No One on this Board Supports Abortion

Re an ectopic pregnancy - do you know what that is? The baby never made it to the uterus and instead is being crushed in the Fallopian tube and if the tube bursts, the mother could die. The baby cannot live at all in this situation. It is not so much an abortion as an emergency rescue to save the mother's life.

 

Regarding an ectopic pregnancy…Without going into too much detail I know someone who was told they had an ectopic pregnancy on a Friday afternoon and should immediately take a pill to end the pregnancy because they may die. They waited until Monday to get a second opinion and now they have a beautiful child and mother is fine.

 

Your analysis is deeply flawed. I was responding to an assertion regarding a Presidential candidate being pro-choice, not pro-abortion, that is, a candidate that requires abortion for everyone. A pro-choice candidate wants to allow others to make the choice as they deem appropriate. A pro-abortion candidate (at least the way one would have to interpret it to have your analysis make sense) would be one who demands that all unborn children be killed (like Pharaoh demanding the death of Hebrew males as they were being born).

That's a huge difference.

The analogies are not perfect by any means, but I was trying to demonstrate the difference between a person being in support of freedom to allow another to make a decision (for good or bad) and actual guilt for the evil they might commit.

God allows us to make decisions for good or evil... and He has the power to stop us.

Is God as guilty for our evil as we are? Nope.

 

Not all ectopic pregnancies necessarily lead to death for mother and child. However, the embryo is often naturally aborted as the body's way of resolving it. Yet there is a small but significant chance that a mother's life may be put into crisis where doctors will have to intervene to save a mother's life... those are the situations we're talking about.

 

Sorry, but I disagree.

"Pro" is defined as "in favor of"; or "in support of." If you are pro-choice, you are in favor of allowing abortions, you support abortions, and therefore you are pro-abortion.

Your definition of "pro-abortion" is something else entirely. "Forced abortions" comes to mind; I might concede and say that it's a radical, or even fanatical, pro-abortion stance...but supporting the right to have an abortion, is supporting abortion, and therefore is "pro-abortion."

Feel free to call it "pro-choice" if that makes someone feel better.

 

Yes, I know what it is - and what many other horrible "medical" problems humans can have - and I answered the question honestly. Does that mean I have no compassion or concern? Hardly not! I would not want to be faced with such a decision and would pray that God would spare anyone from it. But God does permit suffering to fall upon us for reasons that please Him. They are perhaps tests of our faith. They are perhaps to set examples for others. I'm not wise enough to know or explain why. I just believe God knows what He's doing.

Now, I'll ask some questions - the ones that really define the issues. At what point does the "thing" carried in the mother's body become a human? Is it at the point where "it" exists the womb and breathes its first breath? Some will argue that but it's clear to any mother that the child in her is alive long before that and the Bible makes it clear that the "it" in the body of the mother is a created being "wonderfully made" by God. So then is it at some magical moment in the course of nine months gestation that the "it" transitions from a mass of parasitic flesh - as some would view it - to a human being? What constitutes this change? Or is it at the magical moment of conception with God starts the process of developing another human being? It seems to me that this is the only right answer and that we must regard a human embryo as a human being.

If this latter case is true then what right do we have to take the life of such a person at any point in the gestation process just to save another? Would our judgment to kill the child to save the mother be done by our own hands on the basis of our rationalization or by God's will? Is it any more or less right or wrong because of the time line at which it is done?

Why does God permit an embryo to form in the fallopian tube when it has no chance of survival and, indeed, as you say threatens the life of the mother as well? I do not know! It is certainly an ultimate test of the faithfulness of the mother if she decides to face death rather than kill her child. Although painful for her and tragic for her family she would - assuming she's a child of God - be rewarded for here selflessness in Heaven. Is that not far better than suffering in this life? Is not right and wrong superior to pain and suffering? It is sacrifice for greater cause they we.

But all this does not take away that the larger problem with abortion which is the false concept that "it's my body and I can do with it whatever I want"! That's an arrogant and selfish point of view advocated by Godless people. This is not even true in the earlier example I gave of amputating an arm or leg to save one's self from gangrene. We belong to God! It may be the right choice to cut off your arm or leg but you'd best pray about it first. But when it comes to taking the life of a child to save the mother it can not be right under any circumstance. It might be - certainly is being - rationalized in the human mind. It might be overlooked because of the deep compassion we would have for the suffering of another. But it is still wrong. The absolutes of right and wrong can be very difficult to accept.

 

Did my answer startle you? Please do understand that I would certainly find no pleasure in watching my dear wife or child die for any reason. That would be very difficult to do and I'm not even sure at the moment of decision that I would have the courage required to do what is right. But our suffering in this life and our weakness of decision are not an excuses for doing that which is wrong. Right and wrong are absolutes. Mankind spends a lot of time and effort trying to rationalize things to fit our own feelings of what should be right or wrong or "fair" as we like to call it.

 

I certainly understand your points and respect you for your deep feelings on this matter. I just don't agree that's it's ever right to kill the child - at any point in gestation - even in order to save the mother much less for any other reason. I do agree that there is a "bigger picture" and to me that picture may well include the suffering and even death of either the mother or child or both for a greater cause than either of them. I think prayer is the only answer for this and knowing that God's will be done.

 

Obama pro choice, ridiculous! I will not attempt to list all the things that he wants to force on the American people such as deny secret ballot in union elections and abort [short for kill] the Defense of Marriage act!

That being said Obama is pro abortion, pro murder of the unborn and the just born. He voted on two occasions in the Illinois Senate against a bill that would require doctors to provide medical care for aborted children born alive, That is as murderous as one can get.

As for God stopping us perhaps he will by using Obama to destroy this Republic, what is left of it. I had an earlier thread asking that very question.

 

The point of my post was that this was the situation that you are talking about. The parents chose not to terminate and all is well with baby and mother. The result defied all logic on the physician’s part.

 

And that proves ... what?

 

Wow, page 14. This thread is being closed. LE