Absolutely SICK.

[The Simple Plan]

I tried to resist posting to this again because of the contentious nature of the issue but ......

From the start let me make it clear that I am anti-abortion. There are cases (Ectopic, Pre-Eclampsia) where the mother's life may be endangered by keeping the foetus, which I believe is a judgement call that has to be made with earnest prayer to God, but by and large I am against abortion.

I have been happily married to my wife for seven years now. We decided that we did not want to have children for at least two years of our marriage. In our walk with God both from our devotional life, our prayer lives and scripture we believe that our sexuality was a God given gift and was not only for procreation.

We have had two children (praise the Lord) but both have been delivered by caeserian section, and we have been advised that due to health reasons that we should no longer have any more children. We therefore use contraception to ensure that this does not happen and are totally happy in our relationship with God that this is OK, both from a lifestyle/devotional/prayer point of view and a deeper study of the scripture.

It frightens me to believe that there are Christians who have totally not spent time studying and will read into scripture that the solitary purpose of coitus is procreation. I suppose we will beg to differ and God is our judge but I still find it a bit frightening, whether one who holds this view is married or not. I have mentioned before those nations such as China where it is illegal to have more than one child. Are we really suggesting that a compassionate God would desire that those people should only ever enjoy the gift of coitus once and then only to produce one child? That is certainly not my picture of a loving and just God!!!

It puzzles me to here suggestions of abstinence and self control within the context of a marriage, but that is to assume that there is no such control within the marriage. It also puzzles me for some to state that contraception is wrong then on the other hand, advise people to use the rythm method. Isn't it a twisted irony that so many countries who do not support contraception have a very high rate of abortion, overpopulation, etc. The figures are there, but for now we won't go there.

I suppose we will never agree on this one, but please do not dismiss the fact that there are many Christians, Catholic, Protestant and anything in between, who have carefully prayed about this issue of contraception. What does one do about the lady who is allergic to latex and cannot take oral contraceptives? Do you honestly just tell that person and their husband to pray that God will supress their desire? And let's not even go their about those who have by religion supressed the natural desire for coitus within the context of a marriage and perverted this God given gift by abusing children, etc.

Abortion is wrong, but it should not be broadly classed in the same way as contraception. I suppose in the end we can strain at gnats and swallow camels...but all in all "God is my Judge!"

Blessings
Dave

 

[FluviusNeckar]

Originally posted by Susan
No side effects? An eternity in the flames of H___ for the would-be mother is not a side effect of such a drug?

God has forgiven many murders. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is still the only unforgiveable sin.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by FluviusNeckar
God has forgiven many murders. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is still the only unforgiveable sin.

If that was actually the case then I'd say that that is an upsidedown morality.

 

[D.C]

You know what really makes me sick is that their are some people on this planet who proclame they are "Christian" and that for some reason they seem to think they have a right to tell me what to watch, what to listen to, what to wear, what to read and how to raise my kids. It bothers me that for some reason they think they are morally better then me and the rest of humanity and thats its their job to save me, FYI people only Jesus Christ can save us. That is one of the reasons why I detest groups like the Christian Coalition, they are not christians, just self-rightous hypocrytes. The only moral code I live by is the one put forth by Jesus Christ and God himself.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Stormy]

DC: We all have a right to speak on the Forum. Some people actually take it as their duty to speak.

But we each must come to God on our own. Our decisions while on this Earth are ours and ours alone to make. Each of us will reap the rewards or the consequences of our actions.

If you get on a thread that speaks of abortion and birth control it will ultimately become a very heated discussion. Homosexuality is the only topic that rivals it.

Try to stay cool.

Myself? I am against abortion and some methods of birth control...but not all.

 

[D.C]

Stormy,

I have no problem with people speaking their mind, the only thing I have a problem with is when said people start condeming others for the choices they make. Its like they for some reason feel the need to do God's job for him. Thats what bothers me. They need to let God do his thing and handle those people who who they think need to be condemned so badly do with them as he see's fit, thats all. According to the self-righteous crowd, since I had sex before I was married and my daughter was the end result, my girlfriend ( now my wife of 7 years), my daughter, and myself should be on a one way trip to hell to burn. But guess what were not, because God did what he felt was correct and ignored the self-righteous crowd.

Hope this clarifies my stance for you,

David

 

[Stormy]

DC: I hate to see you upset. Do not allow their words to enter into your being and become a part of you. Their anger should not become your anger.

