I Did My Own Abortion Because Texas Used COVID-19 as an Excuse to Shut Down Abortion Clinics

HelenScot said:

You misunderstand the point: these are God’s words, not mine.

‘But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God’. Matthew 4:4 (KJV)

1 Peter 1:24-25 (KJV) 24 ‘For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.’

Click to expand...

That's nice. Still does not give you the insight to know whom is saved and whom is not.

GreatLakes4Ever said:

I don’t doubt you went through traumatic experiences through your life. But you are dismissing the trauma I went through of losing my faith as though it wasn’t real.

The sheer audacity it takes to claim to know what someone else believed a decade ago is unfathomable. I know my own life. And you are wrong. I was as confident in my knowledge of my place in heaven next to my Lord and Savior as you are right now. In time I lost my faith when it couldn’t hold up to cold hard reality.

Click to expand...

Again, you are missing the point too:

these are not my words, but God’s. I don’t claim to know what you believed, but God’s word is true and cannot lie:

Numbers 23:19 (KJV)
God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

we are to measure our faith by God’s WORD, not merely our own experience.

Psalms 37:28 (KJV) ‘For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.‘

Yet, the Word tells us that today is the day of salvation; thus, there is hope for you yet.

Jesus will not cut you off or cast you out:

John 6:37 (KJV) All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


Revelation 3:20 (KJV)
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

salvation is not based on some experience we had years ago, but how our souls are before God TODAY:

2 Corinthians 6:2 (KJV)
(For he saith...now [is] the accepted time; behold, now [is] the day of salvation.)

Belk said:

That's nice. Still does not give you the insight to know whom is saved and whom is not.

Click to expand...

You are still missing the point: it’s is God’s Word we are measuring ourselves against, no one else’s.

I am merely directing you to God’s Word.

Your or anyone else’s salvation is between you and God; just you and God on judgement day.

However, be it far from me to groom anyone with a false sense of security about THAT DAY. That’s the work of the devil: to let people assume that they are saved but are going to hell.

I am so thankful for the Christian’s in my life who challenged me before I was saved about my erroneous ways, and ensured that I made my calling and election sure ( 2 Peter 1:10 (KJV) Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:)

Yes, I too took offence at their references to God’s Word: who were THEY to tell ME that I was on a wrong path and not saved!?

Yet, I soon appreciated that they did it out of love for my soul. They cared for my eternal state.

I still appreciate fellow Christian’s reminding me of God’s word and helping me to stay on the straight and narrow ( Proverbs 27:6 (KJV)
Faithful [are] the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy [are] deceitful.)

if a child was to run out into a road and risk death from the dangers facing them, it would be cruel to let them carry on. Or if you had a friend who was about to step back down an open lift shaft, you would have no love for them if you allow them to carry on and did not warn them of the impending dangers, at the risk of offending them.

Truly, the gospel is a message of hope and love.

HelenScot said:

You are still missing the point: it’s is God’s Word we are measuring ourselves against, no one else’s.

I am merely directing you to God’s Word.

Your or anyone else’s salvation is between you and God; just you and God on judgement day.

However, be it far from me to groom anyone with a false sense of security about THAT DAY. That’s the work of the devil: to let people assume that they are saved but are going to hell.

I am so thankful for the Christian’s in my life who challenged me before I was saved about my erroneous ways, and ensured that I made my calling and election sure ( 2 Peter 1:10 (KJV) Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:)

Yes, I too took offence at their references to God’s Word: who were THEY to tell ME that I was on a wrong path and not saved!?

Yet, I soon appreciated that they did it out of love for my soul. They cared for my eternal state.

I still appreciate fellow Christian’s reminding me of God’s word and helping me to stay on the straight and narrow ( Proverbs 27:6 (KJV)
Faithful [are] the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy [are] deceitful.)

if a child was to run out into a road and risk death from the dangers facing them, it would be cruel to let them carry on. Or if you had a friend who was about to step back down an open lift shaft, you would have no love for them if you allow them to carry on and did not warn them of the impending dangers, at the risk of offending them.

Truly, the gospel is a message of hope and love.

