I would hate to judge anyone for either desicion they make/made.

What they need is us to show the love of Christ, not our judging attitudes.

Would you judge me, if I choose to keep my wife or would you judge me if I choose to keep my daughter? Both desicions are heart breakers. Both are nothing that any person should ever have to decide, and yet some people have to, or would you show me the love Christ that I would desperatly need?


-M


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/14/2007 3:30:24 PM
Message:

quote:
[i]Originally posted by Malsteem

Would you judge me, if I choose to keep my wife or would you judge me if I choose to keep my daughter?

-M



No


Reply author: scdave1
Replied on: 02/14/2007 3:32:40 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Malsteem


God blessed us with not having to make that descion. For some people, they are not blessed that way, they have to make a desicion, and I would hate to judge anyone for either desicion they make/made.

What they need is us to show the love of Christ, not our judging attitudes.

Would you judge me, if I choose to keep my wife or would you judge me if I choose to keep my daughter? Both desicions are heart breakers. Both are nothing that any person should ever have to decide, and yet some people have to, or would you show me the love Christ that I would desperatly need?


-M



My point, exactly. Brother in Christ, I appreciate your willingness to share such a "close to home" and real world example--you've had to deal with it not in theory, but in fact!

I think we need to have a little less "thus saith the Lord" on this issue and a little more "Neither do I condemn thee; go and sin no more".


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/14/2007 4:15:32 PM
Message:

quote:
...would you show me the love Christ that I would desperatly need?
Yes!


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/14/2007 4:19:20 PM
Message:

quote:
Nor do I believe God desires to see women or girls who have been impregnated against their will through rape (although extremely rare, it is not non-existent) suffer the agony, both physical and mental, of bearing that child.



So you would rather pile onto that agony by making them suffer for the rest of their lives with the fact that they were responsible for the murder of an innocent child? That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

And what of the rights of the child? To take what you are saying to its logical conclusion you would also have to say it is God's will that a child be ripped from it's mothers womb, killed, and thrown into a dumpster.

The devaluing of life by someone with your point of view is horrifying.


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/14/2007 4:23:05 PM
Message:

quote:
Would you judge me, if I choose to keep my wife or would you judge me if I choose to keep my daughter?



I don't think that is a choice you would have to make. Why not pray that God's will be done in the matter? For all you know He might be planning to work a miracle and bring both mother and child through unharmed.


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/14/2007 4:24:45 PM
Message:

quote:
And because of the exceptions that sometimes have to be made is what makes me pro-choice. I think abortion should be legal but handled in a case by case manner.


So you are for the murder of children? That really blows my mind.

Are you a parent? Are you a Christian?

You say it should be determined on a "case by case" basis. Who determines which children will live and which will be slaughtered? You really think that we have the right to make those decisions? Isn't it up to God to make those calls?


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/14/2007 4:36:16 PM
Message:

Nice save on the edit Buckeye!


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/14/2007 5:10:23 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by ima Browns fan

Nice save on the edit Buckeye!



The direct attacks on my salvation and parenting or possible nonparenting skills makes me think it's time for Pudding Pops...

What's do you think Ima, got any Koolaid?


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/14/2007 5:17:43 PM
Message:

Yes, I do!



I take it you read it before the edit.


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/14/2007 5:21:23 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by ima Browns fan

Yes, I do!



I take it you read it before the edit.



No I didn't, but I figured from your response that I wouldn't of been too happy.


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/14/2007 5:27:11 PM
Message:

quote:
The direct attacks on my salvation and parenting or possible nonparenting skills


I did not attack you on anything. I simply asked you a couple of questions. Again, you chose not to answer.

I just can't believe that any Christian would be pro-murder of children. And any parent who is for the killing of children should not be a parent.


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/14/2007 5:28:27 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by buckeye

quote:
The direct attacks on my salvation and parenting or possible nonparenting skills


I did not attack you on anything. I simply asked you a couple of questions. Again, you chose not to answer.

I just can't believe that any Christian would be pro-murder of children. And any parent who is for the killing of children should not be a parent.




Reply author: almccann
Replied on: 02/14/2007 6:16:04 PM
Message:

Technology has moved the human race from dropping unwanted babies at the gates of the lanistas to be used for wild animal food to ripping them unborm from the mother's womb, but the reality remains the same. A baby is killed because it was not wanted by its mother.


Reply author: ymrandy
Replied on: 02/14/2007 6:28:48 PM
Message:

No matter what someone's opinion is on this issue, there is no reason whatsoever to question redhead's parenting skills or her salvation.
Through various exchanges with redhead, I can assure you that she and jokerman love their kids very much.

Buckeye, that was perhaps the most heartless thing to say to any person. I am truly at a loss!


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/14/2007 6:36:30 PM
Message:

Amen Randy!


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/14/2007 7:05:13 PM
Message:


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/14/2007 7:09:44 PM
Message:

quote:
No matter what someone's opinion is on this issue, there is no reason whatsoever to question redhead's parenting skills or her salvation.
Through various exchanges with redhead, I can assure you that she and jokerman love their kids very much.

Buckeye, that was perhaps the most heartless thing to say to any person. I am truly at a loss!


I wasn't saying anything personally to Red. I spoke in general terms.

The fact remains that I would not trust a person who was for abortion to watch my kids. If you would, that is your business. But a person who doesn't have a problem with tearing a baby out of its mother's womb and killing it is not a person who has any integrity or moral values whatsoever. That is why I could never vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

What is truly heartless is anyone who devalues human life so much that they would want abortion to remain legal. Are you actually saying you find my comments more offensive than the pro-abortion folks on this forum who are standing up for those who would kill our children? I am the one who is truly at a loss.


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/14/2007 7:21:27 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by buckeye

quote:
No matter what someone's opinion is on this issue, there is no reason whatsoever to question redhead's parenting skills or her salvation.
Through various exchanges with redhead, I can assure you that she and jokerman love their kids very much.

Buckeye, that was perhaps the most heartless thing to say to any person. I am truly at a loss!


I wasn't saying anything personally to Red. I spoke in general terms.

The fact remains that I would not trust a person who was for abortion to watch my kids. If you would, that is your business. But a person who doesn't have a problem with tearing a baby out of its mother's womb and killing it is not a person who has any integrity or moral values whatsoever. That is why I could never vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

What is truly heartless is anyone who devalues human life so much that they would want abortion to remain legal. Are you actually saying you find my comments more offensive than the pro-abortion folks on this forum who are standing up for those who would kill our children? I am the one who is truly at a loss.



Please go away..

Happy Valentine's Day..


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/14/2007 7:27:02 PM
Message:

quote:
Please go away..



Back at ya...


Reply author: onedaysoon
Replied on: 02/14/2007 8:36:12 PM
Message:

Buckeye, ease up. Your posting to your sister in Christ. You can disagree without being disagreeable. I agree with the position you are taking on abortion. However, I cannot agree with the way you are talking to your sister in Christ. Lighten up. For what it is worth I believe you owe her an apology.


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/14/2007 8:50:13 PM
Message:


Red and Other People,

You asked if there are any grounds for abortion. Yes, there are. I've written about this subject in some detail. You're welcome to carefully read the three essays on the subject at the Curtisville Christian Church website --
www.curtisvillechristian.org . Just scroll down on the homepage and a big button should take you right to them.

Here's my approach, very condensed in a few points:

(1) Because God has revealed in His Word that He normally wants reproduction to occur only as the result of a union between a husband and his wife, it is permissible, in a case of rape, for a women to receive emergency contraception if she does not know whether conception has occurred or not.

(2) Once a woman knows that she has conceived, barring exceptional circumstances (such as a deformed womb, a tubal pregnancy, or other anomaly which renders the woman incapable of bearing a child to viability), she should consider the conception and fertilization to be an indication of God's will; for this reason, elective abortion at any stage of pregnancy is a grievous sin.

(3) At what point should the human rights of the unborn human being be recognized, and on what basis? A strong theological case can be made that the unborn human being's human rights should be recognized at about the tenth week of pregnancy.

(4) A non-theological case can be made that at about the tenth week of pregnancy, the fetus possesses all the characteristics which normally are used to designate a living human person, including mental function and respiratory function.

(5) The rights of the unborn human being should be legally recognized after the tenth week of pregnancy. At the same time, special provisions should be made for unusual circumstances.

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: scdave1
Replied on: 02/15/2007 01:05:00 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by buckeye

quote:
Would you judge me, if I choose to keep my wife or would you judge me if I choose to keep my daughter?



I don't think that is a choice you would have to make. Why not pray that God's will be done in the matter? For all you know He might be planning to work a miracle and bring both mother and child through unharmed.



I'm probably going to regret responding, but here goes....

Yes, God can and does work miracles. "With God all things are possible." But, in the "real world", miracles do not always happen and people do have to make these decisions--and I don't think any of us have such a lock on the truth that we can condemn someone for making a choice different from ours.

If it is a choice between the life of the baby and the life of the mother, either way one lives and one dies. How can it be murder if the pregnancy is terminated, but be something other than murder if the mother's life is taken?


Reply author: scdave1
Replied on: 02/15/2007 01:38:53 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by redheadedDMBfan

I struggle very much with this issue. However, I myself have never had an abortion nor do I ever plan too (Dear God, I paid $800.00 for a tublal ligation...please keep it intact). And even if I was unlucky...I would never have an abortion...I'd just be a old mother. But I do have a hard time telling others what they can and cannot do. Particuallary when there is always differnt circumstances that play a part. I am not for using abortion as birth control or out of convience. But as a woman, being the one who carries the child and feels the affects of the preganancy, and the circumstances surrounding the preganancy, I can see where it could be an option in exstenuiating (spelling) circumstances. And because of the exceptions that sometimes have to be made is what makes me pro-choice. I think abortion should be legal but handled in a case by case manner.



Doesn't sound like a "pro-abortion" position to me! "Pro-abortion" apologists that I've heard and read state that it's the "mother's right to choose" in ALL cases. That is not what I'm reading here. They also state that the fetus is simply "part of the mother" and nothing more. What I'm reading here is the recognition that the fetus is in fact a separate life, and that you personally would make the choice to have the baby if impregnated.

I think if I disagree with anything here, it might be the apparent unwillingness to call the actions of another (e.g. the choice of a woman to abort) "sin". I think we do have to stand up and be counted on this issue; at least in my mind, the Bible is pretty clear that at some point and time in the womb that we are a person.

At the same time, I read in my Bible that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit--not abortion, and not the other hobbyhorse of the Religious Right (homosexuality)--is the "unpardonable sin". I disagree with anyone who would either imply or explicitly state that not having a "conservatively politically correct" position on abortion makes a person unchristian or otherwise an unfit parent or person.

I'm not making excuses for those who would abort, but....if you look at the lives of two specific Old Testament men considered to be righteous, one committed murder outright (Moses) and another arranged to have someone murdered for lustful reasons (David). Yet God forgave and used both. The only point I'm trying to make--and it's one I made earlier--is that I do not agree with using the abortion issue to "club" others over the head with our beliefs. I think rather it is an opportunity to point out the grace of God and the forgiveness available through Christ of this or any other sin.

I believe to do otherwise smacks of Pharisiacal behavior. When it comes down to it, Jesus said if you hate others that it is as murder. I have yet to meet anyone so "sin free", Christian or otherwise, who has never hated someone. Yet, since it is a less obvious sin than outright murder or than abortion, we often give hatred, bigotry, or prejudice a "free pass". It would be ludicrous to pass a law against hatred; yet we rush to judge others who differ from our views on abortion and respond with condemnation and "absolutes" instead of the compassion and grace that Christ has freely provided us.

Jesus never said that we'd be judged by how "pro-life" we were. He did say that we as Christians would be judged by how well we treat "the least of these", which I believe does include the unborn but also includes those that for whatever reason might not agree with our positions on this issue or who may have done things that we find sinful.


Reply author: scdave1
Replied on: 02/15/2007 01:59:12 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Vox


Red and Other People,

You asked if there are any grounds for abortion. Yes, there are. I've written about this subject in some detail. You're welcome to carefully read the three essays on the subject at the Curtisville Christian Church website --
www.curtisvillechristian.org . Just scroll down on the homepage and a big button should take you right to them.




I just read the three referenced essays. I think they should be required reading for anyone looking for a well thought out response to the abortion question. Strongly pro-life, but strongly compassionate as well. Excellent job, Vox.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/15/2007 04:10:07 AM
Message:

scdave, in an earlier post you said

quote:
Yes, God can and does work miracles. "With God all things are possible." But, in the "real world", miracles do not always happen and people do have to make these decisions


Are you saying that God does not exist in the real world, That God's miracles do not exist in the real world, or that in the real world all things are not possible with God?


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/15/2007 04:12:12 AM
Message:

quote:
If it is a choice between the life of the baby and the life of the mother, either way one lives and one dies. How can it be murder if the pregnancy is terminated, but be something other than murder if the mother's life is taken?


It is not murder in either case if God makes the decision.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/15/2007 04:19:25 AM
Message:

quote:
Don't misunderstand this next thought, but what happens to the unborn when it is aborted? Since he or she is already a viable, living being in God's image, and since he or she has not sinned, heaven awaits. Is this such a terrible thing? This child will never have the opportunity to do many things that other people do--including the opportunity to reject God and be lost for eternity.



What??? So, in the name of being a good parent we could abort our children so they could have assurance of eternity with God? Think for a minute how insane that statement is. Did God not create us with free will so we could choose to follow His will, and live in eternity with Him? If you follow this line of thought man would be making that decision instead of God.
I don't uy that one at all.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/15/2007 04:24:16 AM
Message:

FA in an earlier post you said

quote:
Truly God could protect the mother, if he chose, but for whatever reason, he didn't choose to protect her from having the complications to begin with. There would be no guarantee that he would choose to spare her life if she chose to risk it.



So, If God chooses not to protect the mother by taking the child, what man has the right to do so in spitte of God's decision?


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/15/2007 04:26:23 AM
Message:

scdave you said

quote:
Are these opportunities for us to prove and argue for what great defenders we are of God and his morality, or are these opportunities to show the grace, understanding, and forgiveness that the Lord who we worship shows to all sinners?


I would like to ask if it is possible for us to show grace, and forgiveness, without be defenders of God and His morality?
If we don't tell the truth we cannot show grace and forgiveness.


Reply author: scdave1
Replied on: 02/15/2007 04:37:18 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by preacherpaul

scdave, in an earlier post you said
quote:
Yes, God can and does work miracles. "With God all things are possible." But, in the "real world", miracles do not always happen and people do have to make these decisions


Are you saying that God does not exist in the real world, That God's miracles do not exist in the real world, or that in the real world all things are not possible with God?




Of course, God exists in the "real world"--that is not what I'm saying at all! What I am saying is that just because we want a miracle, or even ask for one, doesn't mean it will always happen. Sometimes God--who knows much more than we do--does say "no" to our prayers.

The fact remains that there are circumstances where a decision needs to be made, for the life of the mother or the life of the child. Rare, but they do happen. I personally think that the prayer neeeds to be for God's guidance, not for a "miracle".


Reply author: scdave1
Replied on: 02/15/2007 04:39:23 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by preacherpaul

quote:
If it is a choice between the life of the baby and the life of the mother, either way one lives and one dies. How can it be murder if the pregnancy is terminated, but be something other than murder if the mother's life is taken?


It is not murder in either case if God makes the decision.



Preacherpaul--on this point you and I agree 100%. Some here seem to say that if the pregnancy is terminated, in all cases it is murder. Sounds like neither you nor I fall into that camp.


Reply author: scdave1
Replied on: 02/15/2007 04:54:28 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by preacherpaul

scdave you said
quote:
Are these opportunities for us to prove and argue for what great defenders we are of God and his morality, or are these opportunities to show the grace, understanding, and forgiveness that the Lord who we worship shows to all sinners?


I would like to ask if it is possible for us to show grace, and forgiveness, without be defenders of God and His morality?
If we don't tell the truth we cannot show grace and forgiveness.



Again, I think you and I are really in agreement on this point. However, truth can be shared in an insensitive, self-righteous, and prideful manner that tends to belittle the intended receiver. To expand a bit on what I said earlier, I think a much more effective approach is to listen, show empathy, and be gracious when sharing truth.

I'll give an example that has nothing directly to do with the abortion issue. Having been involved in other traditions, I've sat through many sermons where the preacher yells at the top of his lungs, "YOU MUST REPENT! YOU MUST DO (x, y or z) and must NOT do (a, b, or c)." You feel (temporarily) uncomfortable--some might call that conviction--but speaking for myself, my Christianity ends up becoming a list of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots"--guilt for NOT doing the right thing creeps in, and pride rears its ugly head when I do "the right thing". I contrast that with the ICC/C of C preacher that I've had for the last 5 1/2 years, who rarely raises his voice above normal speaking level and urges us to "love God, keep his commandments, and love one another as yourself. I'm not going to give you a list of do's and don'ts to follow, what I am going to tell you to do is pray and study His word--develop a RELATIONSHIP with Jesus Christ--and He'll guide you".

Both messages are truth. Which one do you think produces a more authentic response to God's grace?


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/15/2007 05:01:03 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by buckeye

quote:
The direct attacks on my salvation and parenting or possible nonparenting skills


I did not attack you on anything. I simply asked you a couple of questions. Again, you chose not to answer.

I just can't believe that any Christian would be pro-murder of children. And any parent who is for the killing of children should not be a parent.



buckeye,
You are coming off extremly judgemental. I thought judging others was God's job.


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/15/2007 05:05:03 AM
Message:

quote:
buckeye,
You are coming off extremly judgemental. I thought judging others was God's job.


So what are you doing with me then?


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/15/2007 05:10:02 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by buckeye

quote:
buckeye,
You are coming off extremly judgemental. I thought judging others was God's job.


So what are you doing with me then?



I am giving you insight that you are coming off as an extemly judgemental person.


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/15/2007 05:14:27 AM
Message:

quote:
I am giving you insight that you are coming off as an extemly judgemental person.


Doesn't that make you judgemental?


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/15/2007 05:17:42 AM
Message:

Originally posted by preacherpaul

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't misunderstand this next thought, but what happens to the unborn when it is aborted? Since he or she is already a viable, living being in God's image, and since he or she has not sinned, heaven awaits. Is this such a terrible thing? This child will never have the opportunity to do many things that other people do--including the opportunity to reject God and be lost for eternity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What??? So, in the name of being a good parent we could abort our children so they could have assurance of eternity with God? Think for a minute how insane that statement is. Did God not create us with free will so we could choose to follow His will, and live in eternity with Him?
You're right, preacherpaul...that is an insane statement. I'm glad I'm not the one who made it.

You and buckeye have the right to hold to your views, but don't try to prove your views, please, by changing what others here have to say. I am against abortion, however sometimes we are faced with having to choose between the "lesser of two evils." Your problem is that you want to choose for everyone and claim that God backs you up.

1 Samuel 15:1-3 (NIV) Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

It's easy to understand why God would order the killing of evil, willfully disobedient adults to purge the land and punish them for something atrocious. But children and infants? Isn't this rather harsh? Is God passing judgment on those too young to have chosen sin?

I'm quite sure you would have no problem defending this action by God...after all he's God and he has the right. But why do you suppose he would choose death over allowing them to grow up in the households of the Israelites as captives, or even adopted children? No, we can't answer for sure, but one thing we should agree on: those too young to have sinned did not follow their sinful parents into hell when they were put to death.

There are many things on which we will have differences; at least be gracious.


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/15/2007 05:19:21 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by buckeye

quote:
I am giving you insight that you are coming off as an extemly judgemental person.


Doesn't that make you judgemental?



No, If I was to call you a "judgemental *ss, that would make me judgmental. What I am trying to do is give some insight on how others are seeing you, for informational purposes only.


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/15/2007 05:24:45 AM
Message:

quote:
No, If I was to call you a "judgemental *ss, that would make me judgmental. What I am trying to do is give some insight on how others are seeing you, for informational purposes only.



Okay, I get it. You can judge, but others can't. Also, nice mature move with the cussing....


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/15/2007 05:31:50 AM
Message:

You are not understanding, nor do I think that you are trying to.

As for the "cussing" I don't think most people think arse is a cuss word. If I am wrong I am wrong, and I am sure will be corrected by some of my brothers.

-M


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/15/2007 05:33:44 AM
Message:

quote:
As for the "cussing" I don't think most people think arse is a cuss word. If I am wrong I am wrong, and will I am sure will be corrected by some of my brothers.


Would you say it from the pulpit?


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/15/2007 05:38:03 AM
Message:

The Pulpit is different medium of conversation than a message board or out to lunch with people.

I have said "Crack Whore" and "I Suck" From the pulpit.


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/15/2007 05:39:40 AM
Message:

Malsteem,
Just FYI, it is definitely a "cuss word."

quote:
I have said "Crack Whore" and "I Suck" From the pulpit.


Wow, that's impressive...

But I do thank you for being so judgemental today. It's been a big help.


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/15/2007 05:41:18 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by buckeye

Malsteem,
Just FYI, it is definitely a "cuss word."

quote:
I have said "Crack Whore" and "I Suck" From the pulpit.


Wow, that's impressive...

But I do thank you for being so judgemental today. It's been a big help.



And thank you for telling me that #ss is cuss word.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/15/2007 05:52:39 AM
Message:

quote:
You and buckeye have the right to hold to your views, but don't try to prove your views, please, by changing what others here have to say. I am against abortion, however sometimes we are faced with having to choose between the "lesser of two evils." Your problem is that you want to choose for everyone and claim that God backs you up.



Number one - You are answering me, not me and Buckeye.
Number two - and I think this is where you and I will disagree, I don't think there is a lesser of two evils to deal with. If God terminates a pregnancy it is not murder. If man terminates a pregnancy it is.
Number three - I have stated what I believe I have not chosen for everyone. Each of us chooses when we rebel against God's will, I can't do that for you and you can't do that for me.


Reply author: onedaysoon
Replied on: 02/15/2007 06:02:24 AM
Message:

Honestly some people need to be ignored. If you can't disagree in a reasonable way you do not deserve to be heard. This includes all of us.


Reply author: Steve S
Replied on: 02/15/2007 06:03:42 AM
Message:

Vox you said:

quote:
(1) Because God has revealed in His Word that He normally wants reproduction to occur only as the result of a union between a husband and his wife, it is permissible, in a case of rape, for a women to receive emergency contraception if she does not know whether conception has occurred or not.


What about a pregnancy that occurs as the result of a casual, but consenting relationship (a one night stand)?

Steve


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/15/2007 06:15:15 AM
Message:

quote:
Honestly some people need to be ignored. If you can't disagree in a reasonable way you do not deserve to be heard. This includes all of us.


AMEN!


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/15/2007 06:18:12 AM
Message:

quote:
Both messages are truth. Which one do you think produces a more authentic response to God's grace?

scdave,
I agree with you totally. If we are going to earn the right to teach like Christ we have to first learn to love like Christ. Jesus always loved enough to tell the truth, yet He left people wanting to know more.


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/15/2007 06:25:13 AM
Message:

If i have offended people by using the word *ss as a descrptive term, I apologize.

As To "I suck, and Crack whore" I have laready had discussions with my fellow leaders about those,and they felt that in the context I said them, it was ok. They just asked that I did preach naked like an OT prophet.
-M


Reply author: OldDad
Replied on: 02/15/2007 06:25:47 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by F. A. Syndicroud
Don't misunderstand this next thought, but what happens to the unborn when it is aborted? Since he or she is already a viable, living being in God's image, and since he or she has not sinned, heaven awaits. Is this such a terrible thing? This child will never have the opportunity to do many things that other people do--including the opportunity to reject God and be lost for eternity.



All due respect, but this may be the most stunning statement I've ever read on this board. Surprising, because your posts prior to this one have been interesting and thought provoking.

By this logic, my wife and I, who obviously want all 6 of our kids to be believers and go to heaven, should have aborted them all. Just to give them their best chance...

As to some other thoughts that have shared here...

