the woman choosing the abortion can be a victim also. The sad thing i believe is that a woman who chooses abortion is choosing a life altering decision and the majority of the time doesnt even know what is inside of her really. Why else would planned parenthood fight legislation that said that had to do a sonogram and show the mother the screen, if she wanted to, so that she could give "completely informed" consent. Why would they intintionally turn the screens whey they are doing the sonos, so that the mother cant see? There have been woman come forward who have had abortions that said they asked to see the sono and were told they were not allowed to. This is unethical. If you believe in the right to choose, then you should be fighting for these women to choose after being properly educated about what is going on in their body. Most prochoice people are adement about teenagers and even younger having proper sex ed, so they can make informed decisions, so why is this any different. I dont know what house bill number it was but the prochoice politicians would not pass it because planned parent lobbiest have them in their pockets. This makes no sense except to say that the vast majority of abortion minded woman have changed their minds after seeing a sono. And that would mean losing money. What happened to womens lib?? I thought it was supposed to put women on equal level as men, not take away knowledge that might make us actually think about our decisions. Sorry so long of a post ! Have a good weekend.
Come on, gals! We are doing better than the pres candidates, who kept repeating themselves, but the pro-lifers still haven't spoken to this question, as far as I can tell (Editing this to say that Jackie did.); and there are many Q's the pro-choicers haven't spoken to, either. Maybe everyone already has their mind made up about this, but I'm still not understanding... Oh, OK, Patty's response about Christian policeman etc. probably did address this question indirectly. Since no one opposed her, it looks like some people on this forum believe that there are situations where the taking of human life by other humans is killing, but not necessarily, "murder." Right? Some would agree that such situations include: self-defense, acts of war, capital punishment, & police actions. In the reasoning of those people who agree, would an ectopic pregnancy, which is threatening the life of the mother fall into one of those categories??? (Relating this to the OP, both murder and killing, imho, would fall under governmental jurisdiction.) OK, ladies, if you would be so helpful, let's take this one question at a time: Starting with Crystal's question, then, is there ever any situation where the taking of the life of an unborn baby, would be killing, but not murder?
I answered this question previously: My response was that it is not a gray area at all. God is the giver of life, and only He has the right to take it away. I do not agree with abortion in the areas of rape/incest or in the case of a mother's life being in danger. Abortion is never OK, never. It cannot be rationalized. So, my answer is... no. There is never a situation where abortion is not murder.
I have actually really stuggled with this, spiritually. I cannot say what I would do, and I thank God that I haven't had to deal with it.
Wow! Thank you, Sixcloar! Somehow, in mulling this over in my mind and in reviewing the posts, I didn't see the significance of what you were saying! I have heard of mothers enduring life-endangering pregnancies, trusting their lives to the Lord, and surviving. That is what I would hope to be able to do--to risk my own life, if necessary. It is exactly at this point that I am struggling, though--not that I'm unsure what my personal stand is--but can we expect our standard, based on faith in an all-wise, loving God, to be the standard for society, in this instance? I'm thinking that threatening the life of the mother, for a non-Christian, would tend to fall into the same category as "self-defense" would and therefore could be justified from their perspective. I'm sorry I didn't see what you were saying before, and I'm glad to see I'm not the only one struggling in this area.
As Christians, we (As I understand it) are not supposed to arm ourselves at our home, because if one man strikes your cheek, we are supposed to offer him the other to strike. Therefore, even self defense is not an excuse for killing. I am, however NOT perfect. I am a Christian, which means I acknowledge that I am not perfect, nor will I ever be. I am a mom, and I cannot for the life of me imagine NOT defending my family. I do not know of a time when Ectopic Pregnancies actually worked.... There is no where for the fetus to successfully attach without killing the host, ergo killing itself . . . Slowly. Therefore, in my mind, it is not self defense to kill the embryo, it is Euthanasia. Like when we put down an injured horse or dog. So in that particular case, would it be inhumane to not end it?
ectopic pregnancy I dont see how the pregnancy would survive at all, because if the mother starts hemerraging the baby would never survive. this is always such a hard discussion, because we have to put ourselves in that place. would we risk our already born childrens moms life to possibly save our unborn child. wwjd? it is so hard in life to put Jesus in our shoes and know what he would do and actually, and follow through? hard decisions, cant say that i know what i would do. i know what i think God would want me to do, just dont know if i would have the strength to do it, unless i didnt already have children. i am thinking of their life without me. not really me, but how hard their life would be. :cry::cry::cry: makes my heart break just to imagine how it would be for them.