Click to expand...

No, you are claiming that you have such a perfect understanding of his word that you can claim who is or is not saved. You, and many other Christians I have talked to, do not seem to understand that simply because you can read a book does not mean you are correctly interpreting what it means. It has been demonstrated many times throughout history that even if the bible is the true authoritative word of God YOU are still a fallible human being. Many Christians have made many claims about the bible and ,any have been shown to be wrong.

HelenScot said:

There is no such thing as a former believer due to the doctrine of the preservation of the saints, so anyone who has fallen away was either never truly saved or is a backslider;

Click to expand...

This is obviously not true. Reformed theology is a particular theological brand that claims the "saints" will persevere--this then forces reformed theologians to believe the impossible, that a person who was once a believe actually never was. A was a Christian according to the Apostles Creed; I believe it at he time.

But you are right about one thing, I was not a believer in the sense that I was regenerated by God or the the Holy Spirit--I don't think about body is. It is a thing people believe that I think is false--it never happens. So by your definition, I don't think anybody is a Christian. I know you and others will claim they have experienced God or the Spirit in ways I cannot understand--but that would be false. I would have said the same thing a few years ago. I know think differently about these experiences since they have a phycological explanation. I just see no reason or evidence to conclude that what you have said corresponds to reality. I am not demeaning your personal belief, I am simply describing my current thinking.

HelenScot said:

Why can’t it be both? A true Christian will always use scripture to justify their point of view. If that sounds like a sermon, then, I guess it’s a sermon. Sorry if you find it difficult to tolerate.

Click to expand...

I welcome conversion, but I won't be preached at. You will find I am not alone in this position.

Can I refer everyone back to the topic of this thread--debating the Bibles validity has derailed this conversation.

Thre is a lot to unpack here.

HelenScot said:

Well, it all depends upon your priorities and whether they are God-centred. Far better to learn God’s laws when you are young (Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them: Ecclesiastes 12:1 - KJV), than spending the whole of adulthood trying to correct bad habits and practice.

Click to expand...

As someone who was taught Christianity at an early age, I can tell you not all that I was taught was true or even worked. One of the reasons I started looking at other religions was because my teaching was so narrow.

A wider view of the world, with many different viewpoints highlighted, can help people understand other people better.

It is the responsibility of parents to teach these things and explain why they are important. Effective parenting should mean that your children never have an opportunity nor find it appropriate to go alone with members of the opposite sex where they may be tempted to sin, especially to engage in sexual sin.

Click to expand...

Most parents do feel this way, but not all. Most know about their kids seeking out because they did it. Would it be better for those kids to have the tools to handle a sexual experience if they want to have it? Rather than having it in the back seat of a car in a quick and painful way.

The whole western dating system is not biblical, if we think it is acceptable to leave a young couple alone to be tempted to sin, e.g. in the back of a car. Things are far too lax these days.
The whole point of the church is to be different from the world and it’s practices.
The whole church, not just parents, has a responsibility to chaperone these youngsters until they are married.
It’s also about teaching youngsters about the sanctity of life and how our bodies are temples for the Holy Spirit (‘Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?‘ 1 Corinthians 3:16 KJV)

Click to expand...

So what? Not everyone can do the straight and narrow path you are taking. And not every teenager can either. It would be better if they knew all the paths and had the tools to help them make their own choices.

Purity and treasuring one’s virginity are beautiful characteristics that are, sadly, no longer cherished in, even, many churches today. However we are all responsible for modelling and encouraging chastity in both young and old who are unmarried.
It is appalling that, as a society, we rubbish these values and encourage youngster to lose their virginity as quickly as possibly and discard it like it is a piece of rubbish that they should want to be rid of and should be embarrassed about (‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God’ Matthew 5:8 - RSV)

Click to expand...

To much value is put on purity, IMHO. I have known women (and men) who have had problems with sex because they where told it was bad and had problems getting over the idea it was a sin.

Sex is there, and hiding it in a closet doesn't help with the issues of it. But it doesn't need to be spilled all over the floor either.