To be "pro-choice" is to be "pro-abortion". You have never heard a so-called "pro-choice" politician claim to advocate abortions. To a man, they say something like "abortions should be legal, safe, and rare..." Not much different than some of the views we've heard in this thread.

My wife and I have also faced the "hard choice". She was 40 years old when we got pregnant with our sixth child. Her OB/GYN was very concerned because the uterus was, her words, "dangerously thinned." She had serious doubts that my wife could carry the child to term without her womb rupturing. Because the hospital in our town was a Catholic one, she urged us to go to Lexington and "get things taken care of" (Interesting, how everything becomes all "euphemistic" in such cases...)

We talked, and prayed, and cried and prayed some more. The bottom line for my wife was that she could never be a willing volunteer to killing a child. She asked me to promise that no matter what happened, that I would not allow doctors to do anything that put the child's life in danger.

We had to be very careful - 70% bed rest the last trimester... But our "threat to his mother's life" will be 3 years old this Summer.

The Church must become an unceasing advocate for the unborn, and should offer grace and compassion to those considering abortion and those who have had abortions. I think it's hard to do that from a pro-choice position.


Reply author: onedaysoon
Replied on: 02/15/2007 06:29:28 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by buckeye

quote:
Honestly some people need to be ignored. If you can't disagree in a reasonable way you do not deserve to be heard. This includes all of us.


AMEN!



Especially you and me, Buckeye. What you did yesterday was totally out of line.


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/15/2007 06:34:02 AM
Message:

quote:
What you did yesterday was totally out of line.


You mean come to the defense of the unborn? I will never apologize for that.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/15/2007 06:35:59 AM
Message:

FA
Sorry if I came off as not being gracious. I don't want anyone to think that I am not gracious on this issue. Like I said in an earlier post I have dealt with this issue in my own family. My son and his wife struggled with the decision to have an abortion on the advice of doctors who said my daughter in-law's life was in danger, doctors who said the child would not be born, and doctors who said if he were born he would be severely deformed. We spent weeks praying, crying, and yes angry about the whole issue, and I thank God every day that my son and daughter in-law were strong enough to leave the decision up to God. Every time I look at my 10 year old, healthy, normal Grandson, and his mother, I am reminded that this is a decision that should be left to God, not man.


In the case you mentioned with the Israelites it was God's will that those men, women, and children be destroyed. I still think it was terrible, but it was God's will... God chose to have it done. I still cannot believe abortion is God's will.
I also have to ask ... even if that child who is aborted spends eternity with God, what plans might God have had for that child in this world?


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/15/2007 07:09:16 AM
Message:


Greetings Steve,

You asked,
"What about a pregnancy that occurs as the result of a casual, but consenting relationship (a one night stand)?"

The moral equation in such a case is different. One first has to take into consideration that outside of wedlock, the decision to perform acts capable of resulting in pregnancy is, itself, sinful.

Also, there's an "ethic of risk" in the picture. It would be immoral to deliberately put yourself in a situation where you had to, let's say, demolish a house without knowing if there was someone inside or not, if you had the option of either not demolishing the house, or of reducing the risk of killing someone. A similar factor is involved in the sort of scenario you described.

With that granted, a hierarchy of options presents itself:

Best Non-Sinful Option: abstinence.
Best Sinful Option: do not abstain, and be prepared to cherish any child which may be conceived as a result.
Next-best Sinful Option: do not abstain, and use effective contraception which will prevent conception.
Next-to-Next Best Sinful Option: do not abstain, and immediately thereafter use an contraceptive chemical or pill as an abortifacient without knowledge or whether one is pregnant or not.
Worst Sinful Option: do not abstain, and use an abortifacient or procure an abortion after the effects of fertilization are detected.

Does that answer your question?

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/15/2007 07:23:37 AM
Message:

Reverse logic isn't what I was aiming for, but sadly that is what has been understood.

When I said, "Don't misunderstand this next thought," I should have known that it would be misunderstood. I posed this question: "but what happens to the unborn when it is aborted? Since he or she is already a viable, living being in God's image, and since he or she has not sinned, heaven awaits. Is this such a terrible thing? This child will never have the opportunity to do many things that other people do - including the opportunity to reject God and be lost for eternity."

This was never intended to be a reason to show that abortion is a wonderful choice, or a great idea for good parents. How that got turned around is sad, even if in a way, understandable. It was only meant to show that even in something terrible and tragic, God is still good and His love is everlasting. I thank God that I've never had to make this kind of a choice; I can't say how I would have chosen, but I can say that it wouldn't be a "no brainer" as some appear to think it should be. Several of us appear to have had some things in common in childbearing - complications. My wife had to go to complete bed rest for the last 6 months of her pregnancy with our second child. Although the complications were more about the welfare of our unborn daughter rather than health of the mother, had it been the other way around, I'm sure we would have prayed and begged for God's intervention to save both mother and child. If it came down to a desperate situation regarding the mother's health, I can't say with assurance that I would have chosen the life of my unborn child over the life of my helpmate and mother of my young son. And even if I had made the choice to save wife and mother, I don't believe that God would see me as a murderer.

This is not an advocacy of pro-choice. But I truly do advocate pro-forgiveness.

Preacherpaul, you said, "I also have to ask ... even if that child who is aborted spends eternity with God, what plans might God have had for that child in this world?" I don't know. But I know that if those plans were crucial to God's overall plan, this abortion would not thwart God's plan. And who is to say that God's "plans" for this child would be fulfilled? God "plans" for us all to be obedient, and even when we're not he "planned" for us to have a way to come back. Many do not. Nothing that anyone can do, whether through disobedience or obedience, can change God's overall plan.

And as for the child's view, is there anything in this world so pleasurable that he would have been sad to have missed it, being in heaven?


Reply author: Steve S
Replied on: 02/15/2007 07:44:38 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Vox


Greetings Steve,

You asked,
"What about a pregnancy that occurs as the result of a casual, but consenting relationship (a one night stand)?"

The moral equation in such a case is different. One first has to take into consideration that outside of wedlock, the decision to perform acts capable of resulting in pregnancy is, itself, sinful.

Also, there's an "ethic of risk" in the picture. It would be immoral to deliberately put yourself in a situation where you had to, let's say, demolish a house without knowing if there was someone inside or not, if you had the option of either not demolishing the house, or of reducing the risk of killing someone. A similar factor is involved in the sort of scenario you described.

With that granted, a hierarchy of options presents itself:

Best Non-Sinful Option: abstinence.
Best Sinful Option: do not abstain, and be prepared to cherish any child which may be conceived as a result.
Next-best Sinful Option: do not abstain, and use effective contraception which will prevent conception.
Next-to-Next Best Sinful Option: do not abstain, and immediately thereafter use an contraceptive chemical or pill as an abortifacient without knowledge or whether one is pregnant or not.
Worst Sinful Option: do not abstain, and use an abortifacient or procure an abortion after the effects of fertilization are detected.

Does that answer your question?

Yours in Christ,

Vox





Thanks for your response. I didn't think you advocated emergency contraception after a one-night stand, but stating your position is based on God's desire for a child to be conceived in a husband/wife relationship leaves that door open for someone looking for an excuse. "Since the conception of this child isn't in God's will, it is ok for me to abort it."

I am still not sure I agree with everything you have said about eht issue, but I appreciate your thoughts.

As far as the political world. Is it proper to have the same expectations for politicians as we have for Christians?

It was asked earlier, "What if it were your wife or daughter (who was raped or in danger)?" As I thought about it, I think my expectations would be higher for them than for someone else. I would hope they would make the sacrificial choice.

In the political process I would be thrilled with a candidate who would say abortion should be illegal & unavailable except in the case of rape/incest or when the mother's life is in danger.


Reply author: Jim Bird
Replied on: 02/15/2007 08:38:13 AM
Message:

Vox,

I have a bit of a problem with with your item on page 3: " "(2) Once a woman knows that she has conceived, barring exceptional circumstances (such as a deformed womb, a tubal pregnancy, or other anomaly which renders the woman incapable of bearing a child to viability), she should consider the conception and fertilization to be an indication of God's will; for this reason, elective abortion at any stage of pregnancy is a grievous sin." (emphasis mine)

I am always amazed, even though I know that I shouldn't be, at how selective is the decree of what is and what is not God's will. The woman presumably had no more control over the rape than the fertilization. The opportunity for most women in the world today to receive any kind of post intercourse contraception is rare.If conception and fertilization is an indication of God's will why would you not think that a rape, which led to the conception and fertilization, was not also an indication of God's will. It isn't as if God were making each and every decision individually and personally about fertilzation and conception and taking action accordingly.

The conception and fertilizaton is nothing more than the natural course of events that was put into play when God created life to reproduce after its own kind.

I know that this is off track, but could not resist commenting on what was considered to be the "will of God".

As far as abortion goes, I think it should be limited to just those instances wherein the act of self defense would justify the killing of the fetus (child) just as it would with any other person.

I did appreciate your attempt at defining at what point in the process that it is a person that is the issue to be considered. I am inclined to agree with you on that.

Jim


Reply author: Hob
Replied on: 02/15/2007 08:39:33 AM
Message:

Random...but have seriously questioned and never given straight answer.
Medically speaking life doesn't begin until implantation. Christians have always taught me fertilization...well which one is it an why?


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/15/2007 09:58:38 AM
Message:


It looks like part of this discussion -- the part between RedHeadedFan and Buckeye -- might need to be specially addressed, if for no other reason than to keep the thread from becoming diffused.

Buckeye did initially just ask a question:
"Are you a parent? Are you a Christian?"

Let's go back and take a closer look at some things that RedHeadedDMBFan said.

R:
"I do have a hard time telling others what they can and cannot do."

Did you really mean "can and cannot do," or "should and should not do"? Only the government has the power to authoritatively tell people what they can and cannot do. Even if a private citizen found it very easy to tell others what they can and cannot do, without governmental authority, his voice would be just a voice.

R:
"I am not for using abortion as birth control or out of convenience."

Then it sounds like you are pro-life, as far as 85% (maybe more) of the abortions occurring in the USA are concerned. Most abortions are procured so that the mother's lifestyle will not be disrupted.

R:
"As a woman, being the one who carries the child and feels the affects of the pregnancy, and the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy, I can see where it could be an option in extenuating circumstances."

I agree. In some extenuating circumstances.

R: ...
"the exceptions that sometimes have to be made is what makes me pro-choice. I think abortion should be legal but handled in a case by case manner."

It looks like you're saying that you are only pro-choice -- i.e., you think that abortion should be legal -- when extenuating circumstances are involved. Do I understand you correctly?

Let me add a hypothetical question, RedHeadedDMBFan. Suppose, five or ten years into the future, someone invents an artificial womb -- a machine in which a zygote can be implanted, nourished, and developed through all stages of pre-birth development, followed by the birth of a healthy baby. Suppose that the inventor of the machine decides to make, say, 300 such machines, and in each one a zygote or early-stage embryo is implanted. At first she says that her intent is to take all 300 through the complete gestation cycle, resulting in 300 births. But after six months, she announces her intent to turn off all 300 machines. She gives no reason, besides pointing out that the machines are her property, to do with as she pleases. Do you think the government should stop her?

Also, regarding cases of pregnancies that result from rape: rape opposes God's will, so I can agree that the consequences of rape -- any consequences -- are not in sync with Gods will. When God's will has been opposed, the question is not, "What next step will enact God's will?". The equation is a little more complicated than that. It's sort of like calculating the will of a football coach: he does not want the quarterback to fumble the ball, but if the quarterback fumbles, the coach would rather have someone on his team recover the football than a member of the opposing team. So we should ask, "In a situation in which a sin have already been committed, what is Gods will contingent upon that situation?"

You said,
"Nor do I believe God desires to see women or girls who have been impregnated against their will through rape (although extremely rare, it is not non-existent) suffer the agony, both physical and mental, of bearing that child." I agree, inasmuch as it is not God's will that rape occur in the first place. But are you saying that in a situation in which a rape has occurred, and a pregnancy is known to have resulted from the rape, that it is God's will that the unborn human being be killed?

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/15/2007 10:06:47 AM
Message:

and people wonder why I said "let's not go there"


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/15/2007 10:23:34 AM
Message:

quote:
You said, "Nor do I believe God desires to see women or girls who have been impregnated against their will through rape (although extremely rare, it is not non-existent) suffer the agony, both physical and mental, of bearing that child."

I agree, inasmuch as it is not God's will that rape occur in the first place. But are you saying that in a situation in which a rape has occurred, and a pregnancy is known to have resulted from the rape, that it is God's will that the unborn human being be killed?
Actually, Vox, I believe that was something I said, so I'll ask the same of you: Do you believe that it is God's will that rape or incest victims suffer the mental, physical, emotional, psychological trauma for nine months, and then go through the agony of childbirth, due to a vile and violent act of sin, the guilt not belonging to this girl or woman? We haven't even begun to deal with the additional emotional/psychological difficulties that are compounded by those who are around this girl or woman for those nine months. Is she still in school? What does she have to contend with from those around her? This isn't the immaculate conception graced upon a willing servant of the Lord we're dealing with.

If the rape/incest was not God's will, and the suffering of lifelong mental etc. anguish, is not God's will, and we know that abortion is not God's will, why is it that abortion is the only one that is so repulsive? They are all repulsive, and decisions are not always easy.

Is abortion wrong? Yes. Is it sometimes necessary? Perhaps.

I believe the biggest reason for the outcry is because it is largely viewed as a way to stop an inconvenience. In that, I vehemently oppose abortion. In those extenuating cases we've mentioned, there is no "good" choice; but a choice must be made.


Reply author: Steve S
Replied on: 02/15/2007 11:43:36 AM
Message:

Here is the problem I have with the "exceptional case of rape/incest" as an appropriate time for an abortion.

If we believe unborn life is life and an abortion ends that life, when is it right to end that innocent life?

I have seen two possible justifications for it in this discussion.

1. the conception was outside of God's will, so the ensuing life is (or may be) also outside of God's will.

2. the violence & violation of rape/incest should not be compounded by the stigma (from others and from self) of the pregnancy.

Both of these arguments raise the importance of the one with power (the mother) above the powerless (the unborn). Not a scriptural concept.

They also limit God to only working in ideal circumstances.

I also cannot get out of my head that most of us, given the opportunity would speak to a repentant rapist about redemption. We would also counsel the victim with the truth that God can give healing and peace in any circumstance. At the same time we are rationalizing ending a life (if you believe life begins at conception) because that life will cause difficulty.

I think it comes down to the fact that we find it easier to be compassionate to those whom we can see & who can defend themselves.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/15/2007 12:00:41 PM
Message:

I'm afraid it also may deal with a lack of understanding how to be compassionate. I could be wrong, but it seems that there has only been one female opinion given here, at least directly. And if I understand correctly, that opinion is that abortion is not God's will, but it is understandable in extreme situations.

As men, we are in no way equipped to fully appreciate the dilemma of a young girl or woman who has been impregnated, let alone by rape or incest. It is far too easy to say what others should do when it does not affect us. I've seen the examples from experience here regarding birth complications, but none from rape/incest. And even in those birth complication situations, we can speak for ourselves and our feelings, but do we have the ability to truly understand what someone else may be going through? Situations rarely are identical, because of too many variables.

I stand with those who would say abortion is illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or life-threatening complications for the mother. Even in those situations, serious counselling should be given prior to any abortion. Still, I do not say that abortion, even in these cases, is not sin; however I trust in the mercy of God to forgive even abortion.


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/15/2007 12:06:34 PM
Message:

quote:
As men, we are in no way equipped to fully appreciate the dilemma of a young girl or woman who has been impregnated, let alone by rape or incest.


This is completely irrelevant to the situation. Of course we must have compassion on those who go through these traumatic experiences, but we do not have to experience them ourselves to know that abortion is wrong. To use that criteria would exclude us from making moral decisions in many, many areas.

quote:
I stand with those who would say abortion is illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or life-threatening complications for the mother.


Is the baby somehow less dead in those situations? This is pure situational ethics you are spouting here. Killing babies is wrong, regardless of how a person got pregnant.


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/15/2007 12:10:13 PM
Message:


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/15/2007 12:14:33 PM
Message:


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/15/2007 12:20:37 PM
Message:


F.A. Syndicroud,

You're right; that was you, not RedHeaded fan, that I was quoting. (My apologies to both of you for the confusion.)

FAS:
"Do you believe that it is God's will that rape or incest victims suffer the mental, physical, emotional, psychological trauma for nine months, and then go through the agony of childbirth, due to a vile and violent act of sin, the guilt not belonging to this girl or woman?"

If you're talking about cases in which a pragnancy has resulted from a rape or incest, and the woman is capable of bearing the child to the stage of viability, then yes. Contingent upon such a situation, God would rather have her suffer unjustly than to have her commit an unjust act upon the child by killing him/her.

FAS:
"If the rape/incest was not God's will, and the suffering of lifelong mental etc. anguish, is not God's will, and we know that abortion is not God's will, why is it that abortion is the only one that is so repulsive?"

The question was not about the comparative repulsiveness of the acts. The question was about whether or not, contingent to a situation in which a pregnancy results from a rape, it is God's will to kill the baby before birth.

Just because a person is in a situation which is the result of another person's repulsive sin, that does not mean that it's okay to repulsively sin in an attempt to alleviate the unjust effects of the situation.

In a situation in which a pregnancy has resulted from a rape, neither the occurrence of the rape or the occurrence of the pregnancy was the result of a moral decision on the woman's part. But the decision to kill an innocent human being, or to procure the services of someone who would kill an innocent human being, would be a decision on her part.

FAS:
. . ."I vehemently oppose abortion. In those extenuating cases we've mentioned, there is no "good" choice; but a choice must be made."

In cases of pregnancies that result from rape or incest, there is no choice that instantly restores the situation to what God wants it to be. But in light of God's command against taking innocent human life, a decision to take innocent human life would take the situation farther away from God's will than it already was. It might not always look that way. It might look like an abortion would solve the problem. But we walk by faith, and not by sight. Or to put it another way, we try to see things the way God sees them. And in light of the Scripture that children are a gift from God, I think that God would not have allowed any rape to result in a pregnancy if He did not have some purpose for that new life. If the situation is to be redeemed, that redemption will be closer if the baby is not killed than if the baby is killed.

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/15/2007 12:28:41 PM
Message:

Does anybody have any stat's on how many Christian women have abortions?

The reason I ask, is because people who beleive that we are just another animal, or that human life is not that important are not going care about an aborttion, or our views on it in any circumstance. If they don't know God, then are ways are just foolish to them.

-M


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/15/2007 12:45:34 PM
Message:

It seems that we are at an impasse: I have already stated that abortion is a sin. I believe that it is a sin in every situation.

Likewise, I believe it is sinful for anyone to unjustly force a young girl or woman to bear a child due to rape or incest.

Is it best to bear the child and put it up for adoption? Absolutely--if the girl is able. We have the problem of thinking we can determine for her. We might be able to ascertain physical ability, but beyond that it would be back to our own opinion.

Is it a sin to kill someone? We make exceptions for that: war, self-defense, capital punishment, accident (even if caused due to carelessness or ill-informed error). Yet all of these involve choices. What is the best choice? Not to kill, right? Is it the only acceptable choice?


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/15/2007 12:49:49 PM
Message:

quote:
We have the problem of thinking we can determine for her.


It isn't a problem at all. We can and should make that determination. Our first obligation is to protect the life of the innocent child in her womb.


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/15/2007 12:54:40 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by buckeye

quote:
We have the problem of thinking we can determine for her.


It isn't a problem at all. We can and should make that determination. Our first obligation is to protect the life of the innocent child in her womb.



I thought our first obligation was to help them develope a realtionship with Christ.


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/15/2007 12:56:31 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Malsteem

Does anybody have any stat's on how many Christian women have abortions?

-M



According to one website half of all abortions are by Christians.


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/15/2007 1:01:19 PM
Message:

quote:
I thought our first obligation was to help them develope a realtionship with Christ.


CONTEXT IS KING!


Reply author: scdave1
Replied on: 02/15/2007 1:17:48 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Malsteem

quote:
Originally posted by Malsteem

Does anybody have any stat's on how many Christian women have abortions?

-M



According to one website half of all abortions are by Christians.



While I think this topic has about run its course for me, I think you mention a very interesting point that I'd like to "personalize".

Obviously as a male I have not ever had an abortion and I've not been involved in the decision to do so to this point. But--both my first wife and my current wife had abortions as teenagers. Here's the interesting--and frankly very sad--details:

Wife #1--family was staunchly C of C (non instrumental), in fact to the point that this is where we had our wedding though at that point neither of us were practicing Christians. Her folks, however.....staunchly conservative, staunchly anti-abortion. However, when the rubber met the road, so to speak, and their daughter got pregnant out of wedlock--not once, but TWICE, they helped facilitate their daughter getting an abortion (this was years before we had met).

My current wife--one parent a devout Baptist and the other a very legalistic Messianic Jew--again, when she got pregnant out of wedlock, they TOLD her that she MUST get an abortion or not live in their house. They lied to her and told her it would be a "harmless medical procedure" and at 17 she knew no better. Yet, to speak to my parents-in-law today, they are the most virulently anti-abortion people you've ever met (supported Alan Keyes for President last go-round). Yet they put their daughter through the agony of this procedure--and yes, my wife regrets ever having gone through it and has since prayed to God for forgiveness--but my parents in law have yet to even acknowledge their error and are living in denial that it ever happened.

In both the instance of wife #1 and wife #2, here we have parents who purportedly were staunchly anti-abortion but when the issue of "convenience" and the possibility of public humiliation set in, they buckled and didn't just compromise but completely threw out their so-called "principles". Very sad and very wrong in my book.

If my sixteen year old daughter got pregnant--unless her life were threatened by the pregnancy, an abortion would NOT be an option under any other circumstance--not even rape or incest. Yet some of you probably see me from my earlier posts as--how did I say it earlier--not "conservatively politically correct" on this issue (e.g. unwilling to throw stones at Redhead or conceding that there may be limited circumstances under which abortion might be a justified choice). Bottom line, I guess I'd rather be considered too tolerant on this issue by some but consistent rather than hypocritical.

It's very easy to come up with broad generalizations and fixed rules until the situation lands at your own doorstep.

In closing (and, as I alluded to earlier, this is my last post on this subject), I have to say that I have nothing but admiration for those of you--regardless of your position on this issue--that have shared personal decisions that you've had to make that could have risked the life of your spouse but that God in his grace and mercy gave you BOTH. I can't condemn anyone for following medical advice given in a careful manner; at the same time the faith of those of you who refused to "act on sight alone" is really to be commended and applauded.

With that, Malsteem specifically, I'll leave this subject alone--probably like I should have in the first place!


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/15/2007 1:29:18 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by buckeye

quote:
I thought our first obligation was to help them develope a realtionship with Christ.


CONTEXT IS KING!



What????? I thought Jesus was King?


Have a good journey




Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/15/2007 1:43:10 PM
Message:

quote:
We haven't even begun to deal with the additional emotional/psychological difficulties that are compounded by those who are around this girl or woman for those nine months.


And those emotional and psychological difficulties would not be even greater when trying to deal with the guilt of taking an innocent child's life?


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/15/2007 1:48:16 PM
Message:

quote:
And those emotional and psychological difficulties would not be even great when trying to deal with the guilt of taking an innocent child's life?


Good point! I would advise anyone intersted in this to study the post-abortion trauma that takes place in so many women who kill their babies.


Reply author: scdave1
Replied on: 02/15/2007 1:50:00 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Malsteem

quote:
Originally posted by Malsteem

Does anybody have any stat's on how many Christian women have abortions?

-M



According to one website half of all abortions are by Christians.



Well, one more post, I really had intended on saying no more on this subject but I'll let the data speak for itself. Here are some statistics from one online source (http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/fastfacts.html):

quote:
UNITED STATES

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

Who's having abortions (age)?
52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.

Who's having abortions (race)?
While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.

Who's having abortions (marital status)?
64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married women; Married women account for 18.4% of all abortions and divorced women obtain 9.4%.

Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".


