Abortion : should we admit exceptions ?

Yes, but the kind of abortion that we want outlawed is murder. This is not murder in any sense of the word. It's not even killing since the baby will die anyway before being born.

 

It is killing (because it takes a life), but you're right,it's not murder. There's a difference scripturally, and a difference which Dragoon is either incapable of or refusing to discern.

 

What I have stated applies to all of us and, yes, that includes my wife although, in our case, it would have be a story somewhat like Abraham and Sarah.

No one wishes to bear these kinds of burdens. No one can say for certainty how they would react when faced with the problem. We all have ideals by which we hope to live by and pray that the Lord would guide us and give us the strength needed if the test were ever to come. If I were to make the right choices it would only be through the power of the Lord because my natural tendency would be to make the wrong choices.

I cannot "out Holy" any of you because I'm really not a very good Christian and have committed more than my share of sinful acts and deeds. However, our Lord is the perfect example of Holiness and His word makes it clear that murder is wrong, that life begins at conception, and that He is the father of all life. Given these facts there is no doubt that murdering an unborn child by abortion, regardless, of humanly perceived "justification" is a clear and grave violation of His law. I will not ignore His word because of my own failures.

The main point, I think, of arguments to the contrary - those that advocate "exceptions" in favor of abortion - is to establish a crack into which a wedge can be driven to create a great chasm into with all mankind's "justifications" could easily fit.

 

The NT definition of a murderer:

1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.​

I have known two women (an aunt and a family friend) in my lifetime that had tubular pregnancies.

Neither of them hated their babies and were grieved that they had to terminate the pregnancy. One of the women (family friend) was in agonizing pain as she waited too long.

Both the doctor and her husband finally convinced her that she was facing imminent and probable death but the baby was facing certain death.

She did the right but sad thing. I doubt that God considered it murder.


HankD

 

The New Testament, as typified by 1 John 3:15, expands the meaning of murder to include "murder in the heart" and made it clear that we can be guilty of murder without actually carrying out the physical act.

Killing an unborn child by abortion is murder no matter how one tries to rationalize it.

 

I disagree in the case of protecting the life of the mother, while there is intent to do harm to the baby, murder requires/includes the motive of hate.
If the life of the baby could be saved, it would be saved.
The motivation is the preservation of life.

It is not a rationalization. Hatred is part of the scriptural defintion of murder.

It is not scriptural murder, it is justifiable homicide or manslaughter at worst.

HankD

 

The Bible does not condone the concept of "murder out of love". Subscribing to that opens the door to all manner of human judgments centered around getting rid of a problem by murdering someone.

The argument that "the baby is going to die anyway so let's kill it now and save the mother" is not any different than saying "this joined at the waist pair can not survive so let's cut off one of the heads so that the other can live". That is turn would put us one step closer to deciding numerous other cases of terminal illnesses and various difficult and painful situations in favor of murdering one to solve a problem.

Again, the meaning in the New Testament is not to redefine murder to something less than the Old Testament. It is to expand the prohibition to include the desire of the heart and mind to commit the crime.

Murder is very often motivated by selfishness. A person decides they want something someone else has - love, power, wealth, comfort - and they rationalize that they're entitled to it - not the other. This is "hate" even if it is not manifested by outward anger. It is certainly not love. Love, instead, would bear any pain, give up one's own life, and take no adverse action. Love puts full trust in the Lord to provide the strength to deal with whatever trail is placed upon us even if the result is an earlier departure to His side than we want desire.

Murdering an unborn child for any reason is a crime against God's law.

 

Immediately.................

 

???? Once a woman is pregnant, it's an unborn baby inside her. Whether the baby is in the zygote, embryo, or fetus stage, it's an unborn baby. The process of birth doesn't make a baby more or less a baby.

That's not the topic here. The topic at hand is whether an terminating an ectopic pregnancy is appropriate. Since it scripturally qualifies as self defense, it is permissible, but not required. The expectant mother ultimately needs to prayerfully make that difficult decision, in conjunction with her husband, and under care of her physician.