I don't want to encourage teens to have sex as soon as possible. But they need to not look at it as a forbidden act either. It exists, people are going to do it. It is better to be upfront about what it is and what the consequences and benefits are, and how to do it safely and with someone they care about. That way they don't have to stumble in the dark and the know what is there and if they want to do it.

Young women, in particular, are being violated and damaged by these clear defiance’s of God’s law. If we engage in these sins, the bible tells us that we are sinning against our own bodies:
‘Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body’ (1 Corinthians 6:18 - KJV)

Click to expand...

Sex education, if done right, will lead to less harm to women and less unwanted babies. Maybe not by your narrow definition, but looks to be an impossible goal from my experience.

Yes, these are difficult things to accept, but God tells us that the way to salvation is straight and narrow and very few people find it:’...strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it (Matthew 7:14 - KJV)

Click to expand...

So what? That is a personal choice. And I don't see a need to ram it down everyone's throats.

Caliban said:

I don't know why you struggle to see my perspective--it's rather clear. This whole fetal alcohol thing is not providing your argument much traction. If a mother decides to not deliver the baby, she is obviously no longer responsible for any outcome which would result from alcohol use after delivering a baby. An abortion ends the pregnancy and the hypothetical does not occur.

Click to expand...

What you have not explained is why she would be responsible for actions taken during the first trimester. Why can she not drink? The child at that point per your definition deserves no protection, and is an entity of no worth. She has rights to her organs. So why does she have a responsibility to the child if she plans on keeping it?

You have tried to avoid implications of responsibility before delivery. Yet courts have required men to pay child support for pregnant mothers and the child, because they initiated the life. And you recognize the responsibility of the mother here to the child if she goes to term, even if all the damage was done in the first trimester.

But why would she have a responsibility to a nothing? Why would control over her organs not trump the implications of the damage? She is a member of society, and the entity is not, as you have said.

We already discussed why having the baby is an adoption of responsibility--that is literally the difference between these two choices.

Click to expand...

But there has been no delivery. And you are positing responsibility. So those are not the same. And courts have required responsibility from the father as well during pregnancy.

Caliban said:

Do you think I am "saying" that?

Click to expand...

Let's review. You said:

Caliban said:

I think it is easy to see why a woman in a similar situation may choose to abort her pregnancy and avoid the situation where she causes life-long distress to a child.

Click to expand...

I replied:

tall73 said:

The CDC also has data that shows many women decrease their alcohol intake when discovering they are pregnant, some using medical treatments.

So you are saying that rather than get help for her binge drinking, which is available, it is moral and preferrable to abort the child, rather than stop the binge drinking?

Click to expand...

So you appear to be saying a woman faced with the situation of finding out she is pregnant would be better off aborting. But that is not her only option.

The scenario noted she had an ethical decision to make, but binge drank in any case. Perhaps you could clarify if I am misunderstanding.

tall73 said:

What you have not explained is why she would be responsible for actions taken during the first trimester.

Click to expand...

Dude--I have been very clear about this. Let me see if I can rephrase my many previous responses to this question. The woman does not have some over-arching objective responsibility as you may be thinking of it. However, if she chooses to cast the pregnancy to term and have the baby, she had adopted that responsibility. She takes it on my decision. She is now legally responsible for the care and well-being of that child. This is rather simple--I'm not understanding your problem with this.

tall73 said:

courts have required men to pay child support for pregnant mothers and the child, because they initiated the life.

Click to expand...

Courts do not ask men to pay until the child is born. What does this have to do with abortion? I don't share your view and I don't see the woman as having responsibility until much much later in the pregnancy.

tall73 said:

But why would she have a responsibility to a nothing?

Click to expand...

I don't think she does.

tall73 said:

But there has been no delivery. And you are positing responsibility. So those are not the same. And courts have required responsibility from the father as well during pregnancy.

Click to expand...

You have my position wrong.

HelenScot said:

I’m not sure which bible you read, but no one is referring to God as a monster!

Click to expand...

You said,
“Sorry, but no wonder God is sending us judgements in the form of coronavirus: we are bringing His judgement upon us through our sinful lifestyles in this corrupt, licentious, 21st century society.”

