Abortion

[just-want-peace]

I would be judging unrighteously if, for example, a woman who was experiencing significant health-related problems in her pregnancy chose to terminate the pregnancy, especially after much prayer and consultation with her doctor and husband.

But what about the woman who:

1) is having NO health related problems

2) no prayer

3) no consultation with her (a) dr.

4) no husband

I certainly do not have any statistics re: the above, but it seems that these "excepts" are always trotted out to serve as the reason to NOT CONDEMN abortion.

How many of the actual acts of abortion fall under any part of the context of the quote?

Like I said, I don't KNOW, but judging by the number of dead babies, I'd guess about 0.01%. Yet this argument is always used to justify them.

Even if this % were 1000 times greater, (10.0%), that still does not justify the volume that is now being performed!

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
is having NO health related problems

I think that someone who wants to terminate a pregnancy for no other reason than she doesn't want to be pregnant is wrong.

no prayer

I would not accuse a woman who does not utilize prayer before such a thing as being in sin. We should always endeavour to take our cares to God in prayer. But we don't always. That doesn't make us sinners, just presumptuous at times.

no consultation with her (a) dr.

Whenever someone has a medical condition, seeking the guidance of a medical professional is prudent. However, not seeking medical attention for a medical condition doesn't automatically put one in the category of a sinner. Stupid, yes. Sinner, no.

no husband

Morally, these kinds of things should be discussed with the expectant mother and expectant father. However, the decision to carry, and how to carry, a pregnancy to full term ultimately rests with the mother.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Johnv:
However, the decision to carry, and how to carry, a pregnancy to full term ultimately rests with the mother.

This same rationale is peing proposed by some who think that the mother should have the right to terminate the life of the child after a trial period of 6 months or so.

Obviously you are a student of philosophy. Perhaps you could explain to me why a person who dumps her newborn child in a trash can is subject to prosecution while one who terminates her 9 month pregnancy is not. From a philosophical viewpoint please, not because the Supreme Court says she can legally terminate her 9 month pregnancy.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
This same rationale is peing proposed by some who think that the mother should have the right to terminate the life of the child after a trial period of 6 months or so.

I think you misinterpret me. I was referring strictly to noneletctive abortions. I don't believe that elective abortions are ever appropriate.

Obviously you are a student of philosophy.

Yes, but it's an online course

Perhaps you could explain to me why a person who dumps her newborn child in a trash can is subject to prosecution while one who terminates her 9 month pregnancy is not.

It is not legal to electively terminate a pregnancy at 9 months. The latest a person is legally allowed to have an elective abortion is 6 months.

As you know, of course, I'm not an advocate of elective abortion at all.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Johnv:
It is not legal to electively terminate a pregnancy at 9 months. The latest a person is legally allowed to have an elective abortion is 6 months.

The fact is that women electively terminate pregnancies at 9 months.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
The fact is that women electively terminate pregnancies at 9 months.

Elective abortion can be legally performed only up to 24 weeks. In the case of endangerment to the mother, nonelective abortions can be done after 24 weeks, depending on the state. Forty states and the District of Columbia have laws banning most post-viability abortions (AL, AZ, AR, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, WY).

 

[Bluefalcon]

Where is this going? In general, the Democratic Party supports abortion, and the GOP opposes it. But this is only one issue. If I truly voted for the party I most agreed with, it would be the Constitution Party of America, which will never win any elections of any importance.

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

[Speed Gracer]

No. God isn't for it. He is the Creator of Life. Satan is the author of murder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

It's not quite that simple. What if your wife get's raped and get's pregnant? What if the doctor said if she had the baby, she would die? You can pray all day and night, but in the end you have to make a decision. What would yours be? You wouldn't know because you have never been in that situation.

Who are you to judge someone if they are a christian or not based on their view of abortion. It's a gray area, so please don't base salvation on it.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Speed Gracer:
1) What if your wife get's raped and get's pregnant?

2) What if the doctor said if she had the baby, she would die? You can pray all day and night, but in the end you have to make a decision. What would yours be? You wouldn't know because you have never been in that situation.

1) The unborn baby is innocent and should not be murdered.

2) I know my answer would "no" to abortion as there is no medical reason in the year 2005 A.D. for an abortion to save the life of the mother. See www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html for a substantive discussion of this issue.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by KenH:

I know my answer would "no" to abortion as there is no medical reason in the year 2005 A.D. for an abortion to save the life of the mother. See www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html for a substantive discussion of this issue.

This is so true but the abortionists, even those who profess to be Christians, simply ignore this truth.

 

[Speed Gracer]

Originally posted by KenH:

I know my answer would "no" to abortion as there is no medical reason in the year 2005 A.D. for an abortion to save the life of the mother. See www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html for a substantive discussion of this issue.

I read this article. Interesting...that all the resources for this article were taken from christian literature. It's not truth, it's opinion and theory.

 

[mcdirector]

It's not quite that simple. What if your wife get's raped and get's pregnant? What if the doctor said if she had the baby, she would die? You can pray all day and night, but in the end you have to make a decision. What would yours be? You wouldn't know because you have never been in that situation.

Who are you to judge someone if they are a christian or not based on their view of abortion. It's a gray area, so please don't base salvation on it.

The first statement irritates me. How do you know that someone here wouldn't know because they haven't been in that situation? Rape happens to Christians too. AND a pregnancy from rape doesn't mean death. This is an extreme situation. The fact is that women are chosing abortion like nose jobs.

I don't see anyone on this thread saying that salvation is based on abortion views. What I see is people saying that abortion is wrong because God is the Creator of life. People come to understand that truth at different times in their walks. Training and learning take time and effort on both the part of teachers and learners. So many come enter salvation with only a humanistic worldview. A biblical world view is not going to replace that over night.

 

[Daisy]

The vast majority of abortions are spontaneous (linkie to American Physician article).

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Speed Gracer:
that all the resources for this article were taken from christian literature.

The article is based on natural law ethics.

I don't why as a Christian you would have a problem with Christian sources.

But here's a link to an atheist who makes as good of a case against abortion as any Christian ever has:

A Wrong, Not a Right: An Atheist Libertarian Looks at Abortion LINK

And, thus, Doris Gordon puts many Christians to shame when it comes to opposing abortion.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Daisy:
The vast majority of abortions are spontaneous (linkie to American Physician article).

This thread is not about spontaneous abortions it is about the 40,000,000+ abortions performed at abortuaries since Roe V Wade.

 

[kubel]

The sin of abortion is the sin of murder. You can commit sin and still be forgiven.

Why one would be a follower of Christ and associate theirself with murder is beyond me.

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by kubel:
The sin of abortion is the sin of murder. You can commit sin and still be forgiven.

Why one would be a follower of Christ and associate theirself with murder is beyond me.

You are exactly right, but.

satan has used this act against many women to such a degree that many go to their graves thinking they have committed a sin so grevious that they are unforgivable. And the Christian world has failed miserably in reaching these poor women and have thus far failed miserably in the fight against abortion. Shame on us. The abortion Dr. has my pity, as he has his conscience seared and judgement is coming, and his reward is terrible.