Abortions????

[Sotto Voce]

I know this is going to open a can of worms, but I just had a thought. Christians who are against abortions, I'm curious as to why you would rather a child suffer in this life, rather than being sent to heaven before enduring any suffering? As far as I can remember children are granted automatic entry into heaven until they can be held accountable. So why deny a child a chance to have a loving home with your heavenly father instead of being raised in foster care, or worse? I don't get it.

All children suffer, it's part of our lot in life, so logically, the safer thing to do would be deliver the babies and then shoot them, if the aim is to avoid suffering and send them to heaven.

 

[lsume]

I know this is going to open a can of worms, but I just had a thought. Christians who are against abortions, I'm curious as to why you would rather a child suffer in this life, rather than being sent to heaven before enduring any suffering? As far as I can remember children are granted automatic entry into heaven until they can be held accountable. So why deny a child a chance to have a loving home with your heavenly father instead of being raised in foster care, or worse? I don't get it.

I believe that the child is known by God The Father well before conception. For those who are Heaven bound, you must through much tribulation enter into The Kingdom of Heaven. As I recall, a babies heart starts beating very early in the pregnancy. As I understood a case where an abortion doctor was on trial for late term abortions, a nurse testified that the baby was crying during its murder. There are many people in this world that would happily adopt an unwanted child. I cannot question God’s Laws in any way and thou shall not kill stands equally for the life that is created at conception. We raised 4 children who are all married and trying to live Christian lives. A long time after they had left the nest, we investigated adopting a baby girl from China. This was around the time when China had a law in effect allowing only one child to be born per family. As I understood what was happening at that time, parents of baby girls were literally throwing them away. As it turned out, we were deemed to old to adopt a new born baby. I seem to recall that the child would have needed to be around 8 for us to adopt. I felt that by that age, many of the fundamentals that need instruction were already formed. Our children needed very little discipline after the age of 4. Based on my own observations, many young children today have not been taught how to behave. It’s not necessary to ever beat a child. Simple reasonable discipline with Christ as your guide is all a parent can do. Love must always be understood even when administrating discipline. Christ Himself went through great discipline taught by His Father.

Rev.2

1. 
   [27] And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

I’ve drifted off topic and I apologize for doing so. However, no true Christian would ever consider abortion as I see it. Obedience to God’s Word is essential for anyone who will spend eternity in Heaven. Man shall live by every Word that proceedeth out of The Mouth of God. Our son impregnated an older woman in his youth. He married the woman who was seriously considering abortion. We pleaded with her to allow us to adopt the child rather than getting the abortion. She gave birth to girl who today profess’s Christ and is close to being 21 if my memory is correct. The entire topic is, for me, a non topic for true Christians. Also, if memory serves, many poor women who have undergone the procedure strongly regret it later in life.

Thank you for your post.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Yes, young children are saved the moment they die. What does that have to do with brutally slaughtering them?

 

[JoeP222w]

I'm curious as to why you would rather a child suffer in this life, rather than being sent to heaven before enduring any suffering? As far as I can remember children are granted automatic entry into heaven until they can be held accountable. So why deny a child a chance to have a loving home with your heavenly father instead of being raised in foster care, or worse? I don't get it.

Fundamental error that children automatically go to Heaven. You won't find this in the Bible. There is no age of accountability in the Bible.

All mankind is born in Adam, with a sinful nature. That does not mean that babies are as evil as they can be, but that does mean that they are not righteous before God by default. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). There is no age assigned to that verse. And only the elect of God go to Heaven, regardless of their age. We do not know the identity of the elect. God does not reveal that to us.

God's grace is far greater than we can imagine, but that does not mean that babies automatically go to Heaven. If that was the case (its not) than Christians should be the greatest proponents of abortion ever. Christians understand the sanctity and sacredness of life and know that everything should be done to protect life, not destroy it.

The logic you present is, that because a child may suffer in this life, we should murder it in the most gruesome way imaginable by ripping it arms and legs and crushing it's brain and tearing it from what should be the safest place on earth in the mother's womb. You are promoting causing horrific suffering to the child through abortion. That is depraved.