You think this is a reasonable course of action?

Caliban said:

What are you talking about. I have made no scientific claim; I have merely used analogy. Or...am I misunderstanding your last post?

Click to expand...

Your entire ethical system is based on a calculation of wellbeing.It is based on outcomes, or consequences. As you have said earlier in the thread, you don't know the future of what the outcome will be in a particular case with regards to the woman's wellbeing if she has a child, or the chance of depression if she does not.

And if you are going to base it on the outcome for most people, that becomes a scientific endeavor, just as we looked at the data showing that abortion was statistically significant as a predictor of mental health difficulty, though with confounding factors.

So you cannot avoid the calculations. But that is only one side of the equation. Do you have the data one those who keep the children? Or is it just a hunch how they turn out? Please present your data on those who keep the children to see how the wellbeing equation plays out.

And of course, the limitation of a consequentialist method is that you don't always have all the data. Before I posted it you had notions of what confounding factors were present, and you had some understanding that depression could result, but not in the majority. But new data requires new calculations. So if you want the best decision on the best data, you have to go look for it.

Which is why as we said, ethics for society or law is not the same as intuitive guesses.

Caliban said:

Dude--I have been very clear about this. Let me see if I can rephrase my many previous responses to this question. The woman does not have some over-arching objective responsibility as you may be thinking of it. However, if she chooses to cast the pregnancy to term and have the baby, she had adopted that responsibility. She takes it on my decision. She is now legally responsible for the care and well-being of that child. This is rather simple--I'm not understanding your problem with this.

Click to expand...

First of all because it is avoiding the notions already established in society of responsibility throughout, such as in the case of the father paying child support while the child is in the womb. You dismissed it, but without ever explaining why.

Second, because when I asked if someone harming the child through negligence would be morally wrong during the first trimester you said you didn't know. Again, you would not engage on the question.

Now you have admitted that actions taken during the first trimester can involve responsibility.

You ask why I cannot see your perspective, and it is because it seems to me that you are avoiding dealing with aspects of responsibility during this time, even when they are recognized by courts.

Courts do not ask men to pay until the child is born. What does this have to do with abortion? I don't share your view and I don't see the woman as having responsibility until much much later in the pregnancy.

Click to expand...

Actually they do in a number of jurisdictions if paternity is admitted or established. Are you not concerned with the wellbeing of the mother and the child if carried to term? Why would that not be a good thing?

But let's alter the scenario to address your perception that I am misunderstanding your view.

The woman continues to drink, through she knows she is pregnant, planning to abort. But then she changes her mind and decides to have the child, even though doctors let her know there is a strong chance of problems. Is the decision to continue the pregnancy an immoral act?

tall73 said:

Your entire ethical system is based on a calculation of wellbeing.It is based on outcomes, or consequences. As you have said earlier in the thread, you don't know the future of what the outcome will be in a particular case with regards to the woman's wellbeing if she has a child, or the chance of depression if she does not.

And if you are going to base it on the outcome for most people, that becomes a scientific endeavor, just as we looked at the data showing that abortion was statistically significant as a predictor of mental health difficulty, though with confounding factors.

So you cannot avoid the calculations. But that is only one side of the equation. Do you have the data one those who keep the children? Or is it just a hunch how they turn out? Please present your data on those who keep the children to see how the wellbeing equation plays out.

And of course, the limitation of a consequentialist method is that you don't always have all the data. Before I posted it you had notions of what confounding factors were present, and you had some understanding that depression could result, but not in the majority. But new data requires new calculations. So if you want the best decision on the best data, you have to go look for it.

Which is why as we said, ethics for society or law is not the same as intuitive guesses.

Click to expand...

You missed my basic point. I did not say a moral system based on well-being cannot be measured scientifically--of course it can--that's the great part about it. What I said was that in our discussion, I did not make a particular scientific claim which would require me to cite evidence. When I make such a claim I will provide evidence. What specifically do you want me to address that you feel I didn't? Please be specific.

tall73 said:

First of all because it is avoiding the notions already established in society of responsibility throughout, such as in the case of the father paying child support while the child is in the womb. You dismissed it, but without ever explaining why.