Not quite as high on the percentage of Christians as your source Malsteem, nonetheless very sad statistics, indeed. Should be enough to drive all of us to our knees.


Reply author: almccann
Replied on: 02/15/2007 2:19:02 PM
Message:

quote:
I disagree with anyone who would either imply or explicitly state that not having a "conservatively politically correct" position on abortion makes a person unchristian or otherwise an unfit parent or person.



I don't know about all of the unfit parent or bad person or making a person unchristian. However, it is a simple fact that the church must stand against sin. We must speak out against sim and teach people to abstain from sin. While doing this we also must do it in such a way that we don't alienate sinners from the church. In other words the mercy and grace of God covers a multitude of sins including abortion. It is not unforgivable as was pointed out and if we are truly doing the work of the church we will have lots of Christians who have had abortions in our churches.

However, a person cannot truly be pro-abortion a be living in a totally correct relationship with God anymore than a person can be pro-theft, pro-rape, pro-drunkness or pro any other sins and live in a correct relationship with God.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/15/2007 2:21:17 PM
Message:

Amen, Bro. Al


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/15/2007 6:24:59 PM
Message:

I suppose I should not be surprised that there is difficulty for some in seeing any other way but to force a young girl who did nothing wrong, yet was violently violated and impregnated against her will, to carry this child full term and just deal with it.

There are strange (to us today) laws in God's word that I believe we would have trouble with today; of course, we would quickly use the "old covenant" excuse to push them away, and yet some of these laws had nothing to do with salvation and the changes brought in the new covenant.

For example, Deuteronomy 22:13-29:

13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [b] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to deaththe girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.


Perhaps we should force the young girl to marry her rapist to set all things right, and there would be no need for an abortion. But then again, if we still held to these laws, according to statistics, most young women wouldn't live past their wedding night.

I know that I shall be assailed for what will be viewed as derogatory remarks regarding laws of God, but the only reason for these remarks is to point out that we stand firm on the things we choose to stand firm on, and disregard the things that are too difficult for us.


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/15/2007 6:53:19 PM
Message:

I have been reading everyone's views. And it has really made me think. It makes me wonder if the topic of abortion is not really the issue. It makes me think do people despise abortion because it's a awful thing or is it because it makes them (me) feel better about the sins they've (I have) commited. Through our human eyes it's very easy for us to justify the things we've done wrong by comparing ourselves to others who have done something more awful on a "human" scale. We all know that all sin is equal in the eyes of God. But I think sometimes as humans we pick out a issue in order to justify what we've done. Because we can say...Well I did this, but it's not as awful as this. It also makes me wonder when we judge to the point of alienation and we don't show the love of Christ, are we aborting someone out of the kingdom of God, and therefore are guilty of abortion? I guess I have a hard time condeming people, knowing that I'm not perfect. I always do things the hard way, backwards, frontwards and sideways. I've just choosen to think it makes me interesting....I'm sure Jokerman would beg to differ...Just a thought.


Reply author: onedaysoon
Replied on: 02/15/2007 7:07:52 PM
Message:

But a good thought, thanks for the insight. We may not agree but we need to be willing to listen without a knee jerk reaction. Thanks for the thought.


Reply author: CVGKid
Replied on: 02/16/2007 03:55:44 AM
Message:

F.A.
I don't understand your point. Are you saying we are bound by priestly laws that Jehovah specifically drew up for the Jews?

Are you a 7th Day Adventist?


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/16/2007 04:31:42 AM
Message:

quote:
I have been reading everyone's views. And it has really made me think. It makes me wonder if the topic of abortion is not really the issue. It makes me think do people despise abortion because it's a awful thing or is it because it makes them (me) feel better about the sins they've (I have) commited.


I would have to say that it is just the opposite. It is the realization that I too am a sinner who without Christ is hopelessly lost that leads me to teach against abortion. I am convinced that abortion is sin and because I am concerned about the consequences of sin on our lives I will teach against it. I do not think that teaching against abortion and calling abortion sin is condemning anyone, we do that ourselves when we choose to sin, not when someone points it out to us.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/16/2007 04:37:15 AM
Message:

quote:
I suppose I should not be surprised that there is difficulty for some in seeing any other way but to force a young girl who did nothing wrong, yet was violently violated and impregnated against her will, to carry this child full term and just deal with it.



And you don't see a difficulty in adding murder to the crime of rape that has already been committed? What do you think would be the better situation, that young girl dealing with the emotional trauma of rape and murder, or dealing with the emotional trauma of rape then giving the helpless and innocent baby up for adoption?


Reply author: Jim Bird
Replied on: 02/16/2007 05:40:18 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by preacherpaul

quote:
I suppose I should not be surprised that there is difficulty for some in seeing any other way but to force a young girl who did nothing wrong, yet was violently violated and impregnated against her will, to carry this child full term and just deal with it.



And you don't see a difficulty in adding murder to the crime of rape that has already been committed? What do you think would be the better situation, that young girl dealing with the emotional trauma of rape and murder, or dealing with the emotional trauma of rape then giving the helpless and innocent baby up for adoption?


Perhaps not, but I don't find the attitude of "tough, let her learn to live with it" as a very good way forward on this issue.

You have indirectly declared abortion to be murder in every and all instances. I think that is not the case any more than all killing of human beings is murder.

I think Vox is heading in the right direction in attempting to make a rational basis for establishing or determining the beginning of life of a person and to let that be a guide to a sensible and righteous approach to this problem.

It is no more rational to declare that all abortion is wrong than it is to declare that all killing of human beings is wrong.

Jim


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/16/2007 05:43:32 AM
Message:

Originally posted by preacherpaul:

quote:
And you don't see a difficulty in adding murder to the crime of rape that has already been committed? What do you think would be the better situation, that young girl dealing with the emotional trauma of rape and murder, or dealing with the emotional trauma of rape then giving the helpless and innocent baby up for adoption?
First, I don't agree with your equating abortion in all cases as murder. Next, as for what would be the better situation, you're asking me a question I can't answer. But the next time you get raped and become pregnant, you can let us know.

I apologize for the crudeness of that remark, but I said it to point out that you can't stand as judge. You can't with certainty say what is best. You may give your opinion, but you simply can't give the best answer; it won't necessarily always be the same for each person.

God's laws always had a reason, or a purpose. The reason for some of those "odd" laws was to keep his people pure. They were not given because God was a "control freak" who wanted to dictate every waking moment of our lives. Circumcision is a strange way to seal a covenant, don't you think? There are lots of ways God could have chosen, but this was more than just symbolic. Behind the law was a fundamentally good reason; hygiene and health.

The laws behind keeping the marriage to one man and one woman were more than just control; health safety, loyalty, perseverance, family solidity, and so many other things are developed appropriately through keeping the family unit as God designed.

And even though I'm not Jewish, and I'm not under the Old Covenant, I was circumcised. I would venture a guess that most of the men who post here, although not Jewish either, were also circumcised (although I'm not suggesting that as a new topic!). And even though I'm not bound by the Old Covenant, I still think the one man/one woman idea is a good one. Apparently Jesus thought so too, and so that one stuck.

Abortion is one of the "hot topics" so we stand tall to show our indignation at the thought of opposing God in this detestable act. You know, we don't really hear much any more about the fact that adultery used to be punishable by stoning, or at the very least, ostracism. I'm not saying that we are for it now, or that we never preach against it; I'm just saying that it's no longer a "hot topic" so we don't have the soapbox out.

RedheadedDMBfan, I appreciate that you stated what needed to be heard. We are quick to make hard decisions for others, because it helps us to put our own failures and shortcomings behind for awhile.

No one (that I've been able to tell) in this thread is advocating the legalization of abortion to the point of keeping it totally by choice. The only exceptions that have been suggested are in situations of abnormal endangerment to the mother, rape and incest. But the responses fail to consider anything except the abortion itself.

It's time to put your stones down...aren't they getting heavy?


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/16/2007 06:24:40 AM
Message:

quote:
It's time to put your stones down...aren't they getting heavy?


FA
I am holding no stones and to be honest I am tired of being accused of being judgmental. I have repeatedly said that I will continue to teach against abortion in the same way I teach against other sins. Just because I teach against abortion does not mean I am judging or condemning anyone. We condemn ourselves when we choose to sin.

I have ministered to people who are suffering from abortions in the past. I love those people and I see the damage that they suffer because of past sins. As a minister of Christ I will continue to encourage others not to make the same mistake. You can make all the crude remarks you want, you can call me judgmental or whatever else you want and that is not likely to change. If I can help anyone avoid the penalty of sin in their lives I will.

You and I are obviously going to disagree on this so let me encourage you to stop the crude remarks and name calling. Let's at least disagree in a Christian manner.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/16/2007 06:30:58 AM
Message:

quote:
It is no more rational to declare that all abortion is wrong than it is to declare that all killing of human beings is wrong.



Jim
I have yet to see a case in which I think it is not wrong for a man to take the life of an innocent child. The only exception I can think of is God's instructions for the Israelites to take the lives of men, women, and children. I don't think God has commanded abortion today and until He does I will believe it is wrong. Maybe you see that as irrational but I don't.


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/16/2007 06:32:54 AM
Message:


F. A. Syndicroud,

You said,
"I suppose I should not be surprised that there is difficulty for some in seeing any other way but to force a young girl who did nothing wrong, yet was violently violated and impregnated against her will, to carry this child full term and just deal with it."

Regarding the last part of your statement, it's not as if the church has no counselors, some of whom donate their services specially to women experiencing crisis pregnancies including pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest. And should the mother wish to give her child up for adoption, the church has adoption agencies. So we can dispense with the claim that anyone is just callously telling the rape victim to "just deal with it," as if we all somehow know that our close friends and family could never face such a situation.

But you're partly right. You should not be surprised that Christians who take seriously God's command against taking innocent human life consider it right to not take the innocent baby's life, even when this involves suffering on the part of the rape victim. It is more noble to suffer the effects of injustice than to commit injustice. Is it your counsel that the rape victim should commit an irreversible injustice?

FAS:
"There are strange (to us today) laws in God's word . . ."

Yes, there are. But the passages you cited do not touch the question at hand.

FAS:
"Perhaps we should force the young girl to marry her rapist to set all things right, and there would be no need for an abortion. But then again, if we still held to these laws, according to statistics, most young women wouldn't live past their wedding night."

There is no "need" for an abortion in the situation as posited. In situations in our era (not in ancient Israel, or ancient Mongolia either, for that matter) in which a pregnancy results from a rape, the need is for compassion to be supplied to the rape victim and to the unborn baby, without defying God's prohibition against taking innocent human life.

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/16/2007 06:42:57 AM
Message:

quote:
The only exceptions that have been suggested are in situations of abnormal endangerment to the mother, rape and incest. But the responses fail to consider anything except the abortion itself.



FA
Did you not read my earlier post about the circumstances with my grandson? I have lived one of those exceptions. I, and others who have posted on here, know the pain involved firsthand. My concerns on this whole issue is the welfare of all who are concerned. The last sentence of the quote above is simply not true.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/16/2007 06:48:50 AM
Message:

Preacherpaul, I already apologized for the crudeness of the remark even when I made it. It was not to hurt or upset, but it was to make a point. And I'm sorry if you thought I meant only you when I said drop the stones; that was meant for anyone who can't see past the single issue and see the person who is struggling with the unjust injury.

I would want you, as I would all preachers, to preach against abortion, as it really is sin; but I would also want to believe (but I do not) that you would be able to offer comfort and consolation to a young rape victim, knowing that her frailty would not bear up under such overwhelming circumstances. I don't feel that your compassion would allow you to show mercy to her in this process. Oh, I do believe that after the fact, you may come around to show mercy - and that's good. But would you accompany her to the doctor's office, to pray with her and ask God for his mercy and understanding and forgiveness in what she is doing, due to what she is going through?

Would you go to the hospital and pray with the mother who, at the doctor's urging, is going to make one of the hardest decisions in her life to protect herself, her husband, her other small children, in going through with an abortion that is threatening her very life? This is what I'm talking about; I agree with you that the "better" thing to do is to spare life; I just don't agree that it is always the only choice that can, or should, be made.

Maybe I'm wrong, preacherpaul, but to me it seems that if you did go to the doctor's office or to the hospital to pray with these victims, your prayer would only serve to heap anguish upon them as you would only be praying that they "do the right thing" - in your eyes.
I don't mean that as a slam or a hateful accusation. I simply see this as your stance. If I am wrong, I'm sorry to view you that way.


Reply author: Jim Bird
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:02:25 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by preacherpaul


Jim
I have yet to see a case in which I think it is not wrong for a man to take the life of an innocent child. The only exception I can think of is God's instructions for the Israelites to take the lives of men, women, and children. I don't think God has commanded abortion today and until He does I will believe it is wrong. Maybe you see that as irrational but I don't.


I would not disagree with that statement at all. But I might disagree with what you have (apparently) defined to be and innocent "child". That is the point that must be addressed, among others. I assmume that you do not consider the sperm and the egg individually to be a child. Most, I think, do not consider the fertilized egg to be a child either. But there is some point at which it does become a child, and unborn child, but still a child.

I believe that is one of the points that Vox was addressing and I think that is the one that must be established before we can go around accusing others of sinning.

You obviously have established a definition of what abortion is but I am just not sure that you are correct. The need to be certain and to be correct goes way beyond just the consideration of abortion. But it reaches into the areas of stem cell technology, cloning and probably much more as time goes on and other technologies related to reproduction considerations begin to appear and advance.

Jim


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:08:07 AM
Message:

quote:
But would you accompany her to the doctor's office, to pray with her and ask God for his mercy and understanding and forgiveness in what she is doing, due to what she is going through?



FA
No, I would not. I would encourage her not to go through with the abortion. However after the fact I would encourage her, and pray with her, asking for God's forgiveness for what she has done. As for the mother I would pray the same prayer that I prayed with my son and daughter in-law, I would pray for God's Spirit to hel pthem make the right decision.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:10:49 AM
Message:

Jim
Just to clear up any confusion, I believe that life begins at conception.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:15:01 AM
Message:

quote:
Maybe I'm wrong, preacherpaul, but to me it seems that if you did go to the doctor's office or to the hospital to pray with these victims, your prayer would only serve to heap anguish upon them as you would only be praying that they "do the right thing" - in your eyes.



FA
I'm sorry you see this as my stance. I am sorry you think I would have any desire to heap anguish on anyone. In fact, that is what I would try to prevent. You see, I believe we heap anguish on ourselves when we choose to sin, so my encouragment of those people to avoid abortion would be an effort to keep them from heaping anguish upon themselves.


Reply author: Jim Bird
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:17:53 AM
Message:

Paul,

Just out of curiousity, why do you think that?

Jim


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:22:23 AM
Message:

Originally posted by F.A.Syndicroud:

quote:
but I would also want to believe (but I do not) that you would be able to offer comfort and consolation to a young rape victim, knowing that her frailty would not bear up under such overwhelming circumstances. I don't feel that your compassion would allow you to show mercy to her in this process. Oh, I do believe that after the fact, you may come around to show mercy - and that's good.

Would you go to the hospital and pray with the mother who, at the doctor's urging, is going to make one of the hardest decisions in her life to protect herself, her husband, her other small children, in going through with an abortion that is threatening her very life? This is what I'm talking about; I agree with you that the "better" thing to do is to spare life; I just don't agree that it is always the only choice that can, or should, be made.


Maybe I'm wrong, preacherpaul, but to me it seems that if you did go to the doctor's office or to the hospital to pray with these victims, your prayer would only serve to heap anguish upon them as you would only be praying that they "do the right thing" - in your eyes.

Originally posted by preacherpaul:
quote:
No, I would not. I would encourage her not to go through with the abortion. However after the fact I would encourage her, and pray with her, asking for God's forgiveness for what she has done. As for the mother I would pray the same prayer that I prayed with my son and daughter in-law, I would pray for God's Spirit to help them make the right decision.
Actually, I'm sad that I seem to have viewed you correctly.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:24:17 AM
Message:

Jim
Psalm 139:13 "for you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother's womb."
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:24:42 AM
Message:

quote:
Most, I think, do not consider the fertilized egg to be a child either. But there is some point at which it does become a child, and unborn child, but still a child.
You think wrong Jim. What do you think happens, that one day all of a sudden poof, this mass of flesh all of a sudden turns into a child. That child was being formed and nitted day by day, minute by minute by God within the mothers womb!


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:25:00 AM
Message:


RedheadedDMBfan,

R:
"It makes me wonder if the topic of abortion is not really the issue."

Well let me clear that up. Yes, abortion -- the taking of an innocent unborn human life -- is really the issue; specifically, the question, "Are there ever moral grounds for an abortion?" is the topic. The issue, regarding the sub-question about cases of rape, is essentially, "Should Christians say that it's okay to deliberately kill a baby to relieve the mother's suffering?" (Although something could also be said about not just killing a baby, but opposing God's will, if there is a question of the personhood of the embryo/fetus, an important issue that is yet to be explored in this conversation.)

R:
"It makes me think do people despise abortion because it's a awful thing or is it because it makes them (me) feel better about the sins they've (I have) commited."

That is a complete tangent! If abortion is wrong, it is wrong regardless of what sort of personal motivations anyone has for opposing abortion or for defending abortion. Wrong motivations for holding a view do not make the view itself incorrect. (Anyone who has ever guessed blindly but correctly on a math test can attest to that.)

R:
"Through our human eyes it's very easy for us to justify the things we've done wrong by comparing ourselves to others who have done something more awful on a "human" scale."


Perhaps, but while saying "Abortion is worse tham Sin X or Sin Y" does not make that statement true, neither does it make elective abortion a moral act -- which is the question at hand.

R:
"We all know that all sin is equal in the eyes of God."

I emphatically disagree. All sin alienates from God. But not all sins have equal consequences; not all sins are equally deliberate; not all sins are equally situated. Jesus plainly told Pilate,
"He who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin." (Jn. 19:11) Obviously that implies something.

R:
"But I think sometimes as humans we pick out a issue in order to justify what we've done."

Again: even if that were true (and I don't think anyone in this conversation has indicated that such an aspersion applies to them), it would not change the central questions of whether abortion is right or wrong, and of whether there are ever morally justified grounds for abortion.

R:
"I guess I have a hard time condemning people, knowing that I'm not perfect."

Eh? The discussion is not about condemning people. It's about whether or not there can ever be a moral justification for abortion. There's a distinction between determining what our moral options are, and determining what we ought to do with people who choose immoral options.

Let's keep the discussion focused. How would you answer the questions I asked you earlier?

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:29:04 AM
Message:

Those who point to science to prove when life begins must admit that the more that we learn, the more that date keeps moving closer to the time of conception.


Reply author: David McVey
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:33:51 AM
Message:

Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. Following it has been very helpful to me in continuing to process the issue. The message I am working on for Sunday will deal with living for God verses living for the moment. So you can see how this thread is really relevant for me today.

I especially appreciate everyone's honesty, even about emotions that are stirred during the discussion (debate). It highlights the complexities, although some seem to see no complexities anywhere in life (all is black and white, not grey).

So, where am I? Well, that's complicated. . .mostly grateful for everyone's participation right now, and still in process.


Reply author: n/a
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:36:35 AM
Message:

While I am well aware of the emotional and spiritual complexities of this issue the bottom line is this:

Abortion = Dead Baby
No Abortion = Live Baby


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:37:47 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Vox


RedheadedDMBfan,

R:
"It makes me wonder if the topic of abortion is not really the issue."

Well let me clear that up. Yes, abortion -- the taking of an innocent unborn human life -- is really the issue; specifically, the question, "Are there ever moral grounds for an abortion?" is the topic. The issue, regarding the sub-question about cases of rape, is essentially, "Should Christians say that it's okay to deliberately kill a baby to relieve the mother's suffering?" (Although something could also be said about not just killing a baby, but opposing God's will, if there is a question of the personhood of the embryo/fetus, an important issue that is yet to be explored in this conversation.)

R:
"It makes me think do people despise abortion because it's a awful thing or is it because it makes them (me) feel better about the sins they've (I have) commited."

That is a complete tangent! If abortion is wrong, it is wrong regardless of what sort of personal motivations anyone has for opposing abortion or for defending abortion. Wrong motivations for holding a view do not make the view itself incorrect. (Anyone who has ever guessed blindly but correctly on a math test can attest to that.)

R:
"Through our human eyes it's very easy for us to justify the things we've done wrong by comparing ourselves to others who have done something more awful on a "human" scale."


Perhaps, but while saying "Abortion is worse tham Sin X or Sin Y" does not make that statement true, neither does it make elective abortion a moral act -- which is the question at hand.

R:
"We all know that all sin is equal in the eyes of God."

I emphatically disagree. All sin alienates from God. But not all sins have equal consequences; not all sins are equally deliberate; not all sins are equally situated. Jesus plainly told Pilate,
"He who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin." (Jn. 19:11) Obviously that implies something.

R:
"But I think sometimes as humans we pick out a issue in order to justify what we've done."

Again: even if that were true (and I don't think anyone in this conversation has indicated that such an aspersion applies to them), it would not change the central questions of whether abortion is right or wrong, and of whether there are ever morally justified grounds for abortion.

R:
"I guess I have a hard time condemning people, knowing that I'm not perfect."

Eh? The discussion is not about condemning people. It's about whether or not there can ever be a moral justification for abortion. There's a distinction between determining what our moral options are, and determining what we ought to do with people who choose immoral options.

Let's keep the discussion focused. How would you answer the questions I asked you earlier?

Yours in Christ,

Vox





I wasan't arguing right or wrong. I was just simply saying that maybe it is the issue that it is b/c when we take such a strong stand on something, it could be to make ourselves feel better about the things we have done.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:44:35 AM
Message:

Vox, perhaps what redheadedDMBfan meant was that abortion is not the only issue here. No one is claiming that abortion is not sin. But apparently no one wants to say that forcing a young rape/incest victim to carry the child, or forcing a woman to risk life, and the well-being of her husband and possibly other children, is a sin. I don't believe things are always as clear cut as some would want them to be.

Sin is sin, and any sin brings the death sentence. I believe this is what rhDMBf was referring to. Yes, some sins carry greater earthly consequences, but none carries a greater death sentence as separation from God. Yes, some sins are more abominable, as noted in scripture, but they all separate us from God.

What did Jesus mean when he said that Pilate was guilty in what he was doing of a lesser sin? To me it would seem that Jesus meant that Pilate wasn't the real culprit in this situation; the Jews were rejecting the Messiah and Pilate was an unfortunate entity in what had to take place. Could Pilate have freed Jesus? Yes or no both have difficulties in their answers.

Is abortion wrong? Yes! Is it always the very worst choice that can be made? You can't answer that, and I can't either.

preacherpaul's response to Jim Bird's comment regarding the actual beginning of a child was this:

quote:
Jim
Psalm 139:13 "for you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother's womb."
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."
So actually we might assume from this that a child begins prior to conception.


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:46:19 AM
Message:



Getting frustrated Red??

quote:
I wasan't arguing right or wrong. I was just simply saying that maybe it is the issue that it is b/c when we take such a strong stand on something, it could be to make ourselves feel better about the things we have done.
That statement is sometime very true and people hold very strong convictions with no gray areas on things they do not do, yet have very weak convictions and lots of gray areas on the things they do or have done.


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:47:48 AM
Message:

quote:
Most, I think, do not consider the fertilized egg to be a child either. But there is some point at which it does become a child, and unborn child, but still a child.


Ima replied to this, but I don't know who said it. This statement is really arbotrary, because I think how you view it depends on weather you wanted too or are happy to be pregnant, or are ok with being pregnant and weather you take God's word into account. Neither of my kids were planned, but I wanted both of them. My children were babies/created on the day of conception..Sept. 13, 2007 and August 30, 2000. Most women know the day they concieved, you just know.


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:51:58 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by redheadedDMBfan

quote:
Originally posted by ima Browns fan



Getting frustrated Red??
quote:
I wasan't arguing right or wrong. I was just simply saying that maybe it is the issue that it is b/c when we take such a strong stand on something, it could be to make ourselves feel better about the things we have done.
That statement is sometime very true and people hold very strong convictions with no gray areas on things they do not do, yet have very weak convictions and lots of gray areas on the things they do or have done.



