...but the child is both of theirs. I would think the husband has some legal rights as to the outcome of the child's birth in this situation, or the wife's state of mind in making this decision at that point of time.
I've seen the Dr. override the patient's decison on ER :laugh:
Your view on abortion
Discussion in 'Polls Forum' started by SaggyWoman, Mar 29, 2008.
?
-
Abortion is wrong.
65 vote(s)84.4% -
Abortion is wrong only after 3 months.
1 vote(s)1.3% -
Abortion is wrong only after six months.
1 vote(s)1.3% -
Abortion is wrong only if the one carrying the baby thinks it is wrong.
0 vote(s)0.0% -
There is nothing wrong with abortion.
0 vote(s)0.0% -
Other answer
10 vote(s)13.0%
Page 8 of 12
-
-
You know that there is not a verse that says that - just as there is no verse that says "do not intervene to save the life of one who is perishing"
However, they were murdered by God's order. You asked to show you where God commanded one to murder and it's there - in black and white. -
Right - BUT in the case of a woman choosing to try to save the life of her child and possibly perish in doing so, the husband legally has no say in the matter.
-
Scripture states that God hates hands that shed innocent blood. What is the unborn guilt of?
Abortion is murder... it is sin and God says it is an abomination. -
Again you say legally. The government has nothing to do with what the man says. They can say they do, but they don't.
The women is the helpmeet and is subjective to her husband.
Genesis 3:16 (KJV)
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. -
Well, if your premise is that we should not 'intervene' in the course of events, you're basis of reasoning is fundamentally flawed, and there is no use continuing the debate. Was the Samaritan wrong to intervene in the poor Jew's situation?
-
In this she is correct in the fact all rights belong to the patient, in this case the mother.
UNLESS there are circumstances that prohibit the mom from making the decision. ie. she is in a coma, or has been given narcotics. My wife was unable to voice her decision so that decision then fell to me.
The only "normal" time another person makes the decisions medically is in the case of a minor child, except in the case of having an abortion then parents are not required to even know about it much less give consent. With that being said this is not true for all states, some require parent notifcation. -
However, can you make a doctor save the life of your wife over the child when she has expressly told them not to? As much as we know that the husband is the head of the wife, the doctors do not listen to that. I'm in NY and the NY State Proxy Law states "Even though you have signed this form, you have the right to make health care decisions for yourself as long as you are able to do so, and treatment cannot be given to you or stopped if you object, nor will your agent have any power to object." By law, the doctor cannot do what the husband wants unless 2 doctors have decided that the wife is no longer able to make her own decisions and the decision that she had made was not in her right mind. That takes courts and time.
-
What did I say that would make you think I care what a doctor says?
Like I said before, God doesn't care what the doctors, courts, or governments, say.
A wife needs to listen to her husband. -
LOL - I agree that a wife needs to listen to her husband but she's human too and will disobey. I know you say that you don't care what the doctors say, but I'm saying practically, that a husband has no say. A wife decides that she's not going to do a cancer treatment because it will harm the baby, even though it most likely result in her death. Her husband is 100% against her choice. There is literally nothing he can do - except appeal to her and maybe get others to try to change her mind. But if she does not change her mind, there is nothing left to do.
-
A good wife won't.
Proverbs 18:22 (KJV)
22: Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.
Proverbs 31:11-12 (KJV)
11: The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
12: She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
If a wife disobeys she doesn't fits the descriptions in these verse. :( -
Let me tell you - a mama and her babe make a mama do some strange things. I can honestly say that if there were a chance that the babe can survive, many good wives would choose to not murder their baby and disobey her husband.
I know it sounds like I'm arguing either side - FOR murdering a child and AGAINST it, but it's not a straightforward decision. I know a mama who at 20 weeks came down with such severe eclampsia that her kidneys shut down and she was within hours of dying. Even after they chose to do an emergency c-section and deliver the baby, it was touch and go for a while as to whether or not she was going to make it.
I also know of another mama who found out she had cervical cancer while she was pregnant and the doctors recommended that she abort so that she had the best chance of survival (it was an extremely aggressive cancer). She chose to wait until the baby was big enough to be delivered safely and then get the treatment. She eventually lost her battle to the cancer when the baby was 7 months old.
Honestly, I think any case where a choice has to be made is so unbelievably difficult and one that needs to be made through a lot of prayer. If there were not an immediate life threatening condition (such as the eclampsia or ectopic), I'm not sure I could make the decision to take the child because to me, it's allowing a miracle to happen. But if it was an obvious case of child vs. mother and either both will die or the child will die, I don't see much of a decision there.
So, while a "good wife" might obey her husband, is it right for her husband to choose the certain death of his child if it's not certain that there has to be a choice? Sometimes these decisions are really murky (I know SFIC will say that it's never murky but I think it is), and I think that it just might be the wife who will save this child - or maybe not. But whether she's a "good wife" or a horrible wife, she's his wife no matter what - and legally he cannot make the doctors do anything against the express wishes of his wife. -
Wow, more muslim theology (fatalism): "allah wills it."
Show me where you should have kidneystone surgery. Two can play the non-sequitur game. Look, abortion is murder....but this isn't murder. It is rescuing one life so you don't lose two lives. :BangHead: And I'm not trying to say what the choice must be in that situation....I'm saying that we should extend grace (look it up sometime if you're unfamiliar with it....it's a neat concept) when a family must undergo such a horrific situation.
I've noticed that you have no answer for the ectopic pregnancy. You were surprised that it can't be remedied. But, as usual, you flatly refuse to admit that there's ANY chance you were wrong or mistaken in your views, assumptions, etc. We keep coming back to this: There ARE instances in which a family is forced to choose: Do nothing and lose two lives. Do SOMETHING and save one life. But in your world, you would do nothing. Just wow. You'd make a good muslim, though.
Come on....try it. Admit just for once you might be learning something. It might grow on you. -
Sure, SFIC. With that philosophy, I suppose you believe that God has the ability to cause the doctor to slip and kill both people, thus fulfilling His purpose (if that's what God's purpose is...). Why should we worry about that? Just let the Doc do his thang....
-
Annsi said...
And StandingFirm then said...
Incredible.
Amazing.
Sadly,
Mike
-
Look up the definition of abomination sometime... and the phrase innocent blood. Tell me that someone can justify killing a fetus whether it is going to die on its own or not.
You don't condone Jack Kevorkian's evil work, do you btw? -
Instead of saying just amazing or sad, produce Scripture that tells me that life God gave is worthy of death.
-
And what sin did the newborn commit for God to condemn him to death by Joshua's hand?
-
Ok, here it is:The Samaritan should have left the man to die (possibly), because that was God's will (please do not read verses36-37). Other wise the whole event would never have happened...
Just what do you think you are worthy of anyway, if not death? -
Again, Scripture does not say that man was dying. It says they left him half dead.
Comparing the story of the Samaritan and the man beaten by thieves to a person performing an abortion is apples and oranges.
Yer really grasping to justify the shedding of innocent blood, aren't you?
Why not read verse 36 and 37? They are part of the story. And they help to shoot down the abortion is ok theory.
Page 8 of 12