Abortion Is Wrong

[targus]

No, that is not self-densnse by my logic. What is your point?

My point is that abortion is not self defense.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Who created the circumstances of the situation?

The mother or the unborn child?

You believe that the child should die to get the mother out of a danger that she put herself into?

Life has risks - pregnancy also has risks.

The fetus did. Yes, in that situation the mother should have the option of a therapeutic abortion.

 

[targus]

The fetus did.

The fetus created the situation?

Seriously?

Well, I can see what kind of a lawyer you would make.

I suggest that you take a class on ethics at a good Christian college.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

The fetus created the situation?

Seriously?

Well, I can see what kind of a lawyer you would make.

I suggest that you take a class on ethics at a good Christian college.

I'd suggest you take a good look at ethics if you'd be willing to let your wife and unborn fetus die instead of saving your wife's life. :tear:

 

[Crabtownboy]

As a Christian you think that trusting in God is "sophomoric"?

Interesting - to say the least.

Trusting God is not sophomoric, but your answer surely was. It is the typical way you have of avoiding answering rationally and having a rational discussion.

God does not approve of abortion.

My wife also trusts in God - so she would not have an abortion.

The fetus created the situation?

There was no situation before the fetus existed, thus it was created by the conception which resulted in the fetus. Are you saying the mother created the situation? Did God create the situation to test your faith ... according to your own understanding?


It's very simple. I wonder why it is beyond your comprehension.

So, following your logic, if you had appendicitis you would trust God and not have your appendix out?

That plus doing everything else that is morally acceptable - such as bed rest for example.

Morally acceptable to your own thinking. Try bed rest with a burst appendix.

 

[targus]

Trusting God is not sophomoric, but your answer surely was. It is the typical way you have of avoiding answering rationally and having a rational discussion..

No avoiding of the discussion at all.

My answer is "Trust in God."

For you apparently that is no answer at all.

So be it.

So, following your logic, if you had appendicitis you would trust God and not have your appendix out?

Morally acceptable to your own thinking. Try bed rest with a burst appendix.

Removing an appendix does not take another's life so there is no moral element involved.

Are you deliberately obtuse?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Removing an appendix does not take another's life so there is no moral element involved.

Are you deliberately obtuse?

The principle is the same. If you say "Just trust God", why not just trust God with your appendix? Exactly the same principle, trusting God.

I am sure your wife, if you have one, would be thrilled that you would "Just trust God" with her life and a very dangerous pregnancy, but that you would not "Just trust God" with your life with your appendix.

 

[targus]

The principle is the same. If you say "Just trust God", why not just trust God with your appendix? Exactly the same principle, trusting God.

I am sure your wife, if you have one, would be thrilled that you would "Just trust God" with her life and a very dangerous pregnancy, but that you would not "Just trust God" with your life with your appendix.

In the case of a pregnancy which may pose a threat to the life of the mother - since abortion is the murder of the unborn and contrary to God's law one would trust that God would provide for the mother absent the abortion.

In the case of removing the appendix there is no violation of God's law so there is no necessity for trusting that God will provide an alternative. God is already providing a solution that does not go against His law.

But you already know that.

 

[Crabtownboy]

In the case of a pregnancy which may pose a threat to the life of the mother - since abortion is the murder of the unborn and contrary to God's law one would trust that God would provide for the mother absent the abortion.

No one is arguing that point. You are saying "Trust God." So are you going to "Just trust God" in all medical problems, or are you going to "Just Trust God" when it comes to your wife, or others?

In the case of removing the appendix there is no violation of God's law so there is no necessity for trusting that God will provide an alternative. God is already providing a solution that does not go against His law.

But you already know that.

I trust God. I also trust Christian doctors to help me with difficult decisions.

Why won't you "Just trust God" in both cases. Seems you have a selective "Trust God" attitude. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You are avoiding the intent of the question.

 

[targus]

No one is arguing that point. You are saying "Trust God." So are you going to "Just trust God" in all medical problems, or are you going to "Just Trust God" when it comes to your wife, or others?

Apparently you are not bothering to read my posts because I just gave you the answer in the example with the appendix removal.

I trust God. I also trust Christian doctors to help me with difficult decisions.

So you just want to pass the responsibility off to someone else then.

Why won't you "Just trust God" in both cases. Seems you have a selective "Trust God" attitude. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You are avoiding the intent of the question.

I have explained that a couple of times.

Either you are not reading my answers or are deliberately obtuse.

Everyone else can see what you are doing - yet again. :laugh:

 

[Crabtownboy]

Apparently you are not bothering to read my posts because I just gave you the answer in the example with the appendix removal.