Elective abortion is always murder. Aborting an ectopic pregnancy is not an elective abortion. I don't wish that difficult situation upon anyone.

 

Self-defense does not, in any way, apply to a mother deciding to abort an unborn child. There is no Biblical basis for this idea. This cannot be considered an act of self-defense. It is, rather, a decision to saves self at the expense of another who has not the capacity to make any decision and is in no way accountable for the situation. The selfless act would be to bear the pain - no doubt something no one wishes on a potential mother - and seek the Lord's help and grace in doing so. He is able - we are not. Care and comfort are appropriate. Murder of the unborn child is not.

In fact, there is very little Biblical basis for self-defense itself. We, as Christians, are rather limited in what we can do for the benefit of our own self. This is completely different, of course, that actions we might take to defend and protect others especially as agents of civil authority. To step in and prevent another from harming an innocent is admirable and, I think, looked upon favorably by the Lord although, kind in mind, He did even rebuke Peter for coming to His defense in the physical sense. I think our acts of self-defense, at best, had better be made rather cautiously and with only limited and measured means necessary. It certainly crosses the line when it becomes vengeful or is excessive.

 

This has been taken out of context by you. Be careful with scripture.

 

If a mother's life is threatened by a pregnancy, it most certainly applies.

Capacity or accountability are not prerequisites for a threat to exist, nor does a lack of capacity or accountability disqualify a threat.

You're not serious, are you? Commandment VI expressly says "you shall not murder", not "you shall not kill". The Hebrew word for "murder" here referrs expressly to the premeditated taking of the life of an innocent without cause or justification. Killing outside that, including self-sefense, is not banned by this commandment, nor is it banned anywhere else in scripture.

Additionally, scripture expressly permits the taking of a life when one is threatened (it cites an example of a thief breaking into one's home).

The bottom line is, abortion is permissible if it's defending the threatened life of the mother. Scripture permits the defending of one's life when threatened, and permits killing in that situation. Your interpretation of scripture on this matter is completely inconsistent with what scritpure actually says.

 

Again, though you may be right, but I am not convinced.
There is a case of self defense which can be made.

In addition, if we have the kind of love you speak of above then we would not allow ourselves or those we love to receive any medical treatment (drugs, surgery, blood transfusion, resucitation, etc, etc...) to heal us of a fatal disease.

Instead, we would bear any pain, give up one's own life, and take no adverse action because love puts full trust in the Lord to provide the strength to deal with whatever trail is placed upon us even if the result is an earlier departure to His side than we want desire.

HankD

 

Making a decision not to accept medical treatment for a terminal illness or injury - a medical directive - is, I think, a legitimate and unselfish decision.

 

That's a matter of individual liberty. It's between that person and the Lord. So it is with terminating an ectopic pregnancy. The error you're committing is presuming that, if it's offensive to you, then it must therefore be scripturally banned. That's not so. You have no more scriptural authority to tell someone they can't abort their ectopic pregnancy than they would have the scriptural authority to tell you you can't refuse medical treatment for a terminal illness or injury.

 

Is leaving your one's children orphans and one's wife a widow an unselfish decision?

HankD

 

Exodus 22:2-4 - "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double."

This scripture is not the Christian's license to unconditional self-defense! It acknowledges a persons right to defend their property with limited and measured force. The specific example illustrates the case where a robber is found in the night, resisted by a defender, and in the process unintentionally killed; and the contrary case where a robber is found in the day - clearly seen for what he is - and killed in overly aggressive response to his crime. This very principle is applied in civil law today. The law tends to give the benefit of the doubt to you in such cases. That's the way it should be! If you kill a robber because he has broken into your home, surprised you, presents a clear threat to you, and you respond by shooting him to protect yourself or your family, then you will be found justified by most any jury. But, if you chase the robber outside, down the street, and shoot him there, or if you shoot him if he surrenders or prevents no threat beyond just taken some property, or if you hunt him down and kill him a week later, then you will mostly likely find yourself convicted murder.

The unborn child is seen in the day and we have no right to murder it.