I'd be interested in that response too.Revmitchell said:
I have been amazed how much ungodliness has been justified by "Christians" on the BB. It's simply amazing.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A Reason Abortion Isn't a Black & White Issue
- Thread starter Magnetic Poles
- Start date
I have been amazed how much ungodliness has been justified by "Christians" on the BB. It's simply amazing.
Bob Dudley said:
Remember the rotten mother who put her two baby boys in her car, then drove the car off into a lake ? She watched the car fill with water, slowly sink, while her baby boys were staring out at her through the back window. So she could be with the man of her dreams. Unencumbered by any responsibility.
Sick. :BangHead: Disgusting.:BangHead: Rotten to the core.:BangHead:
Last edited by a moderator:
pinoybaptist said:
Which is no worse than sticking a vacume into the womb and rippping a child apart limb from limb.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
And what kind of parent wuld force their 13 year old daughter to be revictimized by compelling them to carry to term the child of their rapist? That is child abuse in the extreme.Bob Dudley said:
It's always the mythical 13 year old pregnant rape victim, that really can't be found, but needs the protection of unfettered access to abortions.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Dudley
New Member
Forgetting for a secomnd that 99% of all abortions are for lifestyle reasons...
You can not really comparing murder to psychological trauma. As bad as the second one is, it is no where near murder. They are not even in the same league.
There's the solution - murder the innocent child to pay for the father's crime! Yeah, that sounds good!Magnetic Poles said:
Magnetic Poles said:
It's obviously a relevant question is that if a baby is born alive, but is diagnosed as having a fatal condition of a vital organ and will not live for a year, would you be in favor of killing it instead of "the child being crushed in a slow, painful death?"
“The baby’s limbs were bent and broken, and he had facial deformities from being crushed,” Vargas says. Not only were his kidneys not functioning, but this had also prevented his lungs from developing.
“But that didn’t seem like it was best for him,” Vargas says. “I can’t imagine that I would choose to be born into bright lights and alarms and not being able to breathe, even with my mother holding me.”
The Vargases, like other families, were intent on minimizing their son’s suffering.
This family sounds like it is trying to make the best decision for the baby, not the best decision for themselves.
Hopefully, they got at least three medical opinions and did online research.
Under this circumstance, my thought is it's best to kill this baby asap. Yet there would need to be much prayer before making a decision.
The poor thing has broken limbs, and non developing lungs at over 5 months :tear:
The poor thing could be suffering uniaginable pain under these condition. If not, very son the baby will be able to feel pain.
IMHO it would be inhumane to allow it to live knowing what the outcome would likely be. Yet I understand others who see it differently.
"Do onto others as you would have done unto you" comes to mind
Matt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
1 Cor 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not
Magnetic Poles
New Member
A rare or 'mythical' case doesn't matter unless it happens to you. Sounds like some of you would let your wife or daughter die a horrific death from an ectopic pregnancy (where the 'baby' is doomed anyway) rather than terminate. What a disregard for life of loved ones.
You never had a biblical leg to stand on, and your tantrums have become pretty commonplace. You can't back up your unbiblical view, and others can. So you choose to make them the issue.
Doesn't change anything.
Kudos to the folks willing to hold onto scripture, and willing to speak up against this evil, and call it and it's practitioners what it is.
Doesn't change anything.
Kudos to the folks willing to hold onto scripture, and willing to speak up against this evil, and call it and it's practitioners what it is.
carpro said:Oboy!
You've tried the mythical 13 year old rape victim. Now comes the ectopic pregnancy that is not truly a "pregnancy" at all.
Worn out excuses for murdering the 99% of babies that are killed because they are inconvenient.
And in quite a few cases it is wanted because of the desire for population control.
Bob Dudley
New Member
MP,
What the others are trying to say is that we can always come up with situations to try to justify what we think we should do. The problem is that we are imperfect sinners and can not really think completely correctly. Therefore, we always (especially when moral issues are in question) go to the Bible. This is our absolute. This is our Guidebook.
Whenever deciding right and wrong we must go to the Book. It will never steer a true seeker of the truth in the wrong direction.
What you have tried to do is come up with extreme cases to justify your situational ethics. But ethics are not situational. There is an absolute and God gave it to us in the Book.