Gotta Love Aerial! Thank You! You think I should put her in my signature?


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/16/2007 07:59:12 AM
Message:

quote:
Actually, I'm sad that I seem to have viewed you correctly


It really doesn't matter how you view me does it?


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 08:08:59 AM
Message:

quote:
Gotta Love Aerial! Thank You! You think I should put her in my signature?
Yes! Put I can't mind any with motion.


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 08:10:48 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by ima Browns


Put I can't mind any with motion.





I don't get it? Am I having a blonde moment?


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/16/2007 08:17:55 AM
Message:


F. A. Syndicroud,

FAS:
"I would want you, as I would all preachers, to preach against abortion, as it really is sin."

Okay. I will preach against elective abortion, procured for no medical reason, as sin -- as a general sin of opposing God's will in practically all cases, and as the sin of murder in cases after the first ten post-conception weeks.

FAS:
"I would also want to believe (but I do not) that you would be able to offer comfort and consolation to a young rape victim, knowing that her frailty would not bear up under such overwhelming circumstances."

Just a minute here: how can I "know" how frail -- I assume you mean psychologically frail -- this hypothetical rape victim is? How can I know that her mind is too frail to endure a pregnancy, which will not last more than nine months, but that her mind is strong enough to bear the guilt of murdering a baby?

FAS:
"I don't feel that your compassion would allow you to show mercy to her in this process."

What do you mean by "this process"? -- a process that involves acting in harmony with God's revealed will, or a process that involves acting in opposition to God's revealed will?

FAS:
"But would you accompany her to the doctor's office, to pray with her and ask God for his mercy and understanding and forgiveness in what she is doing, due to what she is going through?"

In the case of an elective abortion, I would have to be out of my mind to do so. A preacher might as well help the drunkard buy whiskey, and help the prostitute lure customers, and help the robber find vulnerable pedestrians, and advise the murderer about how to aim his weapon.

FAS:
"Would you go to the hospital and pray with the mother who, at the doctor's urging, is going to make one of the hardest decisions in her life to protect herself, her husband, her other small children, in going through with an abortion that is threatening her very life?"

(You mean that the pregnancy is threatening her very life, right? I will assume that that's what you meant. It's the baby's very life that the abortion is threatening.) If the pregnancy is directly endangering the mother's life, well, that would not be an elective abortion. I would certainly offer comfort and counsel to a woman in such a situation. (See my second online essay for details about what I mean by "such a situation.") But if you don't mean what you are saying -- if you mean that the pregnancy seems, to the woman, to threaten her life, even though the pregnancy has no special physical complications -- then I would be committed to act in accordance with reality, not with the woman's mistaken notion of reality. Many a mother of young children has thought that her kids were driving her crazy, but I would not therefore provide a mother of young children with counsel and comfort and sympathetic support as she put them in sacks, put the sacks in the trunk of her car, and drove to a lake. If
"He who greets him shares in his deeds," how much more does he who offers moral support.

FAS:
"I agree with you that the "better" thing to do is to spare life; I just don't agree that it is always the only choice that can, or should, be made."

Does the promise of First Corinthians 13:10
(Edit: I meant 10:13) not apply to pregnant women? Do you think their mental frailty is so extreme that it renders God's promise false?

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: Jim Bird
Replied on: 02/16/2007 08:22:53 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by ima Browns fan

quote:
Most, I think, do not consider the fertilized egg to be a child either. But there is some point at which it does become a child, and unborn child, but still a child.
You think wrong Jim. What do you think happens, that one day all of a sudden poof, this mass of flesh all of a sudden turns into a child. That child was being formed and nitted day by day, minute by minute by God within the mothers womb!



What am I wrong about? Do you think that the human spirit that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is a genetic process? Is it "passed" along from mother and father to the child at conception. I think not. I think that God creates the spirit of each person apart from the biological reproductive process. Is the spirit or spiritual person "joined" to physical person at conception or later when it becomes attached to the uterus or womb.

The Bible speaks often about our being made in the womb. Do you assume that is not really true but rather that we were made at conception? If so show me. I am always ready to learn.

Jim


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/16/2007 08:37:37 AM
Message:


RedHeadedDMBFan,

R:
"I wasn't arguing right or wrong. I was just simply saying that maybe it is the issue that it is b/c when we take such a strong stand on something, it could be to make ourselves feel better about the things we have done."

Noted. Something similar could probably be said about every discussion about every moral issue ever discussed: those who object to fill-in-the-blank-here might just be trying to salve their consciences or keep the spotlight off their own shortcomings. (Need I say "ad hominem"?)

And now, back to the conversation, which is about right and wrong. What are your answers to the questions I asked earlier?

Yours in Christ,

Vox

Btw, the mermaid's name is Ariel, not Aerial.


Reply author: CCC
Replied on: 02/16/2007 08:40:25 AM
Message:

Too many pages, not enough time to read.

The question comes down to is when is the creation a human being?

It amazes me; some people think that a baby is not a baby until they are out of the birth canal. One second they are a "fetus", the next second they are a baby? If a baby is being aborted with partial birth abortion (never mind how rare it is) and the doctor is ready to crush part of the baby or inject poison into it, what happens if the mother sneezes and the baby pops out? Can you still kill it? What if the head is already starting to come out? If it was a baby partially out then it was a baby partially in. If it was a baby partially in then why is it not a baby when it is still completely in? When does the "fetus" become a baby? Answer: Never! It was never a fetus. God gives the human a soul at conception. Not only are we made in the womb but He knows who we are in the womb. When was Christ actually Christ? The bible says the Holy Spirit was the seed. Christ was Christ as soon as the Holy Spirit gave conception to Mary. Was He a fetus? Never. He even had a name before He was born. He had a presence, a being. We are just like Him in this manner. We are who we are when we are conceived.


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 08:47:10 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Vox


It looks like part of this discussion -- the part between RedHeadedFan and Buckeye -- might need to be specially addressed, if for no other reason than to keep the thread from becoming diffused.

Buckeye did initially just ask a question:
"Are you a parent? Are you a Christian?"

Yes & Yes

Let's go back and take a closer look at some things that RedHeadedDMBFan said.

R:
"I do have a hard time telling others what they can and cannot do."

Did you really mean "can and cannot do," or "should and should not do"? Only the government has the power to authoritatively tell people what they can and cannot do. Even if a private citizen found it very easy to tell others what they can and cannot do, without governmental authority, his voice would be just a voice.

Should and should not
R:
"I am not for using abortion as birth control or out of convenience."

Then it sounds like you are pro-life, as far as 85% (maybe more) of the abortions occurring in the USA are concerned. Most abortions are procured so that the mother's lifestyle will not be disrupted.

Yes, 85% pro-life.

R:
"As a woman, being the one who carries the child and feels the affects of the pregnancy, and the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy, I can see where it could be an option in extenuating circumstances."

I agree. In some extenuating circumstances.

R: ...
"the exceptions that sometimes have to be made is what makes me pro-choice. I think abortion should be legal but handled in a case by case manner."

It looks like you're saying that you are only pro-choice -- i.e., you think that abortion should be legal -- when extenuating circumstances are involved. Do I understand you correctly?

Yes, you do.

Let me add a hypothetical question, RedHeadedDMBFan. Suppose, five or ten years into the future, someone invents an artificial womb -- a machine in which a zygote can be implanted, nourished, and developed through all stages of pre-birth development, followed by the birth of a healthy baby. Suppose that the inventor of the machine decides to make, say, 300 such machines, and in each one a zygote or early-stage embryo is implanted. At first she says that her intent is to take all 300 through the complete gestation cycle, resulting in 300 births. But after six months, she announces her intent to turn off all 300 machines. She gives no reason, besides pointing out that the machines are her property, to do with as she pleases. Do you think the government should stop her?

They should of stepped in from the get go.

Also, regarding cases of pregnancies that result from rape: rape opposes God's will, so I can agree that the consequences of rape -- any consequences -- are not in sync with Gods will. When God's will has been opposed, the question is not, "What next step will enact God's will?". The equation is a little more complicated than that. It's sort of like calculating the will of a football coach: he does not want the quarterback to fumble the ball, but if the quarterback fumbles, the coach would rather have someone on his team recover the football than a member of the opposing team. So we should ask, "In a situation in which a sin have already been committed, what is Gods will contingent upon that situation?"

You said,
"Nor do I believe God desires to see women or girls who have been impregnated against their will through rape (although extremely rare, it is not non-existent) suffer the agony, both physical and mental, of bearing that child." I agree, inasmuch as it is not God's will that rape occur in the first place. But are you saying that in a situation in which a rape has occurred, and a pregnancy is known to have resulted from the rape, that it is God's will that the unborn human being be killed?

I didn't say this, I think F.A. did.
Yours in Christ,

Vox




Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/16/2007 08:51:36 AM
Message:

Vox, I hope that I've made it a little more clear than what I'm seeing in your response. But yes, I meant that the pregnancy was the threatening thing...that she was going through with an abortion to stop the life-threat.

I don't believe that anyone could see me as a proponent of abortion for convenience, or even for helping out someone who made a mistake, or got pregnant by "accident" (you know, "by accident" is really not possible - even in rape, someone intended to have sex). I don't believe that abortion is an option if having a child will be too tough - if the cause of the pregnancy was consensual and did not result in a threat to life - NOT LIFESTYLE.

You asked, "How can I know how frail...?" That's my point; you can't. And if you can't, then how could you, or anyone, stand to say she must carry the child? If I counsel her to carry the child and she agrees, wonderful! If I counsel her to carry the child, yet she can't because of her physical, emotional, mental, psychological state, am I wrong to ask God to strengthen her, to have understanding and compassion on her, to have mercy and forgiveness for her? In doing that, am I participating in her sin, or sharing in the guilt?

As for 1 Corinthians 10:13 (I think is what you intended), "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." I suppose you refer to the "temptation" to sin by having an abortion. And yet again, we do not consider the "sin" of forcing a rape victim or someone whose life is threatened not to abort. By the way, although "common to man" refers to "mankind", it does make you stop and think. These situations are definitely not "common to man".


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/16/2007 08:53:17 AM
Message:


Buckeye,

B:
"While I am well aware of the emotional and spiritual complexities of this issue the bottom line is this:
Abortion = Dead Baby
No Abortion = Live Baby."


It's not always so simple.

In the case of an accurately diagnosed ectopic pregnancy, it is possible that
Abortion = dead baby
No Abortion = dead baby and dead or seriously injured/endangered mother.

In the case of multiple fetuses in the womb of a woman unable to bear them all to viability, it is possible that
Abortion = dead baby
No Abortion = several dead babies and dead or seriously injured/endangered mother.

In the case of full anencephaly,
Abortion = dead baby and possible trauma of abortion.
No Abortion = dead baby and possible trauma of childbirth.

Anomalous factors can have a drastic impact on the moral equation.

Another factor that affects the moral equation is the basic question of the personhood of the embryo or fetus. It looks like the conversation may be turning toward that question.

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/16/2007 09:17:25 AM
Message:

CCC, although I agree that a baby is a viable, living, person long before the birthing process, Jim Bird makes a good point in saying that God's placing a spirit (not the Holy Spirit) within each person is not necessarily part of the biological process of conception/reproduction. The argument involving Jesus is a strange one, in that Jesus pre-existed anyway (not by that name). When did he become the Christ? God knew that long before the Holy Spirit caused Mary to conceive, so I wouldn't argue that he "became" the Christ at that point.

Jim Bird points out that the scriptures refer to a baby being "formed in the womb", which is the uterus. Fertilization, or conception, takes place in the fallopian tubes. The formation of the embryo (fetus) with all the features, organs, structure, characteristics, etc. of a human being take place in the uterus. It is possible that there is a time, even after conception, that God has not "begun this forming process" - including placing a spirit in this life.

I'm not saying this is a hard fact; just that it is more than just a possibility. And if so, then the rape/incest victim would at least have a week or so to act. I believe this is also what Vox was referring to (correct me if I'm wrong, please).


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/16/2007 09:31:29 AM
Message:

And just for some fuel for those who decry abotion for any and every reason (as if you needed any fuel), here's an interesting story. This story is about a 5 year old Peruvian girl who was diagnosed as pregnant at 7+ months. She delivered by c-section. The story has been authenticated as true.

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=236

Sorry for the colorful title to the link; I didn't create that.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/16/2007 09:35:56 AM
Message:

How long does it take for the fertle egg to travel from the fallopian tubes to the uterus?

Is it possible that we are splitting hairs here?


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 09:38:05 AM
Message:

quote:
What am I wrong about? Do you think that the human spirit that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is a genetic process? Is it "passed" along from mother and father to the child at conception. I think not. I think that God creates the spirit of each person apart from the biological reproductive process. Is the spirit or spiritual person "joined" to physical person at conception or later when it becomes attached to the uterus or womb.

The Bible speaks often about our being made in the womb. Do you assume that is not really true but rather that we were made at conception? If so show me. I am always ready to learn.
Don;t know if I can teach you anything Jim, just give you what I think like you have done above.

I think that when the egg & the sperm unite God implants the human spirit simultaneously while taking the DNA of mom & dad that is in the egg & sperm setting into to motion the life to become what he wants it to become.


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 09:45:28 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by preacherpaul

How long does it take for the fertle egg to travel from the fallopian tubes to the uterus?

Is it possible that we are splitting hairs here?



I'm confused, why does this matter? The uterus is homebase for sperm and egg.??


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/16/2007 09:49:30 AM
Message:

Preacherpaul, in answer to your question, "How long does it take for the fertile egg to travel from the fallopian tubes to the uterus?" The experts (and I ain't one) say a week or so. Read this for more info:

quote:
Conception is only the first step; once the egg and sperm unite to create a fertilized cell, that cell must go through many more steps to grow into a baby.

As it floats down the fallopian tube toward the uterus, the cell divides into two. Those two cells then divide to make four, and the division continues. In a week or so after fertilization, the growing cluster contains about 100 cells. It then attaches itself (implants) in the wall of the uterus, where it settles down to grow.

Some of the cells in the cluster form the embryo, the part that will eventually develop into a baby. Other cells multiply to form an organ called the placenta, which connects with the uterine lining to draw nourishment and oxygen from the mother's blood to sustain the developing embryo. The placenta also produces hormones, which enter the mother's bloodstream and spread through the body. These hormones alert the body that a baby is growing in the uterus, and they signal the uterus to maintain its lining rather than shedding it. That means the woman does not have a period that month. This may be her first sign that she is pregnant.

Over the next few weeks, the embryo grows and develops at a rate faster than at any other point in its existence, including all childhood and adulthood. By about seven or eight weeks after conception, the embryo has formed all its vital internal organs and its external structures, and it is called a fetus. Over the remaining months of pregnancy, the fetus grows from less than an ounce to about seven or eight pounds in size, and its organs develop to prepare it for life after birth.
Copied from "How Conception Happens" Yahoo! Health.

And as for your other question, "Are we splitting hairs?"...hair doesn't come along for another few weeks. Sorry, I couldn't resist.


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 09:49:53 AM
Message:

quote:
[i]Originally posted by ima Browns fan

I think that when the egg & the sperm unite God implants the human spirit simultaneously while taking the DNA of mom & dad that is in the egg & sperm setting into to motion the life to become what he wants it to become.



Me too.


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 09:55:29 AM
Message:

Human beings grow from zygote to embryo - embryo to fetus - fetus to infant - infant to child - child to adult. However, no matter what title or stage of life they might be, they are always human. No stage is more or less important than another.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/16/2007 09:57:48 AM
Message:

Originally posted by ima Browns fan

quote:
I think that when the egg & the sperm unite God implants the human spirit simultaneously while taking the DNA of mom & dad that is in the egg & sperm setting into to motion the life to become what he wants it to become.
But then you remind us:
quote:
I am a Cleveland Browns fan because I just don't know any better!
How can we trust you?!

(That's a joke, by the way.)


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 10:01:28 AM
Message:


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/16/2007 10:43:36 AM
Message:


F. A. Syndicroud,

FAS:
You asked, "How can I know how frail...?" That's my point; you can't. And if you can't, then how could you, or anyone, stand to say she must carry the child?"

That point works in favor of what I'm saying. Before I explain why, I'd point out that, since abortion is currently legal in the U.S., whatever I would say would only be a "must" in a limited sense, like advising the mother that, "If you want to do God's will, you must not have an abortion," not, "You must not attempt to procure an abortion; if you do, the police will come and arrest you."

Now then, as I said, the point that you and I can't precisely gauge the mother's ability to cope with pregnancy works to the benefit of a decision aganst abortion, and against providing moral support for the procurement of abortion. Here's why:

First, if we can't precisely gauge the mother's ability to cope with the pregnancy, then we can't precisely gauge her ability to cope with the guilt of having an abortion, either. Second, although we can't precisely gauge the effects of the pregnancy on the mother, we can precisely gauge the effects of the abortion on the baby: death.

With those premises in play, the choices are
(a) the deliberate procurement of the murder of an innocent human being, with unknown psychological effects upon the mother, or
(b) the deliberate continuation of the experience of the trauma of pregnancy and childbirth, with unknown psychological effects upon the mother.

Both options involve unknown psychological effects upon the mother. But one involves taking an innocent human life, and the other one does not. So which option do you consider better than the other one?

(I think there is a third option, (though, as JimBird pointed out, it is not universally available): a victim of rape who does not know whether or not conception has occurred may have her womb immediately cleansed. Taking the risk that a doctor or nurse might thus be killing a non-implanted zygote or blastocyst is not the same as deliberately killing an implanted embryo or fetus, since she would have experienced no indication that a human being was present in her womb, while having the indication from God's Word that He normally does not want children to be produced as the result of rape, inasmuch as rape is an act that breaks His commands.)

FAS: ...
"If I counsel her to carry the child, yet she can't because of her physical, emotional, mental, psychological state, am I wrong to ask God to strengthen her, to have understanding and compassion on her, to have mercy and forgiveness for her?"

Whoa; you've got quite a bundle of scenarios there! If her physical state is such that she is incapable of bearing the child to viability, that's essentially no different from a situation in which an ectopic pregnancy is accurately diagnosed. Her "emotional, mental, and psychological state" is a different story. This is an alterable quantity. It's also a quantity which cannot be precisely gauged. And it's a quantity which must be considered in light of whatever emotional, mental and psychological problems might result from having an abortion.

But most of all, it's an endurable quantity. Which is where First Corinthians 10:13 comes in. When you claim that she can't endure the situation without sinning, it looks like your claim is tantamount to a denial of I Cor. 10:13.

FAS:
"In doing that, am I participating in her sin, or sharing in the guilt?"

If you're providing moral support for the procurement of an elective abortion, you are participating in sin and sharing in its guilt. (You asked!)

FAS: (addressing my application of I Cor. 10:13)
"I suppose you refer to the "temptation" to sin by having an abortion."

Yes. You did, after all, say just a few posts ago that
"No one is claiming that abortion is not sin," right? (That was you, right? Right.)

FAS:
"And yet again, we do not consider the "sin" of forcing a rape victim or someone whose life is threatened not to abort."

Your statement assumes that it would be a sin to force a rape victim not to abort her child. (It looks like this situation involving force would be one in which a governmental agent, not a private citizen, would be involved.) I deny the premise.

In a situation in which the only options are
(a) force a person (the mother) to endure unjust and unwanted suffering, which can be compensated, treated, reduced, and alleviated, or
(b) allow a person (the baby) to be forcibly killed, and thus create a situation in which another person (the mother) may experience trauma and guilt,
isn't "a" the better choice?

Also, you're assuming that the only way to relieve the mother's suffering is to kill the baby -- i.e., to sin. And First Corinthians 10:13 says that there is always a better option than sin. It may involve enduring pain. It may involve hardship. But it is not a sin to endure unjust suffering, or to encourage someone to endure unjust suffering, or to tell someone that it would be a sin to decide not to endure unjust suffering, when that is the only alternative to perpetrating an unjust and irreversible act of murder upon an innocent human being.

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: Jim Bird
Replied on: 02/16/2007 10:51:23 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by ima Browns fan

Human beings grow from zygote to embryo - embryo to fetus - fetus to infant - infant to child - child to adult. However, no matter what title or stage of life they might be, they are always human. No stage is more or less important than another.



That argument, if you back up one step, is the reason that some think contraception is a sin. It is one thing to wish to be on the safe side so to speak, it is another entirely to declare something you are not sure of to be absolutely a sin.

I am not arguing for free choice or any such thing, but the subject of the thread is whether there is any grounds for abortion. Or asked a little differently is abortion absolutely, always and without question, a sin.

I simply am not so quick to say yes. I think there is some grey area in all of this.

Jim


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/16/2007 11:12:20 AM
Message:

You seem to claim that abortion equals murder. So I'll take your option...I deny the premise.

The question, "Am I sharing in her guilt?" was rhetorical - I do not believe that I am.

It bothers me, though, to see some of the thoughts throughout this thread which, on the surface, seem to lump together the distraught victim with the girl who just wants to make sure her prom dress will fit right. (Please, don't any one of you take that as a direct slap at you - it is a generalization of some of the thoughts expressed).

I believe that you mean well in all you state, just as I believe the same for preacherpaul, ima Browns fan, etc., all state what they believe and hold to it. That is your right and privilege. We just don't agree.

If I err (which I often do), I prefer to err on the side of compassion for the rape/incest, or life-threatened victim, and trust that God's grace is sufficient.


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/16/2007 11:24:12 AM
Message:


CCC,

If you don't have time to read all my posts here, I recommend reading instead the three essays at

http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/Biogenesis.html
http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/Exceptions.html
http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/LifeLaw.html

which are supplemented by
http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/KVAbort.html

As you noted, a basic issue is the question, "When is the creation of a human being?" I address that in the first essay.

CCC:
"God gives the human a soul at conception."

I'm not sure that that is true. Days after conception, twinning is possible. Twinning can even be mechanically induced after conception.

CCC:
"Not only are we made in the womb but He knows who we are in the womb."

Granted, but that does not answer the question of at what point a soul exists. God's knowledge extends to before the foundations of the world.

CCC:
"When was Christ actually Christ?"

Christ was eternally pre-existent, and Christ's conception was miraculous. It seems fair to allow the possibility that a miracle may be a special case.

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: CCC
Replied on: 02/16/2007 11:30:51 AM
Message:

Vox,
As always you answer in a non-confrontational and respectful way with me. A trait I admire. Thank you for the reading. I only meant I didn't have time because (shhh.....I am a work). I may answer later.
Tim


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/16/2007 1:23:49 PM
Message:

quote:
I'm confused, why does this matter?


My point exactly.


Reply author: almccann
Replied on: 02/16/2007 1:54:24 PM
Message:

quote:
If I err (which I often do), I prefer to err on the side of compassion for the rape/incest, or life-threatened victim, and trust that God's grace is sufficient.



If I error I would prefer to error on the side of the totally innocent child which is about to be killed.


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 2:48:57 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by redheadedDMBfan

quote:
Originally posted by ima Browns


Put I can't mind any with motion.





I don't get it? Am I having a blonde moment?

Yes you are. I can't find any pictures of Ariel that have movement in them, like the guy banging his head.


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 2:58:00 PM
Message:

Jim:

quote:
I am not arguing for free choice or any such thing, but the subject of the thread is whether there is any grounds for abortion. Or asked a little differently is abortion absolutely, always and without question, a sin.

I simply am not so quick to say yes. I think there is some grey area in all of this.
If the gray area means that at some point in the early stage and unborn baby is not human, I totally disagree because when we procreate, we dont make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, flowers, bacteria etc.

If the gray area is because man may not know 100% when God gives us our spirit-man, I believe God reveals to us in His Word that not only does life begin at conception, but He knows who we are even before then.

Jeremiah 1:5-"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

King David said this about God's role in our conception: "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb.....Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. " (Psalm 139:13, 16).