If God condemned every person that sinned... Heaven would be empty.

Now breath.... and Smile

Doesn't that feel good?

I am like you. I have never understood the bitter, unhappy, hateful Christian. It would seem an impossibility.

Maybe they are not allowing God to work in their life as much as they think... Ya think?

 

[_Orion]

"It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics and chemistry." -- H. L. Mencken

edit to add...I post the above quote with a slight tounge in cheek..I do not wish to offend anyone...I just find that quote interesting and thought provoking.

I think it was seebs who offered something along the lines of:
We define the end of human life when brain activity ceases...defining the beginning of life when brain activity starts makes some sense.  That does make sense to me... If I've misquoted you seebs, please correct me and accept my apologies...

That being said...

I'm also on the fence on this issue.  The first thing one needs to do in my opinion is get through all the political and religious baggage and really look at the issue at face value.  Like others have said, you need to define the terms exactly. 

I have had the unfortunate experience of watching - via ultra sound - an embryo "disappearing" (that's what the nurses called it).  It was to be a third child to my twin boys. (ART is a whole 'nother subject).  While the situation was emotional, we did not react like we would have if it were a living baby. That told me something.

I'm still of the opinion that we should promote birth control and promote adoption.  I don't think I'd ever be in a position to judge someone having an elective abortion.

I find on aspect of the RCC's teaching interesting.  They are against ending pregnancies but not preventing them.  I know Susan's and other's stances about not having sex.  But like Bear, I'm a realist.  And the underdeveloped countries where the church is on missions...this teaching can cause harm. Starving third world people should not be crankin' out little babies.  I think there's a study about infant mortality and how birth control can lower that. How's that not a good thing?

JP2 had a comment about a hemophiliac with aids who was NOT allowed to use a condom to have sex with his wife.  Either live a chase life or infect his wife.   I don't take stuff like that very seriously ... how could you?

Technically I'm still on the fence I guess...I have more learning to do on the subject.


 

 

 

[billhabing]

Originally posted by Susan
Oh, OK, sorry about that. I am saying that if someone takes this pill and does not repent and come to Jesus for forgiveness, then they will go to Hades.

I remember when I would have said the same thing. Give yourself a chance to understand people and know the struggles thay have in life before you condemn them to hell.

As we grow and have fresh experiences with God we learn that absolutes like  "they will go to hades"  are not quite what is realy going on. Give yourself a chance to become one with the poor, get to know the people society will not touch. go to a few third world countries.

We cannot force our understanding of abortion, homosexuality, or the bible on people without having negative resultus. If you are 19 you know your generation simply will not give any creedence to ideas that are shared with that tone of dogmatic certianty.

 

[Tenek]

Originally posted by Susan
At the VERY least, any method that kills/harms/dislodges a human embryo, no matter how young, so it has no hope of survival IS abortion. Some of us (including me) go farther on our personal convictions and believe that any time humans interfere with the procreative process in any way, that we have potentially prevented the existence of a human being who had every right to exist.


This depends on what your personal convictions are of in the sanctity of life and when exactly life begins. If you believe that existence does not begin until fertilization and the formation of the embryo, then there are some methods open to you. However if you believe that there is a "potential for existence" before the embryo itself is formed (as I and many others do) then NO, there are none.

Then you, my friend, are a murderer, by your own standards, if you've had even *one* period, because you let your part of that potential go unfertilized and cruelly destroyed by your inaction.

If you want to call a clump of 2^X cells a life, that's fine. But don't remove the right of others to disagree.

And for the record, according to Christianity, everybody is doomed to Hell whether or not they've had an abortion of any sort, but everybody can be saved, even if they have. Eternal fire is completely irrelevant here.

 

[gladiatrix]

Originally posted by GTX
This thread is hot, from a rant to a hot topic!

I think the real question should be: When should life be considered unabortable life.

Not until we define and understand this and God's word can we make an educated decision based on both human values and biblical values.

I'll take a shot at that question, which essentially asked what I call the "personhood" question. My apologies for the length, but this question does not have a simple answer.......