Also, it looks as though you still haven't come to grips with the fact that the person in the mother's stomach IS a person, a living human being that is completely distinct from his or her mother. No different from a baby outside his or her mother.
What the others are trying to say is that we can always come up with situations to try to justify what we think we should do. The problem is that we are imperfect sinners and can not really think completely correctly. Therefore, we always (especially when moral issues are in question) go to the Bible. This is our absolute. This is our Guidebook.
Whenever deciding right and wrong we must go to the Book. It will never steer a true seeker of the truth in the wrong direction.
What you have tried to do is come up with extreme cases to justify your situational ethics. But ethics are not situational. There is an absolute and God gave it to us in the Book.
Also, it looks as though you still haven't come to grips with the fact that the person in the mother's stomach IS a person, a living human being that is completely distinct from his or her mother. No different from a baby outside his or her mother.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Newsflash for carpro...
Ectopic pregancy involves a fertilized ova. It is implanted in a fallopian tube rather than the uterus.
Ectopic pregancy involves a fertilized ova. It is implanted in a fallopian tube rather than the uterus.
Bob Dudley said:
I'm not picking on you, I swear, but...
It's certainly possible to consider it murder to take a child's life after being born and not if before -- it all depends on how one is distinguishing between the two. Note, I'm not arguing for the morality of abortion, just pointing out that the pro-choice advocate need not adopt the criteria which you consider to be definitive evidence of abortion's equivalence to child murder.
I'd suggest that your point of disagreement (again with MP!) is something akin to an objection to humans "playing God". To me, the current example is closer to the question of assisted suicide than abortion, since its the sort of useful test case in which no reasonable (i.e. mentally sound) person would choose to continue to live in such circumstances. Your position seems to be that to take the child's life would be to play God and overstep the bounds of human authority, while MP's seems to be more comfortable with the idea that a merciful person, created in God's image, would rightly seek to end the child's suffering.
Of course, I'm putting words in both of your mouths here -- just trying to help frame things up for a profitable discussion.
Bro. Curtis said:
It's a thought experiment designed expressly to push the limits of the question to test the extent of one's convictions. Very useful, imo.
Potter's Syndrome babies - Type I occurs in 1 in 40,000 infants. Differences in opinion put Type II as 1 in 1,500-10,000. (http://www.potterssyndrome.org/pottersfaqs.html)
Ectopic pregnancies - about 1% of all pregnancies; of this 1%, 98% are in the fallopian tubes. Left untreated, 50% will resolve themselves (natural abortion) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy)
The 13-year old who is raped and becomes pregnant? Actually, it's 10-years old (http://www.kidk.com/news/18749314.html). I can't find statistics on how often this occurs; for the sake of argument, I'd put it down as about 1% as well.
Obviously, these arguments are the exception rather than the norm.
So, when it comes to the abortion, the Bible recognizes that the fetus is a living human being. End of discussion.
When it comes to the law, most proposed anti-abortion laws include a clause regarding the health of the mother; yet, the pro-abortion crowd does their best to shoot these down, because it's not the health of the mother they're actually concerned about; it's the free availability of abortions.
Do we make laws for the whole of society? Or do we make them based on the "exception to the norm"? Or do we compromise, and make them with clauses that recognize the exception to the norm?
Ectopic pregnancies - about 1% of all pregnancies; of this 1%, 98% are in the fallopian tubes. Left untreated, 50% will resolve themselves (natural abortion) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy)
The 13-year old who is raped and becomes pregnant? Actually, it's 10-years old (http://www.kidk.com/news/18749314.html). I can't find statistics on how often this occurs; for the sake of argument, I'd put it down as about 1% as well.
Obviously, these arguments are the exception rather than the norm.
So, when it comes to the abortion, the Bible recognizes that the fetus is a living human being. End of discussion.
When it comes to the law, most proposed anti-abortion laws include a clause regarding the health of the mother; yet, the pro-abortion crowd does their best to shoot these down, because it's not the health of the mother they're actually concerned about; it's the free availability of abortions.
Do we make laws for the whole of society? Or do we make them based on the "exception to the norm"? Or do we compromise, and make them with clauses that recognize the exception to the norm?