You need to turn to Christ and live.

 

[JoeP222w]

I was talking about people who can’t supply for a child.

So murder the child because the mother is on hard times. That is depraved.

the 13 year old child who had been raped and left

So murder the child in the womb for the crimes of the father. That is depraved.

Do you think they should be responsible for a live that they don’t want.

The church is to help them to preserve life, not pursue further sin.

 

[JoeP222w]

Yes, young children are saved the moment they die.

Bible verse?

 

[lsume]

I think several people have pointed out the logical inconsistency on your part. If the reason is to (a) prevent suffering and (b) send them to heaven since they automatically get a free ticket, then why don't we apply this logic everywhere else? If a person is a Christian, why not just go ahead and prevent any of their suffering and send them straight to heaven too? Why not do it for all small infants? Why do you only apply these principles to some children in the womb? Your principles seem to be grounds for killing all children and Christian adults.

A second thought. You're trying to argue general rules from particular cases, but why aren't these particular cases you mention exceptions to the rule instead?

A third thought. When the parents commit a serious mistake, such as having a child they can't/won't support, why would you punish the child by killing it? What did they do to deserve death? Where is the justice here? It seems the real problem here is that you don't give arbitrarily young enough children the dignity and value that you give to other humans. What gives you the right to determine which humans are worth more than other humans?

A fourth thought. What gives you the right to determine for someone else whether or not they get to suffer? Maybe the child would rather suffer and struggle though life than be killed as a child? What gives you the right to make this decision for them?

This looks to me like a gross disrespect for human life and people's right to their own life.

Acts.14

1. [22] Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

There is a great deal of similar explanations of the suffering that comes to all true Christians who will enter into The Kingdom of God The Father. An aborted fetus’ soul must be placed in to another baby perhaps. The aforementioned sentence is not absolute and is only one way that I have pondered the topic. While Christ was gone, immediately after His death or close to that time, He gave testimony to those lost during the flood who were in prison.

1Pet.3 Verses 18 to 20

1. 
   
   [18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
   [19] By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
   [20] Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

 

[RaymondG]

Now I'm curious as to how you're able to remotely evaluate my emotional state.

I didnt assume; I asked a questions. It was the emotion pulling statements that were made that made me question. It would not be fruitful to continue conversations with emotional people. I, However, did not sense any emotion in this reply.....only objective logic with can be understood and respected.

This is where the real disagreement lies. Is the unborn child a human or not.

I agree, this is relevant to the topic at hand and can/should be discussed. I would term it "a living soul," more so than "human"

I think the point is to check for consistency. Of course the situations presented are absurd, but given the principles in question, are those situations consistent with those principles?

The problem is, you have good valid arguments which should be heard. Yet when you mix in absurdity, it detracts from the good. I know when I read the absurd....I take lightly, everything else that is said. Others may just stop reading and disregard everything.....yet others wouldnt be affected by any of it.....especially those strongly in agreement with the premise of your argument. Just wouldnt want anything standing in the way of the good points that you make.

I'm not sure what a like score is or why you think I'm interested in it. But feel free to continue evaluating my motives and emotional state.

I dont evaluate. I question.

Well, I disagree that relatability is a principle of justice, so our ability to relate or not is beside the point. Just because one may not be able to relate to another doesn't mean that it's therefore ok to extinguish their life.

We know about the extinguishing of life...we dont know about how life in the womb is affected nor do i believe you can tell me how an unborn child feels. Therefore, it may be best to not use comparison of the known with the unknown to prove points....

Assuming a literal interpretation of Genesis for the moment, I'm not clear how it's valid to compare the development process of Adam (and Eve as well I suppose) and the development process of everyone since and then proceed to draw general rules about what qualifies as human.

YEs I dont believe it literal either, but when in Rome, I speak as the Romans, speak..so i can be understood. and i try to avoid the absurd, so to be taken seriously. Was only trying to recommend that others do the same.

 

[mama2one]

So why deny a child a chance to have a loving home with your heavenly father instead of being raised in foster care, or worse? I don't get it.

We are thankful our chlld's birthmother chose to give birth.
Choose adoption.