THE QUESTION OF "PERSONHOOD"

If the end of an individual's life is measured by the ending of his/her brain function ( brain-death as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical to at least agree that a "person's" life begins with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument ("brain-birth")? Anti-choicers like to fling about the MYTH that brain-waves appear as early as 40 days. However, the most recent finding show that intermittent brain-waves, don't appear until the 24th week, (give or take a week) when they begin to activate auditory and visual systems. The brain nor the neural network connecting the brain to the rest of the body aren't complete until shortly after this time. Brain-waves resembling those of
a new-born baby don't appear until the 26th WEEK.


THE DILEMMA OF THE MICROPREEMIE

Now consider this fact.. No micropreemie under 23 weeks has ever survived for more than a few hours. Many of them that small (23 weeks), even if they live (2% survival at 23 weeks), have severe neurodevelopmental defects (30% of surviving 23 week preemies) because they weren't sufficiently developed to respond well to life-support. This is primarily due to the fact that the fetal lungs are so immature. There is no technology on the horizon that can improve the prospect of survival because of this limitation. Given these developmental facts, it would seem logical to assume that a "person" is not there until after the 22nd week. (Remember that 50% of abortions occur before the 7th week and 90% have occurred by the 12th week, there is no brain to speak of at this time).

Let's go back in time before the 23rd week, back to the beginning. The vast majority of conceptions (~65%) DO NOT result in a successful pregnancy. (NOTE: A pregnancy is defined as the successful implantation of a zygote in the endometrium or uterine lining---it takes 3 to 7 days after fertilization for the dividing egg to reach the uterus). They are simply washed out as part of the endometrial detritus when a woman has her period (many women have conceived, but the zygote never manages to establish itself in the endometrium).

If the zygote manages to establish itself, the lucky resident (the embryo) is still not out of the woods because 30-40% of these 1st trimester pregnancies are spontaneously ABORTED (70% show gross chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with life). The bottom-line is that +65% of all conceptions fail (a conception does not a successful pregnancy make!)

Anti-choicers often quote Psalm 139:"Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb. Remember that conception takes place in the Fallopian tube and the zygote takes up to 10 days to reach the uterus. There is NO justification for claiming that ensoulment occurs at conception (where does it say so?). There is also no reason to ban birth control devices that interfere with ovulation AND implantation of the zygote (trophoblastic stage). This is especially true when one considers that God seems to considers 65% of these 10 day old "humans" to be expendable at some point before the end of the first trimester (either don't implant in the lining or are spontaneously aborted)

If God really endows each and every conception (fertilized egg) with a soul (what theists REALLY mean when they say the conceptus is "alive" and a "person", not merely biologically alive), that makes GOD AN ABORTIONIST, and the biggest mass murderer of all time. (If one believes that personhood begins at fertilization)

References:
1) Facts verifiable from any up-to-date textbook on medical physiology and/or neo-natal care.

2) New Republic: Abortion and the Brain

3)The Extremely Immature Newborn—The Dilemma of the Microbaby

When it come to abortions (the only reason we are really having this "personhood" discussion),50% have occurred on or before the 7th week and 90% have occurred before the 12th week. A functional brain is the sign of life as a person. AT this point NO person exists...not til after 22 weeks (really a bit early, because none survive that young anyway). 37% of women who get abortions are Protestant, 31% are Catholic and 24% claim no religion. (Data from the Center for Disease Control and the nonprofit Alan Guttmacher Institute which collect the only national abortion statistics. Guttmacher counts more abortions because it directly surveys clinics.)

Another stat to chew on...95% of abortions ARE used as a form of birth control for the following reason---->Good, affordable birth control and family planning information ARE NOT available. Most abortions (78%) are obtained by women in DEVELOPING contries where birth control is not readily available and/or is as illegal as abortion usually is. Only 22% of abortions are obtained by women in DEVELOPED countries. Many statistics links on abortion pro and con


Birth control devices have failure rates, even when used judiciously (hormonal birth control always carries with it a 1% probability of failure). Many women won't seek it because they have had it ground into them that "nice" girls don't have sex (especially the pre-marital kind) and preparing for sex (seeking birth control) is evidence that they aren't "nice" girls. I see abortion as a solution to these failures of both technology and good judgment.


WHY ADOPTION IS NOT A PANACEA

As of today, this year, ~33,150,000 people (one person every 2.4 seconds) will have died of starvation, 75% of them under the age of 5.. This is one reason that I think abortion should be legal and that the "adoption" argument put forth by anti-choicers is a canard. As long as one LIVING child starves to death, I have absolutely no sympathy for adoptive parents whose only problem really appears to be that they can't find a perfectly formed, white (usually) BABY to play the game of "Parenthood" with.

