Abortion to prevent increased suffering

I am not certain whether I agree. My grandmothers had 11 and 10 = 21 children. Neither of my grandmothers suffered any ill health as the result of birthing these children.
I wouldn't return one of my aunts and uncles. I know that each is a blessing to world.
I do believe in chastity as a virtue.
My mother said, "That child can wait to be born."
So in that case a person isn't depriving a living child of life, merely delaying the blessed event.

Adoption is an option. I used to think abortion was an option so but too many of my friends have cried when telling me of the shame and loss they felt, sometimes years afterward.
I had a stray cat. There were different opinions as what should be done about it. Someone said shoot it. Someone said take it to the shelter. I made an effort and finally found the cat a good home.
If, we as caring human beings, can choose the right path for a stray cat, then God willing, we, as caring human beings, can find the right path for our children.
Adoption works. Abortion is an endless sorrow.

Yes, I agree that when there could be severe medical problems then surgical intervention might be necessary.

Chriliman said:

Let’s only consider the abortions where the early zygote, that isn’t conscious and can’t feel anything, isn’t wanted for whatever reason. Assuming they’ll go to heaven in some capacity, why would it be better to take them full term just to be put into foster care and possibly suffer mental/physical abuse that will effect them for an entire lifetime? Will their reward in heaven be greater if they endure a lifetime of suffering? Is that the only justification for taking it full term to birth?

Click to expand...

Lots of people who have tough childhoods become good, happy people. I find this a silly line of reasoning. It could be used to condone the murder of any child, frankly. " Well he might have a hard life." Big deal. He still deserves a life.

Chriliman said:

If you use those verses to condemn early abortions, which don’t even mention abortion specifically, then why don’t you use these to
Condone slave abuse:
Exodus 21:20-21

Condemn anyone born of illicit union:
Deuteronomy 23:2

Cutting the hands off women who defend their husbands by grabbing the aggressors genitals:
Deuteronomy 25:11-12

forcing rape victims to marry their rapist
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

killing people who disobey priests:
Deuteronomy 17:12

killing adulters
Leviticus 20:10

there’s more, but I got tired. So why use your verses to vaguely justify your position, but ignore these that clearly and blatantly say what to do?

Click to expand...

Out of 31,103 verses in the Bible, I used only a few that addressed the issue you raised(the killing of the unborn, the issue of suffering, and the reward for suffering for Christ). The verses you listed in response have nothing to do with those subjects.

If you wished to argue for abortion, the only argument which has ever given anyone ethical pause has been the right of the mother to control her own body. Your argument is allow murder so the victim doesn't suffer.
How can you argue or debate with people who tell you that you are advocating murder?

Larnievc said:

But if this life is a drop in the ocean compared to heaven why does it bother the Christian when they will have eternity with their loved ones? Why the despair when in the (relative) blink of an eye you will be reunited for ever?

I’m often told that from an atheist point of view life is pointless but from a Christian point of view this Earthly life seems pointless when the vast majority of one’s eternal existence is in heaven?

Click to expand...

I guess my post only makes sense to those who have lost someone they loved.

Chriliman said:

Over half of all foster youth are reunited with their family or primary caregiver when they exit the system.

Click to expand...

This is a very important point, oft overlooked. Frequently, children in foster care are viewed as unwanted orphans. The above statistic shows that most in foster care have family they are temporarily (or permanently) separated from. These are not Dickensian urchins waiting for homes, they are children whose families, for various reason, are unable to care for them for a time.

QvQ said:

We, as a society, need those children. Since Roe, we are missing artists, musicians, scientists, all forms of labor and creativity. Roe flushed a lot of talent down the drain.
Alexander Hamilton was an orphan. What would the world be if Einstein's mother had "chosen" to end his life?
Let all the children see the light of day and seek their fortune, whatever joy or suffering that providence may entail.

Click to expand...

I'm not advocating for mass abortions or anything, but this argument doesn't hold water. We have plenty of people whose God given abilities are being squelched at this very moment. The world is not hurting for talent. The world is hurting for Christians willing to take up the Godly cause of justice for the downtrodden, that all might reach their full potential.

disciple Clint said:

I guess my post only makes sense to those who have lost someone they loved.