Actually, there is a documented case. My struggle comes with knowing that God is always in control and in believing that life does indeed begin at conception. I absolutely cannot say what I would do in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. Like Mama mentioned, the human side of me would be crying out to be there for my children. I certainly do not condemn those who have made choices to terminate ectopic pregnancies. I have not walked in their shoes.
I believe that the issues of self-defense, police officers and capital punishment (whether or not you are for or against these issues) have one major difference. The people involved CHOSE, as adults, to put themselves into those situations. A baby does not choose, it is being chosen for by the person who put it into that situation. I realize that in the cases of rape and incest that it is a very heart-wrenching psycological problem for the mother, but the child is still an innocent. As far as life-threatening pregnancies, that definitely is a toughy (although let's be honest, it's a very small percentage of why abortions happen). Here is how I think about it: if that baby was one year old, and fell into a flooded river, would you risk your life to save it? Knowing that you may very well die, would you run into a busy street to save a child? So what's the difference? A little time? Would you risk your life for your child the day AFTER it's born but not a month before it?
Oh my! Here I am challenged again by you friends to dig deeper on this topic, just when I thought I was coming to some conclusions! Bodysmom1, I had never thought of it quite like that. Your example certainly puts a different perspective on that question for me! Before you posted, I felt comfortable with Jen's suggestion. Sixcloar, amazing! What an awesome illustration that we can never predict what an outcome will be. We don't know for sure if either the babe or the mother or both will live or die. For those of us who have accepted the evidence of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection and have entered into covenant with the Maker of heaven and earth, we trust our lives and the lives of our children to His care. That basic fact affects our decisions and will often bring us to different conclusions than the rest of society. Next question: We cannot expect our neighbors, who might not be in covenant with their Creator, to make the same faith-based decisions as we do in situations like this, can we? Therefore, is it not likely that there will have to be a "double-standard" here--one that we believers abide by and another one for the rest of society?
I find it odd that abortion, or the choice to not have one is considered faith based. Does the value of an unborn baby only reside in the heart and soul of a Christian? No. There are also nonbelievers who believe abortion is wrong. A double standard says something is alright for one person and wrong for another, in this case we are discussing abortion. Abortion is wrong no matter who does it. The Bible doesn't give an allowence for sin; nonbelievers can commit this much sin and believers only this much. We are ALL called into a relationship with Christ and we are ALL called to be part of his plan. Whether we come to Jesus or not, is up to us. But God's plan is no less in effect. So therefore, there is no double standard since we are ALL called to be part of this plan. I believe God has a better plan than abortion. God is so merciful that he forgives the sins we commit before we come to the cross, this includes abortion but I believe the sin still brings pain to God even if the person isn't a believer.
I think for some people the issue is more of "when does life begin?". Some believe that life begins the moment of fertilization....before implantation happens. Others at the moment of implantation, and some not until the baby can live outside of the mother on its own. So for some woman the morning after pill would not be abortion because it is meant to prevent -fertilization, implantation, and ovulation. And as I understand it, (but I am not certain), if you report a rape immediately after it happens, while you are being examined at the hospital they will give this to you to prevent a pregnancy. For women who believe life does not begin until the baby can survive outside the womb....an abortion performed durring the first trimester would not be considered murder. Others believe that any form of birth control goes against God's will. In that He meant sex for the sole purpose of procreation and if you do anything to prevent that you are interfering with His grand plan. These people believe that by using contraceptives you are in theory doing the same as a woman who goes to a clinic to terminate a pregnancy. So these different beliefs....religious or not....play a large part in how people view abortion. And for the few states that will prosecute someone who has caused the death of a woman and her unborn child....the charges are usually only brought against the murderer if the child could live outside the womb. Personally I feel if the mother had every intention of having the child it shouldn't matter if she was six weeks pregnant or six months. So I think for abortions to be legal or not depends on how the law defines life and when it begins. As far as morally...... I guess that is were religion and a person's beliefs of what is right or wrong or better for those involved come into play. If the law supports that life doesn't begin until a later point than what I believe, then I must accept that it falls on the second point.....a woman's beliefs. And if my beliefs or my church's beliefs differ from the law's, I am the one who must instill these in my children (the congregation) and trust that they will make the best choices and decisions they can as they go through life. Final thought.....it really is a breath of fresh air to have people with such strong beliefs on both sides be able to have an intelligent conversation on this hot of a topic.