Let's not forget the 100,000 adoptable childen in the US foster care system. What is their "problem"? Most of them are too "old" (older than 2 years) or not "white". Pressing other womens's wombs into service so that some upper-middle class yuppie couple can have their dream-baby is nothing more than slavery, catering to the gross, self-involved selfishness of those who won't play "house" UNLESS they can have the "perfect" little white (usually) baby. Bottom-line here is that if we can't care for those already LIVING, it makes no sense to create more of them.

Let's do the math. In any one year since Roe v Wade, there have been ~1.1-1.4 million abortions per year. Now there are only 50,000-75,000 couples seeking babies to adopt. Imagine how easy it would be to sate the desire of adoptive couples for children, the market runneth over!!! Quite a short-fall in the parents department! A question to anti-choicers: Any recommendations on what to do with all the tens of millions of unadopted infants you plan on enslaving women to produce? Remember a "life" means more than just getting born, there are at least 72-79 years of AFTER the birth bit (education, food, health care, a job, and last but not least LOVE that goes with that 3 score and ten!!)


[size=2.5]WHAT ALL THIS MEANS TO A WOMAN[/size]

Of course, if the fetus continues to grow, it WILL become a person! BUT ONLY at the EXPENSE of the WOMAN. People are not merely a means to an end, but ends in themselves. A woman treated as an incubator of a fetus by the law is merely a means to an end and is therefore not being regarded as a person. Most anti-choicers want to reduce her to the status of a SLAVE/INCUBATOR. A woman is a person, representing a large investment in time and resources, even on the part of those who regard women as inferior. An zygote/embryo/fetus is only a POTENTIAL person, representing no such investment. The bottomline for me is that the rights of a fully grown woman outweighs the "rights" of a fertilized egg/embyo/fetus until the fetus has developed to a point where a "person" is truly present (22+ weeks). Let's back that down to 20 weeks, the point a which the American College of Gynecology puts "viability" (even though none survive before 23 weeks). Just my opinion, of course....

 

[alonesoldier]

"If God really endows each and every conception (fertilized egg) with a soul (what theists REALLY mean when they say the conceptus is "alive" and a "person", not merely biologically alive), that makes GOD AN ABORTIONIST, and the biggest mass murderer of all time. (If one believes that personhood begins at fertilization)"

I would say for starters to make such an assertion you would have to be playing God.  Remember God is going to take my life and yours someday.  Ultimately he is going to kill everyone.  Murder is the unlawful taking of life.  God created it and he can take it when he wants to.  I have no idea what the mind of God is but to play devils advocate with your post a Christian could believe that perhaps it was mercy on the part of God.  Who knows..  maybe those people would never have accepted Christ and he is spearing them from an eternity without him.................or something, I have absolutely no idea, but not understanding God and accusing God are two totally different subjects.  But nicely worded post, I have not posted on this thread because people are going to believe what they want about it, I am pro-life not anti-choice as you put it, but that was one of the better arguments that I have heard for the pro-choice movement. Though I take issue with you on most of what you said I find it to be a fruitless debate. The above quote was the only thing that actually bothered me.

-Nicholas

 

[Evee]

Yes DC you are right.

 To many christians judge others for the same thing they do themselves.

 We need to step aside and let God work.

 He don't need us we need him.   Evee

 

[alonesoldier]

I am not going to enter the debate at hand. Pro-life vs Pro-choice.

But I will say that their is a lot of misuse of the word 'judge' in here.

Christians 'Judgeing' others implies passing a sentence not merely saying something is wrong.

By the rational of many of the Christians on the Pro-Choice side, none of the prophets and even Jesus himself needed to say anything because 'God doesn't need any help'

John The Baptist told King Herod that it was unlawful for a person calling himself a Jew to have his brothers wife......

Was he a right-wing bigot and a member of the conservative coalition?
Or was he fullfilling an obligation.

Again, I am against Judgeing. But that doesnt confide me to moral relativitism. I can still tell the difference between right and wrong with out condenming anyone.

-Nicholas

 

[FluviusNeckar]

Originally posted by crazyfingers
If that was actually the case then I'd say that that is an upsidedown morality.

You'll have to explain yourself.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by FluviusNeckar
You'll have to explain yourself.

That may be our opinion.  However I have no reason to believe that it's true.