Before God began to form any of us to be who He wanted us to be (taking 23 chromosomes of the father and joining them with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed) He knows us. Who does He know before he weaves us to be who we are to be, our flesh and blood person or our spiritual person?

I believe it is our spiritual person, the real you and me that God knows and implants as He starts to form us in our mothers womb - therefore, there is no gray area and abortion at any point is wrong.


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 4:45:28 PM
Message:

quote:
CCC: "God gives the human a soul at conception."

Vox: "I'm not sure that that is true. Days after conception, twinning is possible. Twinning can even be mechanically induced after conception."


What? Are you saying God can't place 2 souls in since he would know before hand that they would twin? If He has to wait until there is complete seperation so does that mean conjoined twins only share one soul or maybe none at all since they never seperated?


Reply author: CCC
Replied on: 02/16/2007 5:09:40 PM
Message:

quote:
Twinning can even be mechanically induced after conception.

That may be true but both will still be human, and all humans have souls, don't they?

quote:
Granted, but that does not answer the question of at what point a soul exists. God's knowledge extends to before the foundations of the world.
That's the point. We have people who are trying to decide that on their own and then try to force it all on us because "science has proven it". No one knows the exact time but look at my argument in the earlier post. When does the term "baby" become appropriate based on time? How can we differentiate what a life is based on that? Now someone said there may be a week or so to decide. I can agree with that because the union has not happened. Analogy: When does a marriage become a marriage? Some would say at consummation, but isn't really before that? The engagement of two people are like the the two gametes. They are not united yet. But once they are united they are married and it is a marriage. Sex never has to happen. (too many jokes, must not say anythi...) There is only one term for marriage. It doesn't matter if they have consummated yet and then they become a new kind of marriage. It is all the same. Once the gametes unite they are a new organism, a human being. There should be no new term to define what it is. They are human, period. They possess the same amount of chromosomes that adults do (with of course some exceptions).

quote:
Christ was eternally pre-existent, and Christ's conception was miraculous. It seems fair to allow the possibility that a miracle may be a special case.
True, o so true. But He went through everything we did. As soon as He came down He was man in all ways. To think that He was an just an object at one point in His existence is beyond me to think.

Vox, you are always agood conversationist. I love listening to you. Come back across the border please where you belong.


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 5:12:43 PM
Message:

Hey you guys what do you think of Ariel? She's a redhead...Ima found her for me.


Reply author: Jim Bird
Replied on: 02/16/2007 5:15:36 PM
Message:

Phil: "Before God began to form any of us to be who He wanted us to be (taking 23 chromosomes of the father and joining them with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed) He knows us. Who does He know before he weaves us to be who we are to be, our flesh and blood person or our spiritual person?"

You have just made the argument that the use of contraceptives is a sin. I am not sure you wnat to do that. But perhaps you do. But I'm willing to wager a couple of bucks that you don't preach that from the pulpit.

By the way, just as an aside, I don't believe that God "forms us to be who He wants us to be"

And the womb doesn't get involved until several days after conception, so statements concerning God's forming or making us in the womb is not a strong argument. That was the point I made earlier.

And as we have discussed (argued) here before, God's foreknowledge (knowing ahead of time) is not a causal action.

Jim


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/16/2007 5:19:22 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Bird

Phil: "Before God began to form any of us to be who He wanted us to be (taking 23 chromosomes of the father and joining them with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed) He knows us. Who does He know before he weaves us to be who we are to be, our flesh and blood person or our spiritual person?"

You have just made the argument that the use of contraceptives is a sin. I am not sure you wnat to do that. But perhaps you do. But I'm willing to wager a couple of bucks that you don't preach that from the pulpit.

By the way, just as an aside, I don't believe that God "forms us to be who He wants us to be"

And the womb doesn't get involved until several days after conception, so statements concerning God's forming or making us in the womb is not a strong argument. That was the point I made earlier.

And as we have discussed (argued) here before, God's foreknowledge (knowing ahead of time) is not a causal action.

Jim



Jim, what do you think of Aerial? She's a redhead...


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/17/2007 06:15:37 AM
Message:

Jim

quote:
Phil: "Before God began to form any of us to be who He wanted us to be (taking 23 chromosomes of the father and joining them with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed) He knows us. Who does He know before he weaves us to be who we are to be, our flesh and blood person or our spiritual person?"

You have just made the argument that the use of contraceptives is a sin. I am not sure you wnat to do that. But perhaps you do. But I'm willing to wager a couple of bucks that you don't preach that from the pulpit.
I never made the argument that contraceptives are wrong. I was only making the point that when the sperm fertilizes the egg that God is our Designer and knits us together in our mothers womb, meaning that God put our parts together, as one who weaves cloth, or who makes a basket.
quote:
By the way, just as an aside, I don't believe that God "forms us to be who He wants us to be"
I was just talking about the physical, what our Designer made us look like.
quote:
And the womb doesn't get involved until several days after conception, so statements concerning God's forming or making us in the womb is not a strong argument. That was the point I made earlier.
I believe the womb generically covers the reproductive system of a woman and is why some translations use the term belly.


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/17/2007 06:20:05 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by ChristianFaith

I'm sorry that last post was so long. I can be long winded some times and not realize it.

RedheadedDBM,

Forgive me if I got your name wrong. You know when you conceived? I know some women say they do, but it hasn't been my experience that most do. I sure didn't. If I look back on it, then I could maybe guess, but I was never sure.

Oh, also. What is the September 2007? Is that just a wrong date or is that a due date? I was confused.



I'm sorry, I meant Sept. 1997. My daughter was concieved on my husbands birthday and my son was concieved July 31st the day before our anniversary, b/c I had to work the next day, started the job I have now. Your probably right..most women probably don't know. But let's just say their were special circumstances surrounding each preganancy that cause me to know the exact time/day.


Reply author: Jim Bird
Replied on: 02/17/2007 07:47:33 AM
Message:

ima Browns fan,

Not bad answers Phil. I don't necessarily agree with you on this, but your response wasn't bad.

Earlier (page 5)F.A. Syndicroud posted the passage from Deuteronomy 22:13-29.

In carrying out the commands to "purge the evil" as directed, do you think that there was ever an occasion where the woman to be stoned to death had concieved and was carrying an "innocent child" who was killed in the act of punishing the woman? Not exactly abortion, but certainly killing the unborn.

Just curious.

Jim


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/17/2007 08:14:37 AM
Message:


JimBird, F.A. Syndicroud, ImaBrownsFan, CCC, Others,

I'd like to address some loose ends before we focus on the question of personhood.

JimBird (noting my statement that barring anomalous circumstances, a pregnant woman "should consider the conception and fertilization to be an indication of God's will"):
"I am always amazed, even though I know that I shouldn't be, at how selective is the decree of what is and what is not God's will. . . If conception and fertilization is an indication of God's will why would you not think that a rape, which led to the conception and fertilization, was not also an indication of God's will."

The obvious reason to think that rape is not God's will is because God's Word forbids intercourse intercourse outside of wedlock, and thus the Bible forbids rape.

JimBird:
"It isn't as if God were making each and every decision individually and personally about fertilization and conception and taking action accordingly."

Scripture says,
"Children are a heritage from the LORD; the fruit of the womb is His reward," (Ps. 127:3), and, "The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth. He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works." (Ps. 33:13-15) So, the possibilities are:
(a) a child is present at conception. In that case, a child has been given at that point, and thus, God has given a gift which He intends to be treated with respect.
(b) At conception, a biological process has been initiated which, if it continues, will result in the presence of a child, and thus, it appears that it is God's intention to give a gift -- and God's intention should be met with co-operation.

So either way -- even if God's decision is to be traced to before the foundations of the world -- the observation of conception and fertilization should be understood, under normal circumstances, as a sign either that God has given the mother a child, or as a sign that God intends to soon give the mother a child. (Or as a sign that God intends to allow the mother to experience a crisis.)

JimBird:
"The conception and fertilizaton is nothing more than the natural course of events that was put into play when God created life to reproduce after its own kind."

Consider those statements from the psalms. If God uses the natural course of events to bestow His gifts, He is still bestowing His gifts.

F.A. Syndicroud,

FAS:
"You seem to claim that abortion equals murder. So I'll take your option...I deny the premise."

That's a pretty big step. Are you saying this about all abortions? Or just some abortions? Are you denying that a human fetus is an innocent human being?

FAS:
"The question, "Am I sharing in her guilt?" was rhetorical - I do not believe that I am."

And you're tragically wrong about that.

ImaBrownsFan,

IBF:
"If the gray area means that at some point in the early stage and unborn baby is not human, I totally disagree because when we procreate, we dont make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, flowers, bacteria etc."

You are of course correct that we don't make non-humans. But that's not the question. The question -- or at least, one initial question -- is, is a human being present at conception. Let's put this in theological terms: is a human soul present at conception? Or does the soul begin to emanate from the developing body at some later point?

IBF:
"I believe God reveals to us in His Word that not only does life begin at conception, but He knows who we are even before then."

Let's take a closer look at the Scriptures you used to back that up: Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalm 139:13, 16.

The statement in Jeremiah looks like a statement to the effect that God had planned for Jeremiah to be His prophet before Jeremiah was born and before Jeremiah was formed in the womb. But just because the word "womb" appears in this verse doesn't mean that it is a verse about zygotes or embryos. It is essentially a statement about God's plans and foreknowledge. You can extrapolate from Revelation 17:8 that the names of everyone who will end up in heaven were foreknown to God
"from the foundation of the world." But that does not mean that the souls of everyone who will end up in heaven existed from the foundation of the world. Similarly, it does not follow that God's foreknowledge about Jeremiah's role and mission before Jeremiah was formed in the womb implies that Jeremiah was a person before Jeremiah was in his mother's womb.

Psalm 139:13, 16 does not say that a soul is present at conception. Like Jer. 1:5 and Rev. 17:8, verse 16 is about God's foreknowledge of, and planned path for, a specific life; it does not specify the point at which ensoulment (for lack of a better term) occurs.

IBF: . . .
"Who does He know before he weaves us to be who we are to be, our flesh and blood person or our spiritual person?"

Our spiritual person, of course. But I would insist that God's knowledge of our souls, and their natures, and their eventual fall, reconciliation, and progression toward maturity, and their ultimate completion in His heavenly presence, does not begin when we are conceived. This knowledge belongs to God before the foundations of the world. And for that reason, Psalm 139 does not say anything directly about the stage at which the genesis of the soul occurs. (These aren't the only two pertinent Scriptures; see the supplemental list to which I provided a link to earlier (for CCC) for more.)

IBF:
"Are you saying God can't place 2 souls in since he would know before hand that they would twin?"

No; of course God could do so, if He wanted to. Are you saying God can't arrange the development of the embryo so that a soul begins to emanate at about the tenth week after conception?

IBF:
"If He has to wait until there is complete separation so does that mean conjoined twins only share one soul or maybe none at all since they never seperated?"

If the soul does not emanate until about the tenth week, the question is superfluous. If, on the other hand, a soul is present at conception, then one would have to grant, in the case of conjoined twins, either that two souls were always present in the developing body, or that God bestowed a new soul at a very early stage of incomplete division.

CCC: (responding to my observation that "Twinning can even be mechanically induced after conception.")
"That may be true but both will still be human, and all humans have souls, don't they?"

They will still be human something. But will they both have human souls at that moment, or will each be a batch of unique human material capable of eventually emanating a soul? That is the question.

CCC:
"We have people who are trying to decide that on their own and then try to force it all on us because "science has proven it". No one knows the exact time but look at my argument in the earlier post."

Before I look at that argument, let me look at what you just wrote: "No one knows the exact time." If no one knows the exact time -- or the approximate stage -- at which a soul begins to be emanated, doesn't that make it awfully difficult to say that all abortions are murder? Destroying a soulless human body is not the same moral act as destroying a human body which is known to have a soul.

CCC:
"When does the term "baby" become appropriate based on time?"

That seems like essentially another way of stating the question, "At what stage is a soul present?". That's what we're looking into.

CCC:
"Now someone said there may be a week or so to decide. I can agree with that because the union has not happened."

Thus it looks like you would be okay with a law that allowed rape victims to receive emergency contraception, or to have their wombs cleansed, within a week after the rape. Am I correct?

CCC:
"Once the gametes unite they are a new organism, a human being."

You're just re-stating your view here! Granting that the zygote is a new organism, and that the organism is human, this does not settle the question of whether or not a soul is present at the zygote-stage.

CCC:
"There should be no new term to define what it is. They are human, period."

Of course zygotes produced by human parents are human. But do zygotes have souls, or are they the first stage of a developing body which will, at a later stage, emanate a soul? If you're going to say "Zygotes have souls," please explain why you think that zygotes have souls. (I probably won't point out that a definite statement that zygotes have souls might collide somewhat with your earlier statement to the effect that no one knows the exact time. Did you mean that no one knows the exact time of conception?)

CCC: . . .
"As soon as He came down He was man in all ways. To think that He was an just an object at one point in His existence is beyond me to think."

I don't think that Christ was ever "just an object." My point in this regard is that the Incarnation was a miracle involving the pre-existent Word, and because our pre-birth development is not miraculous (in a strict theological sense, I mean), and does not involve the incarnation of a pre-existent being, extrapolations based on Christ's miraculous incarnation are bound to be tenuous. (They might be interesting, and even suggestive -- but still tenuous.)

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: Jim Bird
Replied on: 02/17/2007 10:18:13 AM
Message:

Vox,

I think you are stretching the concept of God's will a little bit. It is difficult, at least for me, to see how conception can be viewed as the will of God if the act giving rise to it is not. Or how a child to a women who had been raped could truly be considered a gift of God. I fully understand how he can use something bad for good, even a child concieved through rape. But that at best can be God making the best of a bad situation.

If my children are hungry and I have no money for food, and I go out and steal some food, I can see how God might use the sustenance gained for good, but still I think that my children should not view the food that I have stolen as a gift from God or as God's will.

Vox: "(b) At conception, a biological process has been initiated which, if it continues, will result in the presence of a child, and thus, it appears that it is God's intention to give a gift -- and God's intention should be met with co-operation."

Not to be too flippant here, but what you have said is that anything that results from a natural process should be viewed as God's intention and should be met with cooperation. I think, personally, that is a bunch of hooey. That says that we should welcome any deaths, and bodily injury or any physical loss or distress due to hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, landslides etc. Any attack in the wild on our person by say a grizzly, since eating even a human being is a natural biological process of the big carnivores, should be met with cooperation.

Since we know that such natural events are in fact benefitial to mankind in general, the poor soul being eaten by the bear or otherwise injured by God's natural events should consider it the will of God, thus a gift of God and welcome all such with open arms.

Lo, Katrina was the will of God after all.

I don't think I can agree with your logic or you conclusions.

Jim


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/17/2007 1:13:41 PM
Message:


JimBird,

JB:
"Not to be too flippant here, but what you have said is that anything that results from a natural process should be viewed as God's intention and should be met with cooperation."

That's not what I've said. I did not say anything about all the results of all natural processes. I wrote specifically about one natural process, about which the Bible specifically speaks (in Ps. 127:3, et al).

JB:
"Any attack in the wild on our person by say a grizzly, since eating even a human being is a natural biological process of the big carnivores, should be met with cooperation."

Again: that's not the natural continuum I was addressing, or to which those Scriptures pertain. Sorry if it looked that way. Now let me take a closer look at something you said:

JB:
"It is difficult, at least for me, to see how conception can be viewed as the will of God if the act giving rise to it is not."

Why is that difficult? When fertilization and implantation proceed from a rape, they remain separate acts from the rape itself. The rapist did not decide that the egg will be fertilized. Nor did he decide that implantation will occur. If those are not the rapist's decision, whose decisions are they? You might say that they are merely random occurrences, but that would fly in the face of Psalm 127:3, wouldn't it.

JB:
"Or how a child to a women who had been raped could truly be considered a gift of God."

Whether we understand it or not, Psalm 127:3 says pretty plainly that children are a heritage -- a gift -- from the LORD. It looks like you're saying that in the case of children who would not exist if not for a rapist, that's not true.

JB:
"I fully understand how he can use something bad for good, even a child concieved through rape. But that at best can be God making the best of a bad situation."

And if it looks like God has indicated that He intends to redeem a bad situation by bestowing the gift of a child, should we interfere with that?

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: Jim Bird
Replied on: 02/17/2007 1:39:07 PM
Message:

Vox,

I will just say that your view of God appears to be one which is much more contolling and manipulative than I hold and I will just leave at that.

Jim


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/17/2007 1:41:16 PM
Message:

Vox, I believe you're trying to jump both sides of the issue here and debate everything everyone else has to say. Maybe you don't see it that way, but that's my opinion.

I agree with Jim Bird that you sum up too much of what takes place as "God's will." There needs to be a distinction in what is God's will and what is God's allowing. God can cause anything to happen that he chooses to, and he can prevent anything from happening if that's his choice. He also can allow things to happen or allow them not to happen. To say that it is not God's will for a woman to be raped, but if a baby is conceived from that, the woman must accept that God wanted her to get pregnant is an absurdity beyond belief. God could have prevented the rape and he could have prevented the pregnancy. For whatever reason he chose not to. Did he cause the rape? Absolutely not! Did he cause the impregnation? According to you, absolutely so! That one is not something that you can prove through scripture no matter how much you twist it.

The rape victim has been blessed by God with the reward of a baby. Or was it that God knew she needed to "experience a crisis"? Wasn't the rape a crisis? But of course, God couldn't cause that; so he just allowed the rape and used it to create the crisis of having a baby.

And how many times do I have to repeat myself regarding abortion equating to murder? In the scenarios that lend themselves to self-defense which have been presented numerous times (life-threat to the mother, serious mental/psychological/emotional/physical threat to a rape/incest victim), I see abortion as equaling self-defentse, not murder. In the cases of convenience etc., where these other causes are not involved, I see abortion as murder. Just as all killings are not murder, neither are all abortions. You seem to agree with that yourself when talking to CCC, yet you question my stance in this?

It is an extremely large assumption on your part that if a baby is produced from a rape or incest, that God has chosen for this to happen in order to redeem the bad situation. And it is only your opinion (which is okay for you) that I share in the guilt of someone I pray with for God's understanding and mercy in a dire situation. I'm glad I'm not counting on your grace. Or mine either, for that matter.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/17/2007 1:51:55 PM
Message:

ChristianFaith, the reason I posted the story about the world's youngest mother was to point out perhaps a few things. Through an abnormal development of this young girl, she was physically capable of being impregnated at a very early age, yet her body was still young, her mind was not that of an adult, and she was not given an option or understanding of what was happening to her until she was 7 and a half months pregnant. Supposedly, they thought she had a tumor.

How the girl became pregnant is still not known, as far as who the father of the baby was, or if the girl was forcibly raped, or just taught by someone older that what they were doing was natural and she submitted willingly (still rape). Either way, had anyone known about the rape they would not have expected a pregnancy, yet when signs developed, what might have been done? It opens many questions for sure.

Although she was physically able to bear the child, c-section was the only reasonable course of birth. And she didn't even think of this child as her baby...just a brother. She didn't even like playing with him - she prefered her dolls. What was her mental or emotional state?

It was just an interesting article that should cause us to think twice about our views. Take it as you will.

Should we think that because of the abnormality in quick development, God actually wanted her to have a baby at the age of 5?


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/17/2007 2:36:22 PM
Message:

quote:
And how many times do I have to repeat myself regarding abortion equating to murder? In the scenarios that lend themselves to self-defense which have been presented numerous times (life-threat to the mother, serious mental/psychological/emotional/physical threat to a rape/incest victim), I see abortion as equaling self-defentse, not murder.


FA,
The answer to that question is how many times do you feel you have to repeat something that is your opinion?


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/17/2007 2:39:15 PM
Message:

FA
This is not a personal attack but before I put any stock in the story of the world's youngest mother I would have to see what the proof is that it is indeed true.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/17/2007 2:47:41 PM
Message:

preacherpaul, I repeated my opinion because Vox asked for it. Read his post; he posed the question and I answered. But I had already stated my opinion on this many times before.

Yes, they are my opinions; I don't claim any kind of Biblical superiority over anybody else here, but I'm not ignorant of God's word either. Your opinions are yours as well. We just don't agree.

As for the truthfulness of the 5 year old mother, since it happened in the late 30s, I wasn't there, and can't personally vouch for it. But the link I provided also had additional links to other sites which vouch for it as well. Snopes.com is a great site for researching "urban legends" and other hoaxes to determine validity, and they agree that it is true. If you do go to the Snopes site for their view, please be advised that there is a picture of the 5 year old, fully pregnant, and unclothed (side view). If you find this offensive, don't check that site, go to another one.


Reply author: almccann
Replied on: 02/17/2007 2:54:55 PM
Message:

I have a question? I can understand that when the life of the mother is threatened that one could possible see abortion as a means of self-defense. However how can one see abortion as self-defense in the case of rape? Is the unborn baby threatening the mother in someway? Will the mother die if the baby is born?

An interesting concept you make is that you equate abortion as self-defense in the case of rape/incest and in the case of protecting the life of the mother. Which shows that you see abortion as killing. Also would you think it approprate for a mother to kill her unborn baby if the baby was going to handicapped, have a birth defect or maybe be mental disabled in someway? Think of all the agony and trauma that the parents would be saved so would this also fit into self-defense?

Also just for the record when one says they are pro-choice in America they are not advocating abortion in extreme cases such as, saftey of the mother, rape, or incest. They are advocating abortion be freely avaiable to all for any reason. Since this is the law of the land. To use those arguements is simply an effort to cloud the issue. To change the discussion from the real issue to the smoking gun that you desire to make it.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/17/2007 3:03:06 PM
Message:

FA,
Thanks for pointing out those links, I'll check it out.












Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/17/2007 3:13:55 PM
Message:

almccann, I hope you don't think that I'm pro-choice. I've tried to make that clear. No, I don't think that abortion to stop from having a deformed or retarded baby is the same as what I've been talking about. And yes, I do think that all abortion is killing; I just don't equate all killing to murder.

I do agree with the thought that abortion is not the best "first option" and that if the victim can be counselled to carry the baby, that is the best result. But I can't speak for that rape/incest victim, her mental/physical/emotional/psychological state and whether that state could cause a comple meltdown in any or all of those areas. I am not going to stand to say that all abortion is absolutely wrong and anyone who has one is completely opposing God. Sometimes those tough choices are extremely difficult, and they can't be made by you or me.

Yes, the unborn baby is innocent, but that does not necessarily make him/her less of a threat. Hypothetical situations are not always a "smokescreen", but they can at times help us to gain a truer picture of our bottom line beliefs.

Here's a wild one for you: you have a 12 year old daughter who is being attacked by a severely, mentally retarded man, who is going to throw acid of some type on her. The only way you can stop this from happening is to shoot him, which will kill him. Don't throw in other arguments such as, "I'll just shoot to injure or scare," or "I'll throw something at him." Going solely on the scenario as given, your two options are your daughter will be damaged and scarred for life, or you will kill the man attacking her.

Given this scenario, most people who are opposed to killing would not want to answer this directly. After all, your daughter would only be scarred and damaged for life, but the innocent man (severly retarded and not able to discern right from wrong) would be killed.

Yes, it's bizarre. No, it is not likely to happen as it has been given. But the reason for the question is simply this: when it comes down to do or don't do, most sensible people, in my opinion, would do what was necessary to save their daughter - or any innocent girl - from life-long suffering and damage.


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/17/2007 4:08:08 PM
Message:

Yes that is a bizarre senario. Which one is innocent the mentally disabled man or the girl. You call them both innocent, which one are you comparing to the unborn child.

I see the girl in the story as being the unborn child and yes, under the senario I would shoot to kill the individual if he wouldn't stop and was intent on bring harm to my child.


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/17/2007 5:18:34 PM
Message:


F.A. Syndicroud & Almccann,

FAS:
"I believe you're trying to jump both sides of the issue here and debate everything everyone else has to say."

There are more than just two positions being advocated. Interacting with the other positions is how we get somewhere in conversation.