Oh Wow! There's so much to think about in this post! I will have to go back and reread it and try to "soak it in" some more. Yes, in general, I do agree with about everything you say; however, my double standard was only referring to the life-threatening situations we had been discussing. Would you contend that eveything you said applies to that, as well? This is the point at which I'm "wrestling" with the Lord, and it's so good to be able to have help in my thinking! Thank you! Thanks, amym, for your thoughts, too. In fact, I'm learning from both sides on this discussion. Maybe a lot of us are.
Ladies, I go away for the weekend, and come back to find all this going on without me!!! And, once again, Prairie is asking questions too deep for me at this moment (ie: worn out after spending the weekend camping with a group of teenage girls!). Hopefully, tomorrow I can read with understanding and jump in! One thing I would like to comment on, however, is self defense. I believe God DOES allow us to defend ourselves. An clear example where the Jewish people were allowed to defend themselves, even though the authority was given by men rather than God, was in the book of Esther. But the implication was that the DELIVERANCE was from God just the same. I spoke to a woman once about this very thing. If someone was to attack me, would I be willing to kill to defend myself? Perhaps not. But what if they were threatening my CHILDREN? That's a totally different situation. I believe God EXPECTS us to defend the innocent and the defenseless.
Prairie, your questions are thought provoking and a pleasure! This is a tough question but in the end I am against abortion even if the pregnancy is life threatening. People may not agree with me. This is alright.:angel: Now I do put a tubal pregnancy in a different catagory. Would I have an abortion if I had a tubal pregnancy? I want to say no because my brain is stuck in abortion mode.LOL I have to ask myself, is it alright for me to take the life of the unborn even if I know it will die before birth and I could too? YIKES!!!!! I have to be honest, I do not know.:? Like I said, tubal pregnancies are in a class of their. Then my brain goes back to asking if I have a right to take a life that will most likely die anyways. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! This is maddening!!!LOL
As far as killing in self defense, I think there is a difference between vengence and self defense. Killing is an ugly thing regardless of how it is done or why. This is why many police departments require a paid leave for an officer who kills somebody. Along with this leave they also require therapy of some type. An honorable person who kills never feels good about it even when it is done with the best intentions. I think this issue is a matter of the heart; the motive. Is the desire/instinct to protect our home, our children, and ourselves from a murderer or an attacker a sin or did God implant this defense mode in us to defend what he has blessed us with for a reason?
See? Now THIS is exactly why I love this board. You guys rock. I thought I knew how I felt about the issue until You guys gave me more to think about. However, I will always be anti-abortion for conveniences sake. Meaning, having one because YOU were carelsess, is NOT ok. I have to admit that the idea of jumping in to save the baby made me think. Now, I think that jumping in to save the baby would not necessarily be akin to the tubal pregnancy... I think that is more akin to saving the child even though you know he has say, Down syndrome, or his heart will be out of his chest, or a brain tumor before he is even born.... I think carrying the child with those known problems is more akin to jumping in with him. But the tubal pregnancy quagmire might be more akin to having a child with a disease and choosing to insert the child's disease in you. In other words, adding your life to the death count, when not really necessary. I was thinking on this earlier... God gave us brains, that is why we have doctors, because we used those brains. And we have people who think that if we use doctors it goes against God's plan.... I think that the ectopic pregnancy problem is more akin to NOT getting your wife to a doctor and waiting for God to cure her asthma. Most of us would think it is ludicrous to not take your wife in to be treated for her asthma... while others would argue that if God wanted her cured of asthma he would do it already. To me, that is the tubal pregnancy problem. It is more of a disease issue.
Many years ago, I was on another board. A woman on there was pregnant. She was married, and on BC (which for some reason didn't "work".) She had had a VERY DIFFICULT first pregnancy, and the doctor STRONGLY ADVISED AGAINST getting pregnant again, or it could result in her death. So when she found out she was expecting again, her husband wanted her to abort. He didn't want to lose her. Well, heck, I think ALL of us could understand that! OF COURSE HE DIDN'T!!! But she was having a hard time with the idea of an "abortion". And it's SO SIMPLE, when it's not YOU, to sit back and say, "Don't worry about it! God will take care of everything!" But when it's YOUR life, and YOUR husband who doesn't want to lose you, and the thought of the child you ALREADY have being motherless.... Sigh. All I could say (since she was a Christian) was to pray about it, and then listen to what she felt God was telling her to do. Turned out, btw, that she wasn't pregnant. It was a tumor (!!!), which was removed and dealt with. But that wasn't known at the time, and she still had the mental anguish to go through!