 

[NW82]

Best explanation on abortion that I've heard.

 

[RaymondG]

Using good scriptures against killing are often not used as the debate usually lies with people who are non believers. I'd make the bold assumption of saying that most believers would be pro life (I'd hope, anyway).

Using the Word of God is a good source for any discussion. And is usually respected by all....as we all believe in Something. You assumption is bold...and it is unwise to assume....so to avoid disappointment. Let me lay waste another extreme unmerited argument.... Just become one may be Pro Choice.....doesnt mean that they support abortion, or are for abortion in any way.

You seem to be a little hung up on the breath / breathing thing. Not sure why. There are plenty of living beings on earth that don't breathe our air directly. Also, - babies get oxygen in the womb.
Would you say an unborn baby is not alive, as it doesn't use it's lungs yet ?

Not sure why you arent concerned about the breathe of life. It is the only think we cant live one hour without. It is the first thing we take in and the last thing we release. It is pretty important, dont you think?

There are plenty of living beings on earth that don't breathe our air directly. Also, - babies get oxygen in the womb.
Would you say an unborn baby is not alive, as it doesn't use it's lungs yet ?

Are you now going to compare the killing of living beings on the earth to killing babies? I believe a child to be more important and should not be compared to other living beings.

Discussion about the babies breathing in the womb is very useful to the discussion.....talking about murdering adults and homeless people isnt.

I did not say an unborn child is not alive....you are saying that I said it to discredited me. Its another way to disregard truth in favor of rash judgement inspired by your emotional statements.

I think that the reason people extend their parallels and comparisons to the extreme (killing people, kids etc) is to simply highlight the absurdity of the notion that we should or could decide when it's ok to take a life.

Discussion on how or why this is considered taking a life is helpful and needed....we are capable of listening to it without needing emotional strings pulled beforehand....a tactic also used heavily by the phone scammers......and we are better than they.

Let me ask you.....When the mother is dying and lifesaving treatment would kill the unborn....do you still stand by your words? should the mother die because she has no right to decide when the baby does?

The one second old and up part - what a shame for poor babies who are 15 mins away from delivery, or 5 mins - so nearly made it ! That child is basically no different before or after that one second, that's the bottom line.

Another extreme emotional attempt to get the reader to feel bad if they dont agree with you.

I dont think there are too many mothers deciding, in the delivery room, that they made a mistake carrying the baby for nine months. Do you really believe that this it the case for at least half of abortions that take place?

 

[Nige55]

Best explanation on abortion that I've heard.

Ben has some of the best, most sound counters to the pro-choice groups.

 

[RaymondG]

A human life is a human life. Whether someone has breathed on their own or not doesn't change the fact that they're a human being.

Do you also liken the murder of a healthy Mother to the removal of one who is on life support who is expected to never get off? both are human beings and, although rare, people have gotten off life support who were told they wouldnt.

Would you say a human life is a human life here as well. Or can we make room for the acknowledgment of change in thought processes based on situational circumstances? e.g. is it ok for one to not liken abortion, to killing a baby because they are crying in their crib? If one cannot separate the two, how can they be a reliable judge in any situation? no ye not that we shall judge angels? yet not before full objectivity is present.....which requires the full death of the I....

 

[Nige55]

Using the Word of God is a good source for any discussion. And is usually respected by all....as we all believe in Something. You assumption is bold...and it is unwise to assume....so to avoid disappointment. Let me lay waste another extreme unmerited argument.... Just become one may be Pro Choice.....doesnt mean that they support abortion, or are for abortion in any way.

"Respected by all" ? Did you even read my post properly ? I said that often these discussions are had with non believers.


Not sure why you arent concerned about the breathe of life. It is the only think we cant live one hour without. It is the first thing we take in and the last thing we release. It is pretty important, dont you think?

Once again, babies live without breath in their lungs. I'm not sure why I should be 'concerned' about it. I'm not sure that I need to take the biblical verse in literal form.

Are you now going to compare the killing of living beings on the earth to killing babies? I believe a child to be more important and should not be compared to other living beings.

You've missed the point entirely - I'm referencing the existence of life.