FAS: "To say that it is not God's will for a woman to be raped, but if a baby is conceived from that, the woman must accept that God wanted her to get pregnant is an absurdity beyond belief."

No it isn't.

FAS: . . . "Did he cause the rape? Absolutely not! Did he cause the impregnation? According to you, absolutely so!"

According to Psalm 127:3, "Children are a heritage from the LORD." Inasmuch as children are from the LORD, and you have just referred to the conceived entity as "a baby," what keeps you from logically concluding that contingent upon the rape (which God did not want to happen), it was God's will, in that particular case, to give the baby?

FAS: "How many times do I have to repeat myself regarding abortion equating to murder?"

Since you've said that you deny the premise that abortion is murder, an explanation (such as what you said in a more recent post) was in order.

FAS: [black]"In the scenarios that lend themselves to self-defense which have been presented numerous times (life-threat to the mother, serious mental/psychological/emotional/physical threat to a rape/incest victim), I see abortion as equaling self-defense, not murder."[black]

And therein we partly agree. In irremediable life-threatening circumstances, such as ectopic pregnancies, the procurement of an abortion may be regarded as an act of self-defense.

But we disagree when it comes to "serious mental/psychological/emotional" threats. And the objections I made earlier against your approach are still there, waiting for your response.

FAS: "In the cases of convenience etc., where these other causes are not involved, I see abortion as murder."

Should I deduce from this that you consider a human individual to be a person from conception onward?

FAS: "Just as all killings are not murder, neither are all abortions. You seem to agree with that yourself when talking to CCC, yet you question my stance in this?"

Yes, I did, since you said that you question the premise that abortion equals murder. Now you've clarified that for me: your position is that some abortions are murder, and others are not murder, depending on the circumstances. Thanks.

FAS: "It is an extremely large assumption on your part that if a baby is produced from a rape or incest, that God has chosen for this to happen in order to redeem the bad situation."

No it's not. The assumption involved is that children are a gift from the LORD.

FAS: "And it is only your opinion (which is okay for you) that I share in the guilt of someone I pray with for God's understanding and mercy in a dire situation."

It's not merely my opinion. You are objectively wrong if you provide moral support for someone who is procuring an elective abortion. Abortions to relieve mental/psychological/emotional stress are elective; the baby does not have to be killed in order for the mother to survive. As Almccann asked, "Will the mother die if the baby is born?" If not, then such cases cannot be justified as self-defensive measures.

Almccann: "When one says they are pro-choice in America they are not advocating abortion in extreme cases such as, safety of the mother, rape, or incest. They are advocating abortion be freely available to all for any reason."

Yes, that's basically true (though a lot of "pro-choicers" oppose gender-selective abortions). And if a law were to be passed that allowed abortion only if a woman claimed that she was undergoing psychological stress due to the pregnancy, that would be like no law at all.

Almccann: "To use those arguments is simply an effort to cloud the issue."

Not entirely. Any future law restricting abortion will have to take anomalous situations into account. Plus, as far as answering the initial question, "Are there ever moral grounds for abortion?", it's probably a good idea to consider special cases.

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: almccann
Replied on: 02/17/2007 9:22:23 PM
Message:

quote:
Not entirely. Any future law restricting abortion will have to take anomalous situations into account. Plus, as far as answering the initial question, "Are there ever moral grounds for abortion?", it's probably a good idea to consider special cases.



Vox: While I agree with your conclussion that is not the purpose of the the arguement when someone who is pro-abortion brings them up. Instead the purpose is to cloud the issue and make people think that we either have no restrictions on abortion or we have no abortions at all.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/18/2007 05:51:22 AM
Message:

Vox, what you state is still merely your opininon. Just because you state that it isn't, doesn't make it anything more. Yes, I'm sure there are many others who agree with your opinion, just as there are many others who agree with mine; and yet they are still just opinions.

quote:
FAS: "To say that it is not God's will for a woman to be raped, but if a baby is conceived from that, the woman must accept that God wanted her to get pregnant is an absurdity beyond belief."

No it isn't.
Yes it is. Your turn.

All abortions (unless done by force against the pregnant woman's will) are elective. You seem to make the distinctions that fit your views, but if an abortion is chosen for any reason, by definition it is elective.

Indeed I believe children are a gift from the Lord. But does this mean that all children are gifts from the Lord? In your mind your are comfortable with that. Fine. But the logic used to assert that would not work in other situations.

Just because God may have allowed a pregnancy to take place from a violent, undesired, sexual attack, does not mean that God chose to bless the victim with a baby. That doesn't mean that the children God gives to couples who lovingly plan to have and raise a family, aren't gifts from Him.

To force the idea that the word "all" is invisibly intended in that statement ("all" children are a gift from God) only serves one purpose: to fit the view that in these types of cases, abortion is wrong. In my opinion, this is adding to what the scripture actually says.

You still seem to miss the point of the mental/physical/emotional/psychological stress that I'm referring to; it is only in cases of rape/incest. It is not for those who "weren't ready" to become parents, but were ready to have sex. It is not for those who practiced "safe sex" and were surprised anyway. In other words, it is not in case of "accident."

Bottom line, life-threat to mother, rape/incest, are all situations, in my opinion, that at least have a reasonable understanding that, if after counselling the choice for abortion is necessary (no, you won't ever accept that), then I believe that even though it might not be the "best" option, it is still an option.

And I hope this is enough on my part of this topic.


Reply author: almccann
Replied on: 02/18/2007 12:28:56 PM
Message:

quote:
You still seem to miss the point of the mental/physical/emotional/psychological stress that I'm referring to;


You also seem to miss the point of the mental/physical/emotional and psycholgical stress that comes about from committing extreme acts of violence ones self.

Although you will never get any counsleing from the abortion clinics about this extreme act of violence that the mother is performing upon her child. Never the less it is still true and many many women have to deal with that for the rest of their lives.

You ever hear pro-abortion people speak about abortion. This is a tough decision for a women to make. this is a very trying and emotional decision that a woman must make and she alone should have the right to make this tough truamatic decision. Why do they talk like that? What is so tough about this decision?


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/18/2007 1:53:07 PM
Message:


F.A. Syndicroud,

FAS:
"Vox, what you state is still merely your opinion."

No it isn't; my statement that it's morally wrong to provide moral support for a woman as she procures an abortion that is not necessary for her survival is based on Scripture (you know -- that "Thou shalt not commit murder" stuff). It's not just my opinion that is is wrong to assist in the taking of an innocent human life to relieve the mental suffering of another human being (an act which would, itself, tend to cause fresh mental suffering).

FAS:
"Just because you state that it isn't, doesn't make it anything more."

And I'm not saying that I am the one saying that that would be wrong. I'm saying that God says that that would be wrong. We're not dealing with subjective matters of opinion, like what toppings belong on a pizza.

FAS:
"I'm sure there are many others who agree with your opinion, just as there are many others who agree with mine; and yet they are still just opinions."

We are attempting to apply God's Word, which is objectively true, to situations which are objectively real (or objectively realistic). Whatever conclusions we draw, regardless of how sincerely they are held, will thus qualify as beliefs -- and two opposite beliefs about objective quantities cannot both be correct. These are not mere evaluation-proof opinions; they are beliefs, and interpretations, which regardless of the sincerity with which they are held, are either right or wrong.

FAS:
(After he said, "To say that it is not God's will for a woman to be raped, but if a baby is conceived from that, the woman must accept that God wanted her to get pregnant is an absurdity beyond belief," and I said, "No it isn't.") "Yes it is. Your turn."

No it isn't, and here's why: the Bible says that children are a gift from the LORD. What Scripture do you propose using to support your assertion that a particular child is not a gift from the LORD? Frankly it looks like you're not relying on Scripture at all, but on rationalization.

FAS:
"All abortions (unless done by force against the pregnant woman's will) are elective."

Technically that's true, but I think you know exactly what sort of distinction is meant. A situation in which an abortion is procured because the mother will very likely not survive the pregnancy if an abortion is not performed is different from a situation in which an abortion is procured because the mother will undergo psychological anguish unless an abortion is performed. In this context, the term "elective" refers to abortions which are not medically necessary to preserve life. (We probably should've defined terms earlier.)

FAS:
"Indeed I believe children are a gift from the Lord. But does this mean that all children are gifts from the Lord?"

Yes. Who else do you suppose gives them? A chaos-deity?

FAS:
"In your mind your are comfortable with that."

Of course I'm comfortable with it, because the Scripture says that
children are a heritage from the LORD. It's not as if the text says, "Every child except Kevin is a gift from the LORD," or, "Every child, except children conceived outside of wedlock, is a gift from the LORD," or, "Every child, unless conceived as a result of rape, is a gift from the LORD." If you're going to insert exceptions, why not say that every child, except children who would inconvenience their mother, is a gift from the LORD, or that every child, except unwanted children, is a gift from the LORD?

FAS:
"But the logic used to assert that would not work in other situations."

That wasn't logic, F.A.; that was reading.

FAS:
"Just because God may have allowed a pregnancy to take place from a violent, undesired, sexual attack, does not mean that God chose to bless the victim with a baby."

I'm not saying that such a thing means that. I'm saying that Psalm 127:3 means that (if, in fact, a baby is in the womb), and that the circumstance of a rape does not make Psalm 127:3 untrue.

FAS:
"To force the idea that the word "all" is invisibly intended in that statement ("all" children are a gift from God) only serves one purpose: to fit the view that in these types of cases, abortion is wrong."

I'm not forcing the word "all" into Psalm 127:3. A universal nuance is built into the statement. You're forcing the word "some" into Psalm 127:3 -- to fit the view that in these types of cases, abortion is permissible. Clearly you understand Psalm 127:3 to mean, "Some children are a gift from the LORD, but not others."

FAS:
"In my opinion, this is adding to what the scripture actually says."

And once again your opinion/belief is incorrect. When God says that He is the one who gives children, without spelling out that A-L-L children are gifts from Him, you think there's a loophole: since He didn't say, "All children," but only said, "Children," there may be some children who aren't gifts from God. Can you not see that such an approach toward Scripture is specious? It is a hermeneutic of negligence.

FAS:
"You still seem to miss the point of the mental/physical/emotional/psychological stress that I'm referring to; it is only in cases of rape/incest."

That seems inconsistent on your part. First, if compassion for the mother -- i.e., an intent to relieve mental stress -- is what you see as the justifying factor, then it would be equally justifying if a woman who was married, and whose husband had impregnated her, was undergoing such mental stress. Second, physical endangerment can happen irregardless of whether a rape occurred.

FAS:
"It is not for those who "weren't ready" to become parents, but were ready to have sex. It is not for those who practiced "safe sex" and were surprised anyway. In other words, it is not in case of "accident."

In light of what you just said, I must conclude that if a pregnant woman was undergoing mental/emotional/psychological stress because of the pregnancy, but the pregnancy was not the result of rape or incest, you would tell her that it would be wrong to attempt to relieve her suffering by procuring an abortion. Right?

FAS:
"Bottom line, life-threat to mother, rape/incest, are all situations, in my opinion, that at least have a reasonable understanding that, if after counselling the choice for abortion is necessary (no, you won't ever accept that), then I believe that even though it might not be the "best" option, it is still an option."

You're right about one thing: I won't ever accept the idea that it is necessary to relieve a mother's mental stress by killing her baby.

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/18/2007 2:06:53 PM
Message:

Posted by Vox:

quote:
F.A. Syndicroud,

FAS: "Vox, what you state is still merely your opinion."

No it isn't; my statement that it's morally wrong to provide moral support for a woman as she procures an abortion that is not necessary for her survival is based on Scripture (you know -- that "Thou shalt not commit murder" stuff). It's not just my opinion that is is wrong to assist in the taking of an innocent human life to relieve the mental suffering of another human being (an act which would, itself, tend to cause fresh mental suffering).

Vox, it is still your opinion, based upon your understanding of scripture. If you were the top authority in the hermeneutics and exegesis of scripture then this discussion would not be necessary. The world would turn to you for the answer.

There are many Biblical scholars who differ in many areas of the scriptures, and I'm sure that you have differences (and so do I) with many of them. That's why it comes down to the fact that we are only speaking our opinions based on our understanding. No matter how strongly you feel about this or any other subject, simply stating your position does not establish authority.

Just because God may allow something to take place does not make it his expressed will. Just because God allowed an unusual, but natural event such as impregnation due to a sexual act, through rape, does not mean that God has chosen to "gift" this woman with a child.

We disagree. And I'll leave it at that.


Reply author: Jim Bird
Replied on: 02/18/2007 2:47:38 PM
Message:

Vox,

Your (implied)statement is that conception is an act of God, that occurs outside of the normal and natural biological function of humans. That, I believe, cannot be established scripturally. Psalms 127:3 cannot be taken to mean that each and every child, no matter what the circumstances, represents a gift from God. That is ludicrous. The child who kills the mother in childbirth is not a gift to that mother. And there are many many occasions today in which that is the case. The same of course is true for the child that is still born. Those are not acts of God any more than the conception itself is the act of God.

Psalm 127:3 is of course a truism in the sense that the human being is a special being to God and God created man like the rest of the animal kingdom to reproduce itself after its own kind.

Many times in the scriptures, it says that God gives us rain and thus it is a gift from God. But under no circumstances would you conclude that rain is always to be considered a blessing.

If you believe that then conception seems to be a rather arbitrary starting point. Conception is simply one step in the procreation process and not the first step, thus every step prior to conception must also be held to the same level of sanctity. Contraception which obviously hinders God's attempt to give a gift must be unacceptable.

You have crawled out on a limb which I am, quite frankly, surprised to find you.

Jim


Reply author: CCC
Replied on: 02/18/2007 3:04:17 PM
Message:

quote:
They will still be human something. But will they both have human souls at that moment, or will each be a batch of unique human material capable of eventually emanating a soul? That is the question.
Of course I can not say, no one can. I will leave that up to the Creator. But I will give my opinion. I do think once a human is created in the physical realm that God gives a soul to him/her.

quote:
Before I look at that argument, let me look at what you just wrote: "No one knows the exact time." If no one knows the exact time -- or the approximate stage -- at which a soul begins to be emanated, doesn't that make it awfully difficult to say that all abortions are murder?

Yes.

quote:
Destroying a soulless human body is not the same moral act as destroying a human body which is known to have a soul.
Questionable. From your argument's side, I would agree. But only on those terms.
quote:
That seems like essentially another way of stating the question, "At what stage is a soul present?". That's what we're looking into.
Probably. I was just reenstating the situation.


quote:
Thus it looks like you would be okay with a law that allowed rape victims to receive emergency contraception, or to have their wombs cleansed, within a week after the rape. Am I correct?
Immediately after, I guess I would be okay with it. If the union has not happened yet. Then to me it would be like killing off skin cells. A cleansing as you put it.

quote:
You're just re-stating your view here! Granting that the zygote is a new organism, and that the organism is human, this does not settle the question of whether or not a soul is present at the zygote-stage.
Sometimes I repeat myself so I know what I am talking about.
quote:
Of course zygotes produced by human parents are human. But do zygotes have souls, or are they the first stage of a developing body which will, at a later stage, emanate a soul? If you're going to say "Zygotes have souls," please explain why you think that zygotes have souls. (I probably won't point out that a definite statement that zygotes have souls might collide somewhat with your earlier statement to the effect that no one knows the exact time. Did you mean that no one knows the exact time of conception?)
Because I think life is very precious to God. I think His greatest and most valued of creation is something He would not leave as a colloid. Just like being reborn, there is no in-between state. You were dead and Wham! you are alive again.

quote:
I don't think that Christ was ever "just an object." My point in this regard is that the Incarnation was a miracle involving the pre-existent Word, and because our pre-birth development is not miraculous (in a strict theological sense, I mean), and does not involve the incarnation of a pre-existent being, extrapolations based on Christ's miraculous incarnation are bound to be tenuous. (They might be interesting, and even suggestive -- but still tenuous.)
Miracle yes, but He was man in every way. The conception was miraculous but was anything else about His birth? I would tend to say no. Once conception was placed in Mary, then the natural world of man laid its course.


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/18/2007 3:44:42 PM
Message:

This subject has caused me to do a lot of web searches and one as 66% of all fertilized eggs never survive to become living humans, they don't attach. A fact I did not know.

This is making wonder if the soul is given after implantation, unless God has decided to yank two-thirds of all souls from this world every day without chance to be born.

???????


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 02/18/2007 5:24:01 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by ima Browns fan

This subject has caused me to do a lot of web searches and one as 66% of all fertilized eggs never survive to become living humans, they don't attach. A fact I did not know.

This is making wonder if the soul is given after implantation, unless God has decided to yank two-thirds of all souls from this world every day without chance to be born.

???????



Answers in Genesis is a good website to look at.


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/18/2007 8:28:29 PM
Message:

JimBird,

JB:
"Your (implied) statement is that conception is an act of God, that occurs outside of the normal and natural biological function of humans."

It implies no such thing. What it implies is that when a child is given, that child is given by God. It does not mean that that child is given by God in a miraculous (the water-to-wine kind of miraculous) way, outside of biological mechanisms.

JB:
"Psalms 127:3 cannot be taken to mean that each and every child, no matter what the circumstances, represents a gift from God."

Then who is to be thanked for the child? The chaos-god?

JB:
"The child who kills the mother in childbirth is not a gift to that mother."

But a gift, nonetheless -- if not to the mother, then to the family, to the world. Was Benjamin any less a gift from God because his birth resulted in the death of Rachel? Are you saying that God had nothing to do with the conception and implantation of the zygote that was to develop into an embryo, which was to develop into a fetus, which was to be born and named Benjamin? If you can't say that in the case of Benjamin, how can you say that in other cases?

JB:
"The same of course is true for the child that is still born."

The fatality of the child was not a gift from God; that fatality, like human death in general, was an effect of sin. The presence of the child while he was alive, though, was a gift from God. You probably would not say that a child who died at age 9 was obviously not the gift of God because he died when nine years old. So why are you saying that a child who died when nine months old (counting from conception) was obviously not the gift of God? A gift tragically lost or stolen is no less a gift.

JB:
"Psalm 127:3 is of course a truism in the sense that the human being is a special being to God and God created man like the rest of the animal kingdom to reproduce itself after its own kind."

It's true that human beings are a special species, and it's true that God commissioned man with the responsibility, as a species, to be fruitful and multiply. But that is not what Psalm 127:3 says, Jim. It doesn't just say that God arranged for a human husband and a human wife to produce human children. It says that children are a heritage from the Lord. That means that children are not randomly generated products of a random process. That means that the production of each child is providentially arranged.

JB:
"Many times in the scriptures, it says that God gives us rain and thus it is a gift from God. But under no circumstances would you conclude that rain is always to be considered a blessing."

This looks like it might lead us into a tangent, but, to what verses are you referring? And, are you suggesting that if something has hazardous or inconvenient effects, the thing itself cannot be a gift from God? Couldn't one consider the thing itself to be a gift (especially if God explicitly says, "This is a gift from Me"), and the hazardous or inconvenient effects to be repercussions of sin and the Fall? Certainly two-year-old children were given by God, but that does not mean that all their effects are convenient and non-hazardous. Nor does it mean that they should be considered as if quarantined from other blessings. (Along similar lines, the blessing of human intelligence may be used to avail oneself of an umbrella, so as to enjoy the blessing of rain -- as it waters the fields -- without the inconvenience of getting drenched.)

JB:
"If you believe that" (i.e., that all children are a gift from God) "then conception seems to be a rather arbitrary starting point."

I don't grant that it's arbitrary, inasmuch as there can be no earlier point at which a child may be present. (Im not saying that a child is present at conception, just that a child is not present before conception.)

JB:
"Conception is simply one step in the procreation process and not the first step, thus every step prior to conception must also be held to the same level of sanctity."

What does contraception have to do with the price of tea in China? The question -- or, rather, the sub-question -- was, "Are all children a gift from God?" Whatever morality-rating one assigns to contraception, even if one considers it morally wrong, it does not involve killing a child. (Unless you're talking about abortifacient forms of contraception.) So far nothing you've said undermines the idea that every child is a gift from God.

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: Jim Bird
Replied on: 02/19/2007 05:02:19 AM
Message:

Vox,

JB: "Your (implied) statement is that conception is an act of God, that occurs outside of the normal and natural biological function of humans."

Vox: "It implies no such thing. What it implies is that when a child is given, that child is given by God. It does not mean that that child is given by God in a miraculous (the water-to-wine kind of miraculous) way, outside of biological mechanisms."

It implies exactly that. Everything that happens, happens through cause and effect. The cause is either the process that God established or the cause is God apart from the process. In the case it is God, then it is not the process and therefore not the natural. It cannot be both. If the gift is to be taken in the sense that you imply, then the childless couple who are desparately wanting a child must also believe that God is withholding that gift from them.

JB: "Psalms 127:3 cannot be taken to mean that each and every child, no matter what the circumstances, represents a gift from God."

Vox: "Then who is to be thanked for the child? The chaos-god?"

It is God of course who is to be thanked. He is to be thanked in the same sense as James meant in James 1:17 when he said "every good gift and every prefect gift is from above"

JB: "The child who kills the mother in childbirth is not a gift to that mother."

Vox: "But a gift, nonetheless -- if not to the mother, then to the family, to the world. Was Benjamin any less a gift from God because his birth resulted in the death of Rachel? Are you saying that God had nothing to do with the conception and implantation of the zygote that was to develop into an embryo, which was to develop into a fetus, which was to be born and named Benjamin? If you can't say that in the case of Benjamin, how can you say that in other cases?"

By that same argument, then Hitler was God's gift to the world.

And also by your argument, what God did for Abraham and Sarah in the case of Isaac was the same gift that he gives to all who are blessed with children.

Seriously, your concept of gift is whatever you can make it out to be to support the view that you are expressing here. That complete lack of logic is not like you.


JB: "The same of course is true for the child that is still born."

Vox: "The fatality of the child was not a gift from God; that fatality, like human death in general, was an effect of sin."

You are bouncing back and forth between the general and the specific when it suits your fancy. If God is the specific cause of the the contraception then He also is the speific cause of the death. In fact neither are the result of a specific intervening God.

Vox: "The presence of the child while he was alive, though, was a gift from God. You probably would not say that a child who died at age 9 was obviously not the gift of God because he died when nine years old. So why are you saying that a child who died when nine months old (counting from conception) was obviously not the gift of God? A gift tragically lost or stolen is no less a gift."

If I called you and told you that I was bringing you a gift of a million dollars but then "lost" it on the way to your house, my guess is that you would object to the IRS taxing you on that million dollars. Timing is key. The stillborne is not a gift to anyone, even though there might be some good thing come out of it.

JB: "Psalm 127:3 is of course a truism in the sense that the human being is a special being to God and God created man like the rest of the animal kingdom to reproduce itself after its own kind."

Vox: "It's true that human beings are a special species, and it's true that God commissioned man with the responsibility, as a species, to be fruitful and multiply. But that is not what Psalm 127:3 says, Jim. It doesn't just say that God arranged for a human husband and a human wife to produce human children. It says that children are a heritage from the Lord. That means that children are not randomly generated products of a random process. That means that the production of each child is providentially arranged."

And here we get to the heart of it and to the error of your view. If by providentially arranged you mean the natural system of physical laws governing the cause and effect, i.e., the general providence of God, then yes providence is the cause. And so is rain, and so is sunshine. But if you are trying to argue that Psalm 127:3 means that child birth is a result of God's special providence, i.e., by God's intervention into the processes that He himslef established, they I think you are absolutely wrong. That God occasionally did intervene, such as the case of Abraham and Sarah to give them Isaac and the case of Mary to give her and us Jesus, is true. To trivialized God's intervention for occasions such as those to claim that every child is the same providential gift is just wrong. It also means that every tragedy that occurs at conception, such as mental and physical defects that arise in conception is also God's providential gift. I don't believe that and I really don't think you do either.

JB: "If you believe that" (i.e., that all children are a gift from God) "then conception seems to be a rather arbitrary starting point."

Vox: "I don't grant that it's arbitrary, inasmuch as there can be no earlier point at which a child may be present. (Im not saying that a child is present at conception, just that a child is not present before conception.)"