Oh, I'm reading your posts. First you made a flat statement, Just trust God. Now you are wanting to modify your stance ... situational ethics. Primarily, if the situation is about your life you are all for trusting doctors ... not the same trust for your wife. Guess you do not consider her life as worthy as yours.

So you just want to pass the responsibility off to someone else then.

When I have a question or problem I go to someone who knows more than I about that topic. Like I go to a mechanic when my car has a problem. I guess you would just trust God.

I have explained that a couple of times.

Either you are not reading my answers or are deliberately obtuse.

Everyone else can see what you are doing - yet again. :laugh:

You have waffled and not addressed the real question. Typical. But at least you tried a bit, that is better than not answering at all.

 

[targus]

Oh, I'm reading your posts..

Well that's a start !!:laugh:

First you made a flat statement, Just trust God...

You asked what I would do in a specific situation.

I answered.

Now you are wanting to modify your stance ... situational ethics. ...

Not at all.

I trust that God will provide a solution that does not require me to violate His laws.

No modification at all - simply clarification in response to your obtuseness.

Primarily, if the situation is about your life you are all for trusting doctors ... not the same trust for your wife. Guess you do not consider her life as worthy as yours. ...

I have no idea where you come up with this conclusion - other than your desire to insult.

Shame on you.

When I have a question or problem I go to someone who knows more than I about that topic. Like I go to a mechanic when my car has a problem. I guess you would just trust God...

I thought that you said that you read my posts. :laugh:

I have covered this three times now with the example about the appendix removal.

You have waffled and not addressed the real question. Typical. But at least you tried a bit, that is better than not answering at all.

Everyone following along can see that I have not waffled at all.

That is what is great about a public forum like this.

Everyone else can see the score. :laugh:

 

[annsni]

Not all etopic pregnancies are necessarily life threatening to the mother.

As I understand it in the case of etopic preganacies there are three options:

Wait and see if it works itself out.

Remove the tube surgically.

Abort by chemical means.

Tell me Crabby, in your opinion are there any other exceptions to your supposed pro-life stance?

Or is etopic pregnancy the only one?

A tubal ectopic pregnancy is not one that has a possibility of "wait and see if it works out". A tubal pregnancy allowed to progress will severely risk the life of the mother and her future fertility - AND the child is doomed. Yes, you can wait in the hospital for the tube to burst before going in and hopefully saving the life of the mother but I don't know of any doctor that would risk such a thing (because there is SUCH a fine line there between safe and dead) so that is not a viable choice.

Unfortunately in the case of a tubal pregnancy, chemical means is the best choice to end the pregnancy. This is one of the few cases where I do believe that abortion is the right choice.

From tubal pregnancies, there are few other places to go where there is a true risk to the mother to continue the pregnancy. VERY few. In the three examples given, the first one is stupid. There is absolutely no risk to the mother to continue the pregnancy and I do know of pregnancies with the same diagnosis where the child survived. Quality of life was an issue but there was life. Where there is life, there is hope.

In the second and third cases, I would continue the pregnancy under very close medical supervision and deliver the child at the earliest safe time. A woman does not have to make it for the full 40 weeks to deliver a child who is healthy and so we can cut the duration of the risk to the mother by a number of weeks. If it were me, there is no way that I would abort the child.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

In the second and third cases, I would continue the pregnancy under very close medical supervision and deliver the child at the earliest safe time. A woman does not have to make it for the full 40 weeks to deliver a child who is healthy and so we can cut the duration of the risk to the mother by a number of weeks. If it were me, there is no way that I would abort the child.

You raise a valid point about cutting the risk by a number of weeks. That's a good idea. In my view, abortion should be the last option if the mother can't be helped any other way.

 

[RAdam]

Ralph, if you were in a burning building and there was an adult in one room, and an embryo in a petri dish in the other, and you could only rescue one, which one would you rescue?

What a horrible question to pose! "An embryo in a petri dish." Good grief!

 

[RAdam]

What do you think about abortion to save the life of the mother?

I don't think it's right to kill a baby in order to save another human being.

 

[RAdam]

I can't think of a single godly mother I know that would kill her baby to save her own life.

 

[annsni]

You raise a valid point about cutting the risk by a number of weeks. That's a good idea. In my view, abortion should be the last option if the mother can't be helped any other way.

And if that's the case (abortion being the last option if the mother can't be helped in any other way), the incidences of abortion would be very small. Very, very small.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

What a horrible question to pose! "An embryo in a petri dish." Good grief!

How is that a horrible question?

 

[targus]

How is that a horrible question?

Because it is apples and oranges.

A couple of cells in a dish is not going to grow into a human child without other intervention.

A fetus in a woman will.

No doubt you are patting yourself on the back for your self perceived cleverness - but your hypothetical doesn't work here.