Discussing about the babies breathing in the womb is very useful to the discussion.....talking about murdering adults and homeless people isnt.

I did not say an unborn child is not alive....you are saying that I said it to discredited me. Its another way to disregard truth in favor of rash judgement inspired by your emotional statements.

I was highlighting a contradiction in your point actually. A baby in the womb doesn't have it's lungs inhaling and exhaling air, and yet it's alive. I think that's a pretty reasoned judgement.

Discussion on how or why this is considered taking a life is helpful and needed....we are capable of listening to it without needing emotional strings pulled beforehand....a tactic also used heavily by the phone scammers......and we are better than they.

Let me at you.....When the mother is dying and lifesaving treatment would kill the unborn....do you still stay by your words? should the mother dies because she has no right to decide when the baby does?

In that (heart breaking)scenario, it's the doctors call to preserve life to the maximum.

Another extreme emotional attempt to get the reader to feel bad if they dont agree with you.

Many mothers 'feel bad' after aborting, - it's a heart breaking topic. If someone feels bad in justifying brutally killing unborn babies, then maybe they need to dig a little deeper in their conscience.
The term 'brutally killing unborn babies' is horrendous, and yet absolutely true. I invite anyone to disprove the truth of that term.

I dont think there are too many mothers deciding, in the delivery room, that they made a mistake carrying the baby for nine months. Do you really believe that this it the case for at least half of abortions that take place?

Late term abortions exists. No idea where you got the 'at least half of all abortions' part from.

 

[NW82]

Would you say a human life is a human life here as well. Or can we make room for the acknowledgment of change in thought processes based on situational circumstances? e.g. is it ok for one to not liken abortion, to killing a baby because they are crying in their crib? If one cannot separate the two, how can they be a reliable judge in any situation? no ye not that we shall judge angels? yet not before full objectivity is present.....which requires the full death of the I....

This would presume that a baby inside the womb, versus outside the womb are two separate beings, they are not. A baby in the womb at 9 months is no different than outside the womb at 9 months (for this example). Given this logic, you have to choose, is a baby, or fetus in medical terms, a human being or not? If it is then aborting the baby is murder. 8f the baby isn't a human being, then show the difference between the 9 month old baby in/out of the womb.

 

[Nige55]

Oh dear, I still haven't got the hang of replying to multiple points

 

[RaymondG]

This would presume that a baby inside the womb, versus outside the womb are two separate beings, they are not. A baby in the womb at 9 months is no different than outside the womb at 9 months (for this example). Given this logic, you have to choose, is a baby, or fetus in medical terms, a human being or not? If it is then aborting the baby is murder. 8f the baby isn't a human being, then show the difference between the 9 month old baby in/out of the womb.

apparently, I was not aware of the prevalence of 9 month term abortions. This have to be the case, or else you are just wasting time. I'll assume the former, and agree, that we should try and stop full term abortions at all cost. And once this has happened, it would seem that this would get rid of at least 90% of the current abortions...since you are the second person to bring up killing a nine month term baby in caparison to the child that has been born....

 

[ViaCrucis]

I know this is going to open a can of worms, but I just had a thought. Christians who are against abortions, I'm curious as to why you would rather a child suffer in this life, rather than being sent to heaven before enduring any suffering? As far as I can remember children are granted automatic entry into heaven until they can be held accountable. So why deny a child a chance to have a loving home with your heavenly father instead of being raised in foster care, or worse? I don't get it.

Most Christians would hold that we trust in God's overwhelming kindness. Not that "children are granted automatic entry into heaven", that isn't a Christian teaching; but that we trust that God is kind, loving, just, and merciful and so can rely on Him to be these things toward very young children, the mentally challenged, those who have never heard, and indeed even all people. As St. Paul has said that God is the "Savior of all people, especially of those who believe".

The Christian position is that life is inherently itself good; this present life is a life of suffering on account of sin, but that does not make life itself bad. That's why we confess and teach Jesus Christ risen from the dead, and that when He returns the dead will be raised, and God will make all things new--there will be a restoration of all things in the Age to Come.

I don't believe "Heaven" or "Hell" are automatic for anyone.