But then a child is not present before intercourse either. Or after intercourse during the time that the sperm is making its way to the egg, or before the sperm has penetrated the wall and fertilized the egg. Just where exactly would you like to place God's intervention into the process?

Except in the very special cases such as Isaac and Jesus, the conception and birth of the child is basically controlled by the natural processes of procreation. God does not providentially intervene into the physcial process of child bearing. The physical process of the birth of a human child is no more and no less providential than the birht of any of the higher animals. What God does providentially intervene into is the spiritual, i.e., giving to the child his/her spirit. That is not given in any physical porcess that we are aware of, yet we know that it happens. God says that each has a spirit.

The giving of the spirit is special providence; that happens outside of the natural system that God has established for the functioning of the His creation. That is the key to this whole question. When does that occur? When you can answer that you have established the difference between preventing a pregnacy and killing a child.

Jim


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/19/2007 06:05:50 AM
Message:

Hey Guys
Just out of curiosity, what is your take on Psalm 51:5?


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/19/2007 06:17:24 AM
Message:

I have two thoughts on this verse.

(1) This is a song, or a poem, that David has written with a penitent heart that has truly recognized his guilt. The language and thoughts are not all necessarily "facts" as they are stated, rather they are poetic in nature. In this statement I don't believe that David actually thought he had sinned before he was ever developed, from the moment of conception. That is not something that is supported anywhere else in scripture, so why would we assume that it was true for David? It appears to be more likely a cry of his own sense of guilt in what he has done with Bathsheba and what he did to Uriah. It expresses the depth of his sinfulness, not the actual timing. Apparently God didn't see him as that sinful from birth; he was God's chosen to be annointed as king.

(2) Although no one is born with guilt from sin, everyone is born with a sinful nature, or the natural inclination to yield to tempation at some point. This means that at some time we will all choose to sin. "All have sinned and fall short..." backs up this thought.


Reply author: Jim Bird
Replied on: 02/19/2007 06:48:44 AM
Message:

I think this is one of the verses that is used to establish or defend the idea of original sin. But I think that is not the message. But it does seem that David is acknowledging a certain propensity to sin. That is not orignial sin.

Jim


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/19/2007 09:02:30 AM
Message:

JimBird,

I hope this post clears up what appear to be some misunderstandings of what I'm trying to say.

JB:
"Everything that happens, happens through cause and effect. The cause is either the process that God established or the cause is God apart from the process."

You're confusing causes with means. If I throw a snowball and it sails through the air in a way consistent with the laws of physics, and hits someone, I cannot say that it was the laws of physics, and not me, that caused the snowball to hit that person, even though the snowball would not have hit that person without the brief process in which the snowball sailed through the air.

JB:
"In the case it is God, then it is not the process and therefore not the natural. It cannot be both."

It can be God, working through and using a process. The distinction you're making is artificial, because God can use processes as the means to give gifts. Credit for the gift goes to the Creator, the Giver, not to the creation.

JB:
"If the gift is to be taken in the sense that you imply, then the childless couple who are desparately wanting a child must also believe that God is withholding that gift from them."

So? The observation that the couple's desire is not in perfect sync with God's will does not impact anything I've said.

(Previously: JB: "Psalms 127:3 cannot be taken to mean that each and every child, no matter what the circumstances, represents a gift from God." Vox: "Then who is to be thanked for the child? The chaos-god?")
JB: "It is God of course who is to be thanked. He is to be thanked in the same sense as James meant in James 1:17 when he said "every good gift and every perfect gift is from above.""

Why would you thank God for a gift that He did not give?


JB: "By that same argument, then Hitler was God's gift to the world."

When Adolph Hitler was initially given, he was a gift from God. Within his mother's womb, the baby that would soon be named Adolph was not a ruthless dictator; he was not an anti-Semite; he was an innocent baby. The sort of person that he became had to do with what he did and the choices he made.


JB: "And also by your argument, what God did for Abraham and Sarah in the case of Isaac was the same gift that he gives to all who are blessed with children."

I agree. In all such cases, God gave a gift. But, assuming that Sarah's conception of Isaac was miraculous, the means by which the gift was given in that case was not the same as the means by which the gift of a child is given in other cases.

JB:
"You are bouncing back and forth between the general and the specific when it suits your fancy."

You were referring to something that Scripture defines as a gift, and then you referred to something that Scripture does not define as a gift, and I pointed out that you were changing the focus. It was your sentence that was "bouncing back and forth;" my reply was just following your line of reasoning.

JB:
"If God is the specific cause of the the contraception then He also is the cause of the specific death. In fact neither are the result of a specific intervening God."

. . . What?!?! . . .

When I said,
"The presence of the child while he was alive, though, was a gift from God. You probably would not say that a child who died at age 9 was obviously not the gift of God because he died when nine years old. So why are you saying that a child who died when nine months old (counting from conception) was obviously not the gift of God? A gift tragically lost or stolen is no less a gift." you said, "If I called you and told you that I was bringing you a gift of a million dollars but then "lost" it on the way to your house, my guess is that you would object to the IRS taxing you on that million dollars. Timing is key. The stillborne is not a gift to anyone, even though there might be some good thing come out of it."

First, you ignored my point!
Second, your story is not analogous. Of course I would object to being taxed on money I never received, but for the analogy to work, the baby would have to never be received -- but if a baby is already present, in the womb, then obviously, a baby has been given and received (even if the baby dies at birth). And thus your analogy collapses.

After I said (referring to Psalm 127:3),
"It doesn't just say that God arranged for a human husband and a human wife to produce human children. It says that children are a heritage from the Lord. That means that children are not randomly generated products of a random process. That means that the production of each child is providentially arranged,"
you said,

"And here we get to the heart of it and to the error of your view."


Rather, here is where we get to the error of your approach, which confuses the miraculous and the providential.

JB:
"If by providentially arranged you mean the natural system of physical laws governing the cause and effect, i.e., the general providence of God, then yes providence is the cause."

No; God is the cause, and providential arrangement is the means.

JB:
"But if you are trying to argue that Psalm 127:3 means that child birth is a result of God's special providence, i.e., by God's intervention into the processes that He himself established, they I think you are absolutely wrong."

That's not what I am trying to argue. Moreover, by definition, it would not be "providence" if God intervened into a natural process. That would be a miracle.

JB:
"That God occasionally did intervene, such as the case of Abraham and Sarah to give them Isaac and the case of Mary to give her and us Jesus, is true."

Working on the premise that the conception of Isaac was a miracle, yes; those are cases of direct divine intervention. Miracles.


JB: "To trivialize God's intervention for occasions such as those to claim that every child is the same providential gift is just wrong."

I am not saying that miracles occur every time a zygote forms, is implanted, and progresses in the womb to the tenth week of conception. Neither am I saying that the means by which Isaac and Jesus were given was "providential." I don't know why you referred to those two cases as "providential," but if you think they were miraculous -- certainly this was the case with Jesus; I think this was the case with Isaac also -- then the term "providential" isn't the right adjective to describe them.

You seem to be saying that because every child is not given miraculously -- like Isaac and Jesus -- then it would be "just wrong" to claim that every child is given by God's providential arrangement. But that conclusion simply does not proceed from that premise. If God gives two (or more) babies by miraculous means, and God gives billions of babies by non-miraculous means, it is still God giving the babies.

JB:
"It also means that every tragedy that occurs at conception, such as mental and physical defects that arise in conception is also God's providential gift. I don't believe that and I really don't think you do either."

I'm not sure what tragedies at conception you have in mind. Genetic anomalies? Trisomy 13?

JB:
"A child is not present before intercourse either."

Of course not; we completely agree.

JB:
"Or after intercourse during the time that the sperm is making its way to the egg, or before the sperm has penetrated the wall and fertilized the egg."

Again we completely agree.

JB:
"Just where exactly would you like to place God's intervention into the process?"

"Intervention" isn't the right word, since I'm arguing for providential arrangment, not positing a miracle. I would place God's providential arrangement before the foundations of the world.

JB:
"God does not providentially intervene into the physical process of child bearing."

If God was directly intervening, that would not be providential; that would be miraculous.

JB:
"The physical process of the birth of a human child is no more and no less providential than the birth of any of the higher animals."

The physical process of the growth of grain and grapes is providentially arranged, too. But those animals, however providentially provided, are animals, and providentially provided grain and grapes are still grain and grapes. Providentially provided animals and grain and grapes may be treated as what they are. A providentially provided child is a child, and should be treated as what he is.

JB:
"What God does providentially intervene into is the spiritual, i.e., giving to the child his/her spirit."

The words "providentially" and "intervene" don't go together. "Providential intervention" seems like a bit of an oxymoron, since on-the-spot intervention would be miraculous, not providential.

JB:
"That is not given in any physical process that we are aware of, yet we know that it happens. God says that each has a spirit."

So an important question is, how is that spirit given? or, how does that spirit originate? A fairly strong case can be made that there is evidence that a soul is emanating from the embryonic body at about the tenth week. This does not occur as the result of special divine intervention, as if miracles are happening within the wombs of pregnant women around the tenth week, as the embryo's nervous system develops.

JB:
"The giving of the spirit is special providence; that happens outside of the natural system that God has established for the functioning of the His creation."

Again you mix up providence as non-providence. When God acts outside of the natural system that He has established for the functioning of His creation, that's not providence; that's a miracle. I do not grant that God bestows a spirit to each individual in the womb by a special miraculous (in the strict theological sense) act. The beginning of a soul is impressive; it's awe-inspiring; but it does not require that physical laws be transcended in order to commence.

JB:
"That is the key to this whole question."

It's the key to one question: it helps us out with the question of when abortion may reasonably be said to take a human soul. And that's something.

But there are a couple of other questions:

(1) Even if we could discern with certainty that there is no evidence that a soul is present in the unborn body until about the tenth week, does the observation that God is preparing to give a gift -- by providentially arranging the conception and fertilization to occur -- obligate the mother to co-operate with God by not interfering with the process by which that gift is given, even in its preparatory stages?

(2) Since we can't discern with certainty that a soul is not present in an implanted embryo -- since it is possible that a soul is present, but dormant -- and since the implanted embryo is a human individual, distinct from his parents, isn't it incumbent upon us to give the embryo the benefit of the doubt, and not kill him?

But to keep the thread from becoming too diffuse, maybe we should focus on the question of ensoulment, and leave these other two for later.

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: Jim Bird
Replied on: 02/19/2007 12:40:27 PM
Message:

Vox,

It is apparent to me that we are simply not in agreement with what is meant by the will of God, the providence of God or the manner in which God reacts and interacts with mankind in general and with His people in particular.

I would refer you to Cottrell's "the faith once for all, Bible Doctine for Today", published by College Press. Specifically, Chapter four, The Works of the Creator-God, pages 100-126, presents a view of God's interaction with us which I tend to agree with. It is not the view that you are presenting here.

Until we come to some agreement on the definition of terms and the theology inherent in those definitions, further discussion along these lines is fruitless.

As near as I can tell your view of the will of God and the providence of God borders on what Cottrell calls the "God has everything to do with everything" view of the providence of God or at least the "God has everything to do with everything I want Him to have something to do with" view.

That certainly is the case of what constitutes gifts of God and similar concepts. In that respect the issue of procreation and abortion is not really the issue at all.

For example you said. "The words "providentially" and "intervene" don't go together. "Providential intervention" seems like a bit of an oxymoron, since on-the-spot intervention would be miraculous, not providential.
"


That simply is not correct. Please take a look at the reference I gave above for a Scriptural presentation of the providence of God. As it stands our differences have little or nothing to do with the subject of abortion and the questions of whether there are any grounds for it.

Jim


Reply author: Malsteem
Replied on: 02/20/2007 2:10:30 PM
Message:

http://www.marshillchurch.org/audio/JudyAbolafya_KGNW_Healing_Heart_Ministries.mp3

This is a link (please allow) of radio interview of a Christian Women who had some abortions before she met Jesus.

-
M


Reply author: Vox
Replied on: 02/22/2007 8:24:28 PM
Message:


JimBird,

JB:
"It is apparent to me that we are simply not in agreement with what is meant by the will of God, the providence of God . . ."

Me too. It looks like you see my approach as a view in which the universe is over-controlled, while your approach, to me, views the universe rather less controlled than what I understand Scriptures (such as Psalm 127:3) to say -- as if God is responsible for what happened when He
"formed my inward parts" and "knit me together in my mother's womb" but not for my conception and implantation.

JB:
"I would refer you to Cottrell's "the faith once for all, Bible Doctine for Today", published by College Press."

I'll try to check it out sometime. Meanwhile, I think we may have covered the initial question in this thread, up to the point where the question of ensoulment comes up.

JB:
"Until we come to some agreement on the definition of terms and the theology inherent in those definitions, further discussion along these lines is fruitless."

And as long as you or your sources are referring to things like "providential intervention," we will probably never agree about the definition of terms. Nevertheless I think it was a good discussion. Perhaps a sequel can be started, orbiting the question of ensoulment.

Yours in Christ,

Vox


Reply author: Jim Bird
Replied on: 02/23/2007 05:35:18 AM
Message:

Vox,

Just to whet your appetite, I will provide the following which is based mostly on Cottrell from the book that I referenced above.

By "providence" we mean God's continuous activity of preserving and governing the universe by his knowledge, power, wisdom and goodness, for fulfilment of his purposes in creation. God's activity in the ongoing world may be broadly divided into four major types of events: events of general providence, events of special providence, miraculous events, and spiritual events.

General providence is God's regular, uniform way of acting with respect to nature and human history. This is the rule; the other three kinds of events are exceptions. General providence is primarily the domain of God's permissive will rather than his purposive will. This is the domain that falls within the unaided natural laws established by God at creation and within the free will betowed upon mankind.

Special providence consists of those events that happen not by unaided natural law and uninterrupted free will; rather they happen as a result of God's intervention into those processes. They differ from miracles and spiritual events in that they do not involve any kind of violation or overriding of natural law or the free will of man. In special providence God does maniputlate natural law and influence free will choices, but he neither suspends nor negates them. He therefore brings about results that would not have occurred without such intervention but which are still within the contraints of natural law itself and which does not violate the intergrity of free will.

Most of God's answers to our prayers fall into this catagory. Much of the history we find recorded in the OT falls into this catagory as God prepared the way for the coming of Jesus the messiah.

The third catagory, miracles, consists of those events a step beyond the special providence in that, by defintion, they are contrary to natural law. They supersede, transcend, override or bypass natural law. And they are readily perceived by any who observe these events as contrary to natural law.

The fourth catagory, spiritual events, also act outside of or beyond the natural, but unlike miracles they can not be seen or detected by any human senses or physcial detectors of any kind. The are spiritual not physical. Our very salvation falls within this catagory of events. This fourth catagory typically is thought of as works of redemption rather than as works of providence, but nevertheless do fall within the overall defintion of providence of God.

Jim


Reply author: ccr9017
Replied on: 02/26/2007 12:09:50 AM
Message:

I haven't read through this post but all I have to say is abortion is another form of child sacrifice in the 20th/21st century. It's the spirit of murder.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/26/2007 05:13:22 AM
Message:

Originally posted by ccr9017

quote:
I haven't read through this post but all I have to say is abortion is another form of child sacrifice in the 20th/21st century. It's the spirit of murder.

ccr9017, it's obvious you haven't read the posts.

It can't all be summed up in one response, so I won't try. You'll need to read through (at least skim them) to see that there are a variety of good reasons why we should not be so quick to jump on the bandwagon, especially out of a sense of "piety" (that is not intended directly at you or anyone else; just a generality).

Just as all killing can't be, and isn't considered murder, the same must be said of abortion. Much, perhaps most, actually is in the realm of unjustifiable taking of lives, but to try to cover it all with one "yes" or "no" just isn't possible.

Take time to scan some of the earlier posts. I don't think that it will necessarily change your opinion (in my short time here I can't recall if I've ever seen anyone say their view has been drastically changed on anything that's been discussed in the forum), but it might at least help you to understand why some may not be as hard-line as others.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/26/2007 05:41:44 AM
Message:

quote:
Just as all killing can't be, and isn't considered murder, the same must be said of abortion. Much, perhaps most, actually is in the realm of unjustifiable taking of lives, but to try to cover it all with one "yes" or "no" just isn't possible.


FA
In an earlier post you mentioned that we have different opinions on this subject and that we are entitled to do so. If you are sincere about that statement you need to place a statement on the above quote that it is your opinion, instead of making claims like "the same must be said" or "it just isn't possible" Please play fair and admit that those statements are made according to your opinion.
thanks
Paul


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/26/2007 05:50:19 AM
Message:

preacherpaul, you're right, these are my opinions, and I'm sorry if it sounded wrong. But I'll ask you one question:

Is there any circumstance, outlandish or hypothetical or whatever; is there any circumstance where an abortion could be absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother, or the lives of the other children (in a multiple pregnancy), where it would be considered a defensive measure, rather than outright murder?

Any circumstance at all?

Even if there is one, then my statement was appropriate. Yes, it is still my opinion, but it wouldn't have been inaccurate to say it the way I did. But I do agree that I should have at least specified it was my opinion. Thanks.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/26/2007 06:51:03 AM
Message:

FA or maybe it should be "face" (after the explaination I really like the name)

I cannot imagine abortion as a defensive action. It is my opinion that man does not have the right to take the life of an unborn child.

I do appreciate your reply.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/26/2007 07:01:14 AM
Message:

You're welcome, preacherpaul. Another question, though.

Do you believe in self-defense, even if it requires killing another person?

What if your attacker was mentally challenged? Insane, ill, retarded, deranged or whatever; what if the attacker was incompetent and was not "aware" of what he was doing, or able to differentiate between right and wrong?


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/26/2007 07:38:58 AM
Message:

I do not believe in self defense if it requires taking the life of an unborn child. I have never faced any of those other situations, and pray that I don't. However, if I do I may be able to answer that question.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/26/2007 08:40:11 AM
Message:

preacherpaul, I don't mean to belabor the point, but one more question, please.

Have you ever personally faced the situation where you have been told by a doctor that if a pregnancy was not terminated that the mother would almost certainly, or absolutely die? Or the same for other babies in a multiple pregnancy?


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/26/2007 11:41:09 AM
Message:

FA
The closest I have come is with my youngest son's first child. The doctors tried throughout the who pregnancy to talk my son and daughter in-law into aborting because there was no way she could deliver a healthy child. We spent months praying and seeking God's will before they decided to let God make the decision. The doctors were wrong. Today I have a healthy ten year old grandson and a beautiful daughter in-law.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 02/26/2007 5:15:50 PM
Message:

I remember reading your post about that, and I would have agreed with that decision wholeheartedly. We are not promised that our children will be born "healthy" or "normal" but we love them anyway. This was a choice to abort a pregnancy because the child might not be healthy.

It's just not the same when a doctor tells you that the mother will probably die if she tries to carry the child, or other babies (multiple pregnancy) may be lost because of something that's happening with one baby--also knowing that the child you may be protecting could die anyway if the mother dies, or if there are complications when the other babies die. At that point, in my opinion, it becomes a matter of self-defense, even though the "attacker" is an innocent, unborn child. I'm not saying it's an easy choice, or that there is a "right" choice; I'm merely suggesting that this is not considered murder if the mother chooses to protect herself, her husband, and possibly other small children who depend on her.

In almost every instance, I too would stand to oppose abortion. It is the very, very few cases that fit the scenarios I have raised, which I feel would leave room for a choice. Fewer than 1% of rapes result in a pregnancy (from most studies I've seen). I can't remember the percentage of cases where the mother's life is in serious jeopardy, but it too is small.

Aside from these particular types of situations, I don't see that abortion is even an option. If you choose to have sex, even the mental, psychological, emotional, or physical (not endangerment, just the physical difficulties) "trauma" that comes from going through a pregnancy is something you have to accept as part of the responsibility of that. Risking your life is not, in my opinion, understood as inherent.

Preacherpaul, your opinion is yours to hold just as mine is for me. But you say that you don't know what decision you'd make if you were ever faced with having to choose self-defense or death if you were attacked, and that you hope you never are forced to make that decision. I'm with you on that. But you have already chosen that abortion in all instances is murder, even though you have not had to face that decision.

I hope you never have to.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 02/26/2007 6:28:47 PM
Message:

Thanks, and I hope neither one of us do.


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 02/28/2007 2:49:46 PM
Message:

Month One
Mommy
I am only 4 inches long
but I have all my organs.
I love the sound of your voice
The sound of your heart beat
is my favorite lullaby.

Month Two
Mommy
today I learned how to suck my thumb.
If you could see me
you could definitely tell that I am a baby.
I'm not big enough to survive outside my home though.
It is so nice and warm in here.

Month Three
You know what Mommy
I'm a girl!!
I hope that makes you happy.
I always want you to be happy.
I don't like it when you cry.
You sound so sad.
It makes me sad too
and I cry with you even though
you can't hear me.

Month Four
Mommy
my hair is starting to grow.
It is very short and fine
but I will have a lot of it.
I spend a lot of my time exercising.
I can turn my head and curl my fingers and toes
and stretch my arms and legs.
I am becoming quite good at it too.

Month Five
You went to the doctor today.
Mommy, he lied to you.
He said that I'm not a baby.
I am a baby Mommy, your baby.
I think and feel.
Mommy, what's abortion?

Month Six
I can hear that doctor again
I don't like him.
He seems cold and heartless.
Something is intruding my home.
The doctor called it a needle.
Mommy what is it? It burns!
Please make him stop!
I can't get away from it!
Mommy! HELP me!

Month Seven
Mommy
I am okay.
I am in Jesus's arms.
He is holding me.
He told me about abortion.
Why didn't you want me Mommy?


Every Abortion Is Just . . .
One more heart that was stopped.
Two more eyes that will never see.
Two more hands that will never touch.
Two more legs that will never run.
One more mouth that will never speak.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/01/2007 05:23:27 AM
Message:

ima Browns fan, I know I'm gonna catch a lot of grief for this, but here goes:

quote:
Every Abortion Is Just . . .
One more heart that was stopped.
Two more eyes that will never see.
Two more hands that will never touch.
Two more legs that will never run.
One more mouth that will never speak.
Every Abortion Is Just. . .
One more heart that will never grow hard.
Two more eyes that will never see evil.
Two more hands that will never cling to the world.
Two more legs that will never walk in the darkness.
One more mouth that will never deny Christ.

Take just a moment, please to understand. I AM NOT PRO-ABORTION! I think our young girls do need to be taught about abortion and about options to either raise the child or give it up for adoption. I think our young girls do need to be taught that having abortions is not a safety net for having sex.

But I also believe that emotion sometimes clouds discernment. The poem you cited is a "tear-jerker", and I don't mean that in disrespect. It was written with that intent; to move you to feeling, and guilt, and shame. And as that, it does a good job.

Before a baby is born, it has no language, no communication (aside from moving and kicking), and no ability to reason. This does not make the child any less human, it simply shows that poems like this are more "propaganda" than true expression.

And this type of emotional connection is what keeps us from being able to objectively see the rape/incest victim or the mother whose life is in serious jeopardy, as just as precious, and just as worthy as the unborn child. We too quickly dismiss any consideration for those "already born" in favor of our indignation toward abortion.

ima, this is not at all meant to be directed at you, and I hope you know that. This is just my opinion that in a few, rare, extreme circumstances abortion does not necessarily equal murder.



Reply author: almccann
Replied on: 03/03/2007 8:06:32 PM
Message:

quote:
Before a baby is born, it has no language, no communication (aside from moving and kicking), and no ability to reason. This does not make the child any less human, it simply shows that poems like this are more "propaganda" than true expression.



Well the same can be said of babies that are as old as one year after birth. So I am just wondering do you have problems with terminating them if they get in the way of our lives?

