A Losing Battle

[amariselle]

**********

 

[amariselle]

**********

 

[dhh712]

Also, do you think "financial ability" is only a matter of convenience?

Definitely. When you choose to abort your child rather to have it and be poor, you are choosing convenience over having a child. There's always charity to go to if you can't afford a child; there's also giving it up for adoption like my sister chose to do. She also could have dropped out of school and took whatever job she could get to help pay for it. But she didn't want to be a possibly single, poor mother. She wanted instead to finish school and have a career. I'd say that's choosing convenience over having a child. Lots of people can't afford children, but they make do whatever way they can. If you are in a place where having a child is financially impossible, it would be a good idea to choose abstinence. Yet, with abortion so acceptable by society, this is often not what people choose to do.

The thing that people professing the Christian faith need to understand is that God doesn't put people in this world to enjoy happy, comfortable lives. That would be wonderful if everyone's life was that way, and some people's are. However, every life is valuable and bears the image of God; therefore it should be considered something that is not to be discarded for trifling reasons. And yes, not having the ability to afford a child is a trifling matter when the course one would choose to avoid this is to abort it. We don't know what reasons God has for bringing souls into families that are destitute; we who are professing Christians should do what we can to help those who don't have that much temporal wealth.

 

[amariselle]

***********

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

We don't know what reasons God has for bringing souls into families that are destitute; we who are professing Christians should do what we can to help those who don't have that much temporal wealth.

You blame God for irresponsible parents?

Perhaps those who are destitute AND bring into being new human persons should be called irresponsible flesh lovers?

 

[amariselle]

**********

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

dhh712 said: ↑
We don't know what reasons God has for bringing souls into families that are destitute; we who are professing Christians should do what we can to help those who don't have that much temporal wealth.

I don't see where she blamed God for the actions of anyone?....

The way I read it, she is saying: "God brings souls into families that are destitute." Is that not blaming God for parents having children?

 

[amariselle]

***********

 

[GoodGRACEshus]

.

 

[dhh712]

You blame God for irresponsible parents?

Perhaps those who are destitute AND bring into being new human persons should be called irresponsible flesh lovers?

Having problems with reading comprehension now, are we? Where in my post do I assign blame regarding the responsibility of parents?

Sure, those who are destitute and bring new life into the world are indeed irresponsible.

Maybe you need to brush up on your theology. God does all things. I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace and create calamity: I the Lord do all these things. Isa 45: 7. Yes, God is responsible for those children that are born to irresponsible parents, if we're talking about how that happened. He is not to blame for their irresponsibility, that's due to their own fallen nature. But if you're trying to say God didn't plan for those children to be born to irresponsible parents, you definitely do not believe in a Sovereign God and there's not any other one that's revealed to us in scripture.

 

[amariselle]

***********

 

[SkyWriting]

No, it was never my intention to play the "blame game." I admitted in the OP that I cannot judge everyone's situation, but my point was a human life should never be ended due to lack of convenience, and it does happen.

Abortions are not convenient or pain free in any respect.
And I don't see how you are reaching your target market
by chatting about it here.

 

[amariselle]

***********

 

[SkyWriting]

Yeah, we can see how well such shaming (especially when done by the church) worked in the past.

Same method your using now.

 

[amariselle]

***********

 

[SkyWriting]

My "target market?" Can I not discuss this with other Christians? My apologies.

So you are trying ....or your not......or you are seeking ways to....or what?
Having been through the process once, I'm curious.

 

[amariselle]

**********

 

[SkyWriting]

Wow....you really need to carefully re-read what I've written. Not once do I say it's okay to shame anyone.

When a person decides they need to terminate a pregnancy and end the
process that delivers a baby to the world, telling me that it's murder
is kinda close to shaming me, considering I can imagine exactly what
I've agreed to do, and then I get to feel it happening. And I involve
a host of others in the process as well. As I said, I was there.

 

[amariselle]

***********

 

[SkyWriting]

I am discussing what is on my heart. No more no less. Is it not my right to do so?

You don't seem to be gathering information. Just soapboxing about murder will get
you a punch in the nose. Here is the sad part. Accept that life begins at conception
as I do. Now every fertility clinic helping people have babies is mass murder.
Such may result in triplets. I've been there. Triplets have a higher mortality rate and
some more often die. Been there. So women attending fertility clinics support more
egg death than anyone else. Are you getting any of this? 50% or more fertalized eggs
naturally don't go to full term. Womens bodies reject them, ending in death.
Getting pregnant result in 50% (or more) of the eggs being murdered
by the woman's body. Every natural death is murder by the mother.
(Homicide for those of tender heart)