There is the beatific life of the Age to Come, when and where God has has renewed and healed all things, and there is life, peace, justice, and freedom. And there is not that. It is God's will that all share in the salvation and life of the Age to Come; but we also confess there will, or may be, those--perhaps even many--who will refuse, reject, and oppose it even to the bitter end.

This isn't about rewards and punishments, this isn't about who is "good" and who is "bad". This is about redemption for creation, and God's loving compassion for His creatures to bring them out from death into life, the beatific life of what God is doing for all things. C.S. Lewis puts it very well when he says that in the end there are two sorts of people, those who say to God "Thy will be done." and those to whom God says, "Thy will be done." "Heaven" is the will of God for all. "Hell" is the will of man for himself.

There is no one in the Age to Come who deserves to be there.
And there is no one in "Hell" who does not himself will and desire to be there.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RaymondG]

"Respected by all" ? Did you even read my post properly ? I said that often these discussions are had with non believers.

although I was reluctant to read anything from you after the emotional extremes you peppered in, I did finish your post.

If you desire your words to be heard and respect by all, you should try eliminating extremes, and emotional statements and respect the opinions of others just like your own. After this, i believe you will no longer need to use "they are non-believers" as a reason why people dont listen to you. Im sure their are many believers who also disagree with many of your interpretations of the bible as well.

Once again, babies live without breath in their lungs. I'm not sure why I should be 'concerned' about it. I'm not sure that I need to take the biblical verse in literal form.

Yes they do... people who are brain dead also live with breath in their lungs. Yet there are some people who do not liken, "pulling the plug," to murdering the homeless, or killing children at the park. Even if you cannot make the differienciation...the opinion of those that can, should still be respected.

You've missed the point entirely - I'm referencing the existence of life.

Are you able to use examples that arent extreme? Can you think of everyday examples or is the only case "If you agree with abortion, you might as well murder infants and the homeless?"

I was highlighting a contradiction in your point actually. A baby in the womb doesn't have it's lungs inhaling and exhaling air, and yet it's alive. I think that's a pretty reasoned judgement.

Yes this is a reasonable judgement and a respected one. However, you did say that I made a determination about the life of a child when I did not. Perhaps you could use different wording so that your motives arent questions verbally or mentally.

In that (heart breaking)scenario, it's the doctors call to preserve life to the maximum.

Here is where your exclamations fall apart. I believe if you feel so strongly about something.....strong enough to call one a sinner and murderer who commits this act....there should be no exceptions. Truth very seldom has exceptions or loopholes....

IT is never ok to murder....so why turn a blind eye in this case? how can I Esteem your opinion now, knowing that there are cases that you can turn your back on and say "let it be as they decide" How can you turn your back on this innocent child? the child who is still breathing in the womb, as you proclaimed, yet cannot speak for itself?

Many mothers 'feel bad' after aborting, - it's a heart breaking topic. If someone feels bad in justifying brutally killing unborn babies, then maybe they need to dig a little deeper in their conscience.
The term 'brutally killing unborn babies' is horrendous, and yet absolutely true. I invite anyone to disprove the truth of that term.

Killing would suffice.....the added adjectives is a attempt to sway the readers emotions. unless you are saying that you would be ok with it if it wasnt brutal.

So which is it? is it the brutality of it that bothers you, or is it the fact that a life is being snuffed out? If the latter, why add talks about whether or not it is brutal?

Late term abortions exists. No idea where you got the 'at least half of all abortions' part from.

Because it would make sense to discuss the most broad cases of abortion, not the most narrow......if we are trying to change the minds of the many. we arent trying to give the impression that abortion should be avoided only during late terms.... so why not speak of it in general instead of referencing select cases, which just so happens to conjure the most emotion?

 

[Lost4words]

I know this is going to open a can of worms, but I just had a thought. Christians who are against abortions, I'm curious as to why you would rather a child suffer in this life, rather than being sent to heaven before enduring any suffering? As far as I can remember children are granted automatic entry into heaven until they can be held accountable. So why deny a child a chance to have a loving home with your heavenly father instead of being raised in foster care, or worse? I don't get it.

Thou shalt not Murder

A commandment from God