One of the things I hear about abortion is that the child is unable to survive on its own outside of the womb. Children, at least up to age five would also have no chance to survive outside of the protection of some type of family relationship. So would it be okay to terminate them if they are unwanted also? Just think of all the suffering we could eliminate in this world if we terminated all children who might be unwanted by their parents under the age of five.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/04/2007 04:48:36 AM
Message:

almccann, if that 1 year old comes at me with a gun, planning to kill me, he's gonna get it!

How absurd! Your argument here in no way comes close to anything I have shared in my thoughts! This is what propaganda really is.

Your logic bears no resemblance to reality. You've tried to tie self-defense to euthanasia, and that not for mercy but for convenience.

Why is it that those who are solidly against abortion (for any and every reason) ignore the few, rare, but realistic, painful circumstances that force a decision of some kind, and try to make it a matter of "abortion on demand - no questions asked!"

You have made rational points on many other threads, and perhaps even a few on this one. But this last post? I am truly at a loss for understanding.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 03/04/2007 11:23:53 AM
Message:

FA
Absurd? who is the judge of what is absurd? Perhaps you should realize that from the other side it is your logic that has no resemblance to reality.
Perhaps it is no more absurd to tie self-defense to euthanasia than to abortion.
Perhaps almcann's last post is rational. Perhaps you really are at a loss for understanding.

quote:
if that 1 year old comes at me with a gun, planning to kill me, he's gonna get it!


Perhaps this really is a sane statement and I just missed it.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/04/2007 12:39:44 PM
Message:

preacherpaul, sounds like you've got...



an axe to grind.

Read the other posts I've made to this thread - to think that I condone euthanasia or infanticide for convenience or to spare some trouble is absurd.

I think you're just upset over the Baptismal beliefs thread.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 03/04/2007 4:43:12 PM
Message:

FA
If I'm upset about the baptism beliefs thread you will read it on the baptism beliefs thread. Once again you have attempted to force your opinion on others by calling their opinions absurd, and their posts propoganda. You have stated that their logic bears no resemblance to reality. All I ask is why? What is it that qualifies you to make those statements? What seems absurd or illogical to you may not seem that way to others. I'm not grinding an axe, I'm simply asking you to extend the same courtesy to others that you ask them to extend to you.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/04/2007 6:26:35 PM
Message:

Originally posted by preacherpaul

quote:
Once again you have attempted to force your opinion on others by calling their opinions absurd, and their posts propoganda. You have stated that their logic bears no resemblance to reality. All I ask is why? What is it that qualifies you to make those statements? What seems absurd or illogical to you may not seem that way to others.
By calling an opinion absurd, I am giving my opinion of that opinion. I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone, but I am giving it. The reason I stated that his logic bore no resemblance to reality, since you asked, is based on his extremely stretched reasoning which in no way reflected what I said. Please read:
quote:
Originall posted by F. A. Syndicroud

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before a baby is born, it has no language, no communication (aside from moving and kicking), and no ability to reason. This does not make the child any less human, it simply shows that poems like this are more "propaganda" than true expression.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by almccann


Well the same can be said of babies that are as old as one year after birth. So I am just wondering do you have problems with terminating them if they get in the way of our lives?

He made a jump from my suggestion that that a mother whose life is in serious jeopardy and opts for terminating the pregnancy to protect herself, is not necessarily guilty of murder, to killing a one year old because it would simplify the mother's life.

In my opinion, preacherpaul, that's absurdity. My statement "if that 1 year old comes at me with a gun, planning to kill me, he's gonna get it!" is satire. Look it up. Oh, I mean, if you want to...I'm not trying to force you.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 03/05/2007 03:50:43 AM
Message:

I'm glad you have stated that the absurdity is your opinion. That is a long way from and a lot easier to accept than "that's absurd" You intention may not be to force your opinion, but when you simply say "that's absurd" you are stating something as a fact, not as an opinion.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before a baby is born, it has no language, no communication (aside from moving and kicking), and no ability to reason. This does not make the child any less human, it simply shows that poems like this are more "propaganda" than true expression.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by almccann


Well the same can be said of babies that are as old as one year after birth. So I am just wondering do you have problems with terminating them if they get in the way of our lives?



As far as this goes, why can't you simply answer yes or no?

I would like to ask one more question that may help make your opinions a little more clear to me. We have both agreed that we will differ on abortion always being murder. I would like to ask you if your answer would change, if we replaced the word murder, with sin? Is abortion always sin?


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 03/05/2007 04:06:17 AM
Message:

quote:
My statement "if that 1 year old comes at me with a gun, planning to kill me, he's gonna get it!" is satire.


Thanks for clearing that up. You know, its hard to understand those things in a forum like this. I mean, sometimes we never really know who we're dealing with, and we don't have the advantage of listening to the tone of voice or seeing facial expressions. Perhaps it would be easier to understand sarcasm, satire etc ... if you would let us know when you post them ... or if you simply said what you really mean.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/05/2007 05:34:15 AM
Message:

quote:
F. A. Syndicroud

Before a baby is born, it has no language, no communication (aside from moving and kicking), and no ability to reason. This does not make the child any less human, it simply shows that poems like this are more "propaganda" than true expression.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by almccann


Well the same can be said of babies that are as old as one year after birth. So I am just wondering do you have problems with terminating them if they get in the way of our lives?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question posed by preacherpaul


As far as this goes, why can't you simply answer yes or no?

Through every post I made to this thread, that question has already been answered. Is there one instance where I even hinted at, or suggested that a child - pre or post birth - could be killed because it would make life easier for the mother or father or society? Not one time did I ever say that abortion could be an option for someone who chose to have sex (consensually) because they weren't planning on a pregnancy.

This is why I said it was absurd. ABSURD: ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous <an absurd argument> INCONGRUOUS: lacking congruity (not harmonious). His argument was made, not on my stated opinions regarding abortion, but on my statement of fact that prior to birth a baby has no way of forming thoughts or communicating, except through moving and kicking, which is reflexive or reactive. And this comment from me was made to point out that using poems such as the one supplied prior to my comment, where unborn babies are given the ability to think, reason, converse, ask questions, plan ahead for things in life, etc., is propaganda, intended to induce guilt. It is not based on reality.

Either he had not read my earlier posts and openly stated opinions regarding abortion, or he used the question not for information seeking, but for "shock" value, as though there was a fair comparison being made.
quote:
I would like to ask one more question that may help make your opinions a little more clear to me. We have both agreed that we will differ on abortion always being murder. I would like to ask you if your answer would change, if we replaced the word murder, with sin? Is abortion always sin?
Following your lead, let's replace the word abortion with self-defense. Is self-defense always sin?


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 03/05/2007 07:31:16 AM
Message:

You first. I ask a simple question and once again you do not give a simple answer. In your opinion, is abortion always sin?


Reply author: Sprocket
Replied on: 03/05/2007 08:17:21 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by preacherpaul

You first. I ask a simple question and once again you do not give a simple answer. In your opinion, is abortion always sin?



Paul,

When that question is asked, I don't really want to answer since there are so many "worst case" scenarios that Pro-Death people would throw out there: if there were a case where both the mother and child would die if an abortion were not done, I could see where an abortion might be the better choice.

Anything else and I'm sure it would be.'

But, these special cases are less than 1% of abortions done in America. All the medical emergencies, rapes, incest, etc. are less than 1%!

So, that means that over 99% of the abortions done in America ARE sinful, and the vast majority of those are just done as a form of birth control. God help us, literally.

Then, I'm watching the Today Show today and they interviewed 3 20something girls who were talking about how they loved to "hook up": i.e., go have sex with strangers with no emotional attachment. These are girls, not guys.

One recent college grad (a girl) wrote a book: a guide to hooking up, telling how to do it and lauding it as a form of good self-esteem and sexual empowerment.

Random sex with strangers is the new thing... no wonder we have so many abortions.

So, I don't want to answer if abortion is ALWAYS a sin, I just want to point out that over 99% of the time in our country it's not only a sin but a moral outrage. We are really no better than Sodom and Gomorrah.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 03/05/2007 08:49:06 AM
Message:

Thanks Sprocket,
I agree with your thoughts in the 99%. As far as the other 1% I still believe taking the life of an innocent, defenseless child is sin. God created that child and God should decide when to end the life. However ... and I want to make sure everyone understands this ... I do not consider abortion to be an unforgivable sin. I believe that the responibility for Christ's church today is to protect the child and restore the sinner.


Reply author: Sprocket
Replied on: 03/05/2007 08:51:40 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by preacherpaul

Thanks Sprocket,
I agree with your thoughts in the 99%. As far as the other 1% I still believe taking the life of an innocent, defenseless child is sin. God created that child and God should decide when to end the life. However ... and I want to make sure everyone understands this ... I do not consider abortion to be an unforgivable sin. I believe that the responibility for Christ's church today is to protect the child and restore the sinner.



Yes, I agree with you on the 1% too, I guess what I was trying to say is that when Pro-Death people argue, they always throw out those scenarios to get the argument off track.

I just ignore it, because even IF you allowed the "worst case scenarios" but eliminated all the others you would be elminating about 2 million abortions a year.

The "worst case" scenarios are just a way to derail the argument (like what happened on this thread).


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/05/2007 10:03:57 AM
Message:

quote:
You first. I ask a simple question and once again you do not give a simple answer. In your opinion, is abortion always sin?
preacherpaul, in case you're not familiar with the concept, responding to a question with a question was often a tool that Rabbis used in teaching their disciples. It was to see if they had a clear understanding of the underlying principles behind the question.

Jesus used this tactic often in scripture to show that he understood the hearts of those who were trying to trip him up, and more than that, he understood the underlying prinicples behind the question.

Your question was to change my thought that not all abortion is murder. So you changed the word from murder to sin. In doing that, you were seeking to "trap" me into "admitting" something that I do not. I answered your question with a similar question and tactic, changing your word abortion to self-defense.

Matthew 23:21-27 (NIV) Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you this authority?"
Jesus replied, "I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John's baptismwhere did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?"

They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' But if we say, 'From men' - we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet."

So they answered Jesus, "We don't know."
Then he said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.


So, do you believe that all self-defense is sin?


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/05/2007 10:07:29 AM
Message:

quote:
The "worst case" scenarios are just a way to derail the argument (like what happened on this thread).
Although I've been guilty of derailing or sidetracking other threads (shame on me), with all due respect, this thread asked if there are ANY grounds for abortion.

And that's what I've been discussing.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 03/05/2007 10:21:46 AM
Message:

quote:
Your question was to change my thought that not all abortion is murder. So you changed the word from murder to sin. In doing that, you were seeking to "trap" me into "admitting" something that I do not. I answered your question with a similar question and tactic, changing your word abortion to self-defense.



FA
I wonder, are you now a mind reader also? My question was intended to see if the change from murder to sin would allow us to come to some common ground. I know that you objected to calling abortion murder in all situations, and I was wondering if changing murder to sin would change anything.
Now, in case you are not familiar with the concept, there are occasions when men stand up and say what they mean. It is a tool that is used to clearly express what one believes. Jesus also used this tactic when He confronted sin.
John 4:17 "I have no husband", she replied, Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is you have had five husbands and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have said is quite true."

So, do you believe that taking the life of an innocent child is sin?


Reply author: Sprocket
Replied on: 03/05/2007 10:27:58 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by F. A. Syndicroud

quote:
The "worst case" scenarios are just a way to derail the argument (like what happened on this thread).
Although I've been guilty of derailing or sidetracking other threads (shame on me), with all due respect, this thread asked if there are ANY grounds for abortion.

And that's what I've been discussing.



I never mentioned your name, or even referred to you.

Guilty conscience?


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/05/2007 10:33:56 AM
Message:

Originally posted by preacherpaul

quote:
FA
I wonder, are you now a mind reader also?
I don't know...I was trying to read your mind, but kept coming up with nothing!


(That's a joke, by the way.)


I should have said "It appears to me that..." you were trying to trap me. It just didn't seem that your "simple" question was as simple as you say it is.

So, ok, I'll blink. No, I do not believe that all abortion is sin - but only in these extreme cases, few and rare as they are. Self-defense, to me is not sin. These few, rare, instances fall into that category, in my opinion.

Largely, though, I do believe abortion is a sin. And, like you, I believe that sin is forgiveable, but that should not create an "open door" to continue to sin.

Hopefully there is some small island of common ground to be found in there.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/05/2007 10:41:08 AM
Message:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by F. A. Syndicroud


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "worst case" scenarios are just a way to derail the argument (like what happened on this thread).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I've been guilty of derailing or sidetracking other threads (shame on me), with all due respect, this thread asked if there are ANY grounds for abortion.

And that's what I've been discussing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I never mentioned your name, or even referred to you.

Guilty conscience?
Nah, just an incorrect assumption maybe. I've been having an ongoing discussion for awhile on this thread and I'm one of the few who have been standing by the few and rare exceptions that I believe would not be sin, but instead would be self-defense.

I saw your response to preacherpaul (who has been one of the ones I've been going back and forth with) and I may have jumped the gun. Sorry.

Guilty conscience? Well, not in this anyway....


Reply author: Sprocket
Replied on: 03/05/2007 10:44:08 AM
Message:

I hate the whole "worst case" argument, it even hurts the Pro-life side.

We could have legistlation that would eliminate abortion as a form of birth control, but so often we refuse to include language that would allow abortions in verifiable cases that would allow abortion when the mother's life is at risk, rape, or incest.

I'm not saying that abortion is right in those cases, but most folks balk at refusing to allow abortion in those extreme cases. So, instead of reducing 99% of abortions, we allow 100%.

Doesn't make sense.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/05/2007 10:48:30 AM
Message:

Sprocket, I'm all for eliminating abortion or demand. I do think that there must be exceptions made for the seriously jeopardized mother as well as for the rape or incest victim, but for all others, I wish it would again be made illegal, and enforced.


Reply author: Sprocket
Replied on: 03/05/2007 1:02:47 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by F. A. Syndicroud

Sprocket, I'm all for eliminating abortion or demand. I do think that there must be exceptions made for the seriously jeopardized mother as well as for the rape or incest victim, but for all others, I wish it would again be made illegal, and enforced.



Cool, then on this point we agree.

However, I would be wary of exclusions: it used to be that prior to Roe v. Wade that abortions were illegal unless it hurt the health of the mother.

Well, sure enough, if you had enough money you could go to a doctor and get a waiver that allowed an abortion. Some folks even claimed that having the child would cause mental duress to the highbrow.

I would want to make sure the exclusions were granted by real doctors, not by Planned Parenthood butchers.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 03/05/2007 1:34:36 PM
Message:

FA
99% of that island is common ground.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/05/2007 8:02:15 PM
Message:

quote:
Cool, then on this point we agree.

However, I would be wary of exclusions: it used to be that prior to Roe v. Wade that abortions were illegal unless it hurt the health of the mother.

Well, sure enough, if you had enough money you could go to a doctor and get a waiver that allowed an abortion. Some folks even claimed that having the child would cause mental duress to the highbrow.

I would want to make sure the exclusions were granted by real doctors, not by Planned Parenthood butchers.
I agree with that.


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 03/06/2007 04:21:28 AM
Message:

What in the world is going on here? Three "I agrees" in a row ... ( well one was a 99%) but you've got to admit we're making progress.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/06/2007 04:43:34 AM
Message:

quote:
What in the world is going on here? Three "I agrees" in a row ... ( well one was a 99%) but you've got to admit we're making progress.
I disagree.




























(That's a joke, by the way.)

Actually, I'm sure that even through the whole debate we have agreed on the majority of reasons, needs, excuses, etc., regarding abortion.

  • Abortion ends a life.
  • Abortion is not a "good" option.
  • Our country (the world) needs a better way of stopping the relentless flow of abortions.


The one area, it seems, where the difference comes is whether or not there is absolutely any situation where abortion could be justifiable.

But you're right, preacherpaul...we are making progress!


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 03/06/2007 04:55:25 AM
Message:

quote:
I disagree.


Philippians 3:15


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/06/2007 05:43:45 AM
Message:

Only let us live up to what we have already attained.





Just to make sure, preacherpaul, you did see all of that last post, didn't you? (This electronic conversation thing has its limitations.)


Reply author: preacherpaul
Replied on: 03/06/2007 06:29:52 AM
Message:

Amen, and yes, I did see it.

2 Thessalonians 3:5


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/06/2007 07:17:24 AM
Message:

Thanks, and the same for you, brother.


Reply author: Sprocket
Replied on: 03/06/2007 08:38:25 AM
Message:

I just don't see why a discussion on "is there EVER a time when an abortion is not a sin" is productive in the discussion of ending abortion on demand as a form of birth control.

Granted, if 80% of abortions were done to save lives, we might have a different discussion. But, when 99% are done for convenience and birth control, debating about the 1% is silly.

Let me give an analogy. I think we all agree that speed limits are good and that a person ought to obey the law when it comes to speed limits. But, is there EVER a time when speeding is not wrong? Sure, if you were rushing someone to the hospital, fleeing a flood, or driving a fire truck.

So, because there are SOME times when speeding is good we should say that we should ALWAYS speed? No, I doubt any rational person would make that argument.


Might there be SOME rare occasions when abortion is not such a bad thing? Perhaps we might grant some very rare cases, but that doesn't mean that abortion should be available in all cases.

Just don't let the 1% distract you from ending the 99%.


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 03/08/2007 3:53:12 PM
Message:

quote:
Might there be SOME rare occasions when abortion is not such a bad thing?

If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?


Reply author: Sprocket
Replied on: 03/08/2007 4:19:38 PM
Message:

Not sure, but I would certainly recommend that she get her tubes tied!


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/09/2007 04:00:53 AM
Message:

quote:
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?

I think I'd start with recommending sex education.

Or maybe education.

Seriously though (as serious as you can get with this kind of a lead in), I'm assuming this woman chose to have sex and, with eight children already, understands the consequences of consensual sex. I don't see why there would be a reason to recommend abortion here. You haven't said that her life is at serious risk, and I'm just assuming she wasn't raped nine times (boy, just imagaine the odds on nine non-consensual impregnancies!), so to answer your question...

No.


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 03/09/2007 1:06:19 PM
Message:

Good call Face. The baby was Beethoven.


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/09/2007 7:09:12 PM
Message:

quote:
Good call Face. The baby was Beethoven.
Now that you mention it, I seem to remember those things about him...didn't come to mind before though.

But that wasn't the only strange thing about Beethoven. Four days after he was buried there was an argument over the fact that some of his original music that was left unfinished had been buried with him, and some thought that the world should have the right to hear them. So they exhumed the casket and opened it up. To their shock, Beethoven was erasing all the musical scores from the pages that had been buried with him. After the initial shock, the people cried, "Stop! What in the world are you doing?!" To which Beethoven replied...
















I'm decomposing.


Reply author: ima Browns fan
Replied on: 03/10/2007 04:51:36 AM
Message:

I don't care who you are, that was funny!


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 03/10/2007 04:54:47 AM
Message:

Just thought I'd say HI...haven't been over here in a while...HI


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/10/2007 05:16:08 AM
Message:

Glad you liked it, ima.

Hey, if you ever need to change your user name (I mean, you know if the Browns ever change their name or something), you could go with...

ima ok ura ok...


Reply author: eightysgurl
Replied on: 03/12/2007 09:53:00 AM
Message:

Okay I haven't read all of the comments on this but here is a situation. A couple pregnant with twins. Twin A is very healthy and thriving. Twin B has a multitude of birth defects and organs growing on the outside instead of the inside. Is not gaining weight and will start to take away from the thriving and healthy twin B. The problems alone are not too much to handle but put them together and they could possibly have devestating results. Parents are told that carrying Twin B to term could jepordize the life of healthy Twin A and mother thus the possiblity of loosing both babies. Aborting Twin B could save a life. Not to mention the fact the extra strain and possible life threatening affects on the mother. What do you do!!??


Reply author: Sprocket
Replied on: 03/12/2007 10:04:13 AM
Message:

Hey gurl, where you been? Haven't seen you in a while.

As for your scenario, I still stick with what I said before: I'd rather not get bogged down with all the scenarios where there COULD be grounds. If we just eliminated the cases where there is no ground, that would eliminate over 99% of abortions. But, cases like Beethoven and your scenario seem to get all the attention and all the debate.

Glad to see you again!


Reply author: eightysgurl
Replied on: 03/12/2007 10:06:01 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Sprocket

Hey gurl, where you been? Haven't seen you in a while.

As for your scenario, I still stick with what I said before: I'd rather not get bogged down with all the scenarios where there COULD be grounds. If we just eliminated the cases where there is no ground, that would eliminate over 99% of abortions. But, cases like Beethoven and your scenario seem to get all the attention and all the debate.

Glad to see you again!




Sprocket
I have a slave driver for a boss!!!!!!!


Reply author: Sprocket
Replied on: 03/12/2007 10:11:59 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by eightysgurl

quote:
Originally posted by Sprocket

Hey gurl, where you been? Haven't seen you in a while.

As for your scenario, I still stick with what I said before: I'd rather not get bogged down with all the scenarios where there COULD be grounds. If we just eliminated the cases where there is no ground, that would eliminate over 99% of abortions. But, cases like Beethoven and your scenario seem to get all the attention and all the debate.

Glad to see you again!




Sprocket
I have a slave driver for a boss!!!!!!!



I understand. Just ask him that you be given as many posts as he gets!


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 03/12/2007 10:26:02 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by ima Browns fan

quote:
Might there be SOME rare occasions when abortion is not such a bad thing?

If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?




I'm sorry this is kind of funny to me...


Reply author: eightysgurl
Replied on: 03/12/2007 10:45:09 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by redheadedDMBfan

quote:
Originally posted by ima Browns fan

quote:
Might there be SOME rare occasions when abortion is not such a bad thing?

If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?

ahhhhhhhhh Red and your sick sick sense of humor.........how you been my sister!!!!




I'm sorry this is kind of funny to me...


Reply author: redheadedDMBfan
Replied on: 03/12/2007 10:46:28 AM
Message:

quote:
[i]Originally posted by eightysgurl

ahhhhhhhhh Red and your sick sick sense of humor.........how you been my sister!!!!





Pretty Good! Long time, no see, read...what's you been up too..were house shopping..fun, fun, fun, would rather shop for shoes...


Reply author: F. A. Syndicroud
Replied on: 03/13/2007 12:34:21 PM
Message:

Originally posted by eightysgurl

quote:
Okay I haven't read all of the comments on this but here is a situation. A couple pregnant with twins. Twin A is very healthy and thriving. Twin B has a multitude of birth defects and organs growing on the outside instead of the inside. Is not gaining weight and will start to take away from the thriving and healthy twin B. The problems alone are not too much to handle but put them together and they could possibly have devestating results. Parents are told that carrying Twin B to term could jepordize the life of healthy Twin A and mother thus the possiblity of loosing both babies. Aborting Twin B could save a life. Not to mention the fact the extra strain and possible life threatening affects on the mother. What do you do!!??
Originally posted by Sprocket
quote:
As for your scenario, I still stick with what I said before: I'd rather not get bogged down with all the scenarios where there COULD be grounds. If we just eliminated the cases where there is no ground, that would eliminate over 99% of abortions. But, cases like Beethoven and your scenario seem to get all the attention and all the debate.

I appreciate where you're coming from Sprocket, but this is the heart of the matter - exactly what does constitute an understandable reason for a "legal" abortion?

It's one thing to say that liberals may try to cloud the issue with extreme hypotheticals, but by the same token, conservatives may abandon justice because many injustices are taking place. To make all abortions illegal would not serve justice, but I'm with you in that we should do what we can to stop the 99% (or whatever the actual figure may be) of abortions that are not done in self-defense.

Eightysgurl, in this case I would believe it is clearly the more reasonable thing to protect the life of the healthy baby and the mother, even at the loss of the other baby.

For those who would view this "hypothetical" argument and say, "To intervene in this is trying to play God. If God wants them spared he will take care of it."

Would you use the same justification for not intervening if you saw a 101 year old woman getting attacked, and the only way to protect her was to kill the attacker? The unhealthy baby may not be choosing to attack the other baby or the mother, but the risk to life is still a factor which must be considered.


Christian Church Today : http://www.christianchurchtoday.com/forum/

© 2004 Christian Church Today

Close Window