Click to expand...

I am not aware of a case where a man has been forced to pay for child support prior to the birth of a child. Please show me the case. But, even so--what would this prove? I am not avoiding anything--you may cease and desist from saying I have.

Caliban said:

You missed my basic point. I did not say a moral system based on well-being cannot be measured scientifically--of course it can--that's the great part about it. What I said was that in our discussion, I did not make a particular scientific claim which would require me to cite evidence. When I make such a claim I will provide evidence. What specifically do you want me to address that you feel I didn't? Please be specific.

Click to expand...

Caliban said:

It sure is, but is not the whole story. Not having an abortion could cause far more harm to a woman than having one.

Click to expand...

This was your claim. We have documented statistically significant mental health harms following abortion, admitting confounding factors.

But you need the data for the other side to indicate that there would be more harm. And it must account for confounding factors as well.

tall73 said:

This was your claim. We have documented statistically significant mental health harms following abortion, admitting confounding factors.

But you need the data for the other side to indicate that there would be more harm. And it must account for confounding factors as well.

Click to expand...

Do you disagree that not having an abortion could result in a word outcome that the woman's potential mental health problems? Such an opinion seems impossible to defend from my perspective.

Caliban said:

I am not aware of a case where a man has been forced to pay for child support prior to the birth of a child. Please show me the case. But, even so--what would this prove?

Click to expand...

Child Support And Pregnancy Laws by Parker Bryan

In some states, the laws have provided for such scenarios, making it a requirement that both parents must support their unborn child. A father can be made to provide child support to a pregnant mother throughout the pregnancy. However, in order to mandate child support obligations, the court must have proof of paternity.

As to what it would prove, it is further evidence of recognition of responsibility to the child, and to the mother who is in this situation as well due to an act both engaged in. It is a responsibility stemming from the initial act, not just birth.

I am not avoiding anything--you may cease and desist from saying I have.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is unfair to say the answer of "I don't know" is avoiding. However, it is a case involving some of the central claims by my side that you didn't choose to share your thinking on, other than to address the legal wrangling.

And then you did not wish to engage on the child support question, which whether you live in a state that sees that happening before or after birth, ties back to an act long before the birth. It is a moral responsibility stemming from the sexual act.

You are eager to have us see the woman's side regarding difficulty in pregnancy, etc. but seem to downplay her moral agency.

Earlier you replied to me, though not to me directly as you allude to:

Caliban said:

And we can get away with some of the nonsense on this thread about not having sex if you don't want to get pregnant. That stuff worked in the 50's--not now. You may not be making this argument; but others are.

Click to expand...

Now I don't think the basic biological facts about sex have changed much since the 50's. Not having sex still usually results in not having children in 2020. I am guessing then you meant the notion of telling people not to have sex.

Yet, ethical responsibility for your actions still exists along with that biological reality. That decision to have sex (barring rape) is what put the woman in the position to have a child utilizing her organs. It is what put the man in a position where he might have to pay child support. It is what raises the question of whether it is responsible to drink.

Yet any tie back to that act, and the responsibility stemming from it you seem to downplay. Is it because you want sexual freedom as the highest wellbeing?

Some things are the right thing to do, even if they are difficult. It is right for the father to support his child, even if that is a financial burden. That responsibility stems from the sexual act. It is right for the mother to give up drinking, even in the first trimester, because of results of the sexual act.

Caliban said:

Do you disagree that not having an abortion could result in a word outcome that the woman's potential mental health problems? Such an opinion seems impossible to defend from my perspective.

Click to expand...

Why would I need to defend it before you demonstrate it with data? I think many things could lead to mental health problems. I think many times pregnancy can do so. But there are confounding factors there as well, and what you would have to demonstrate if wellbeing is the standard is that more mental health problems would result from one than the other.

And that would involve data.

It is your view that claims to be scientific. We haven't talked much about my view because in my view abortion is murder and that will have tremendous impact on a person spiritually, and for many mentally. I understand you do not believe in spirituality so I won't compel you to address that, and am trying to discuss from your ethical system.