Click to expand...

I’ve lost many people I love. Your post still does not make sense.

Larnievc said:

I’ve lost many people I love. Your post still does not make sense.

Click to expand...

It does not make sense that I would feel pain at the loss of a loved one?

St_Worm2 said:

Hello @Chriliman, the last time I checked, there were 100+ "qualified" couples looking to adopt a newborn baby for every newborn baby who is put up for adoption (in America anyway). So, foster care and the suffering of mental/physical abuse should be of little to no concern to birth moms who are unable to keep and care for their babies.

And the adoption option will stop the suffering that birth moms feel over killing their babies via abortion.

--David

Click to expand...

Kylie said:

The fact that there are nearly 424,000 children in the foster system waiting for foster parents suggests you are wrong.

Click to expand...

Hi Kylie, you said that the nearly half a million kids in foster care today suggests that I am wrong. Before I reply, I'd like to be sure that I understand what you mean, so if you could make that a little clearer for me, that would be great (IOW, which part of what I said above is shown to be wrong because of the large numbers of kids in foster care?).

Thanks

--David

.

St_Worm2 said:

Hi Kylie, you said that the nearly half a million kids in foster care today suggests that I am wrong. Before I reply, I'd like to be sure that I understand what you mean, so if you could make that a little clearer for me, that would be great (IOW, which part of what I said above is shown to be wrong because of the large numbers of kids in foster care?).

Thanks

--David

"A baby is cradled / carried in the womb of it's mother, to grow and be nurtured until birth. Each baby is a wholly separate person from it's mother: With different DNA, different fingerprints, with possibly a different blood type or the opposite sex. The baby is a person living within a person and not "the mother's body". The mom is appointed to care for the separate life she carries within her and once it's born, find a home for her baby, if she can't provide one." -- Melody Green​

.

Click to expand...

My point was that often we hear an argument against abortion, "If you don't want the baby, then just put it up for adoption, there are plenty of people out there who would adopt it."

Aside from the fact that putting the baby up for adoption once it is born doesn't change the fact that the p[regnant person still has to go through with the pregnancy (such as a 12 year old girl trying to do well at school and now can't because she's pregnant), there don't seem to be enough people out there to adopt the children already in the system, let alone the new one that's about to be added.

Chriliman said:

Ok, lets say abortion is murder, what would you rather do?
1. Prosecute anyone involved in unnecessary abortions, which is likely millions of people.
2. Bring back to life the aborted as if they were never aborted(over 60million) and flood the foster/adoption system, which is already busting at the seems with over 400,000 kids.

To me, both options are not ideal, which is a reason why I'd rather have an option 3. where we let things continue as they have been, where early abortion is legal(not considered murder), but a last resort when all else fails.

If you had to pick 1, 2 or 3, what would it be? Or another option I'm not thinking of?

Click to expand...

I would rather not try to rationalize killing an innocent unborn child especially when using incorrect facts, there is an unfilled demand for infants in adoption.

disciple Clint said:

I would rather not try to rationalize killing an innocent unborn child especially when using incorrect facts, there is an unfilled demand for infants in adoption.

Click to expand...

Is it a child the moment that the sperm penetrates the egg?

Kylie said:

Is it a child the moment that the sperm penetrates the egg?

Click to expand...

Yes it is. I has human dna from conception, it is a human child and if it is allowed to mature that is exactly what it will be when it is born.

disciple Clint said:

Yes it is. I has human dna from conception, it is a human child and if it is allowed to mature that is exactly what it will be when it is born.

Click to expand...

Do you also claim that an acorn is a sapling?

disciple Clint said:

Yes it is. I has human dna from conception, it is a human child and if it is allowed to mature that is exactly what it will be when it is born.

Click to expand...

In any case, it had human DNA before conception as well. What is a sperm if not a packet of DNA? And the same for an egg. Do you hold an unfertilized egg to be as precious as a fertilized one? Do you cry out about women menstruating, claiming that it is an egg lost that could have been a child?

Kylie said:

Do you also claim that an acorn is a sapling?

Click to expand...

It is of no significance what I claim, what does science say.