In Perspective.

[Hentenza]

You cannot deny the fact that abortion is sometimes the best choice. You never commented on the scenario presented to you by me earlier in the thread. "What about a 12 year old girl who is raped by her father?"

What are supposed to do in that situation? Don't tell me a baby is a 'wonderful blessing' in the above situation. Anyone who thinks that is sick, I'm sorry.

What about the abortions women will try to do themselves if the choice to have a safe, medical abortion is not available? That will often result in infections such as gangrene, and will often kill the mother. How is that good? How is this God's will?

Can you give me statistics of what percentage of the almost 1 million abortions per year in the US that would be?

 

[exxxys]

Can you give me statistics of what percentage of the almost 1 million abortions per year in the US that would be?

I'm not sure. But you still did not answer my question. What if the pregnancy is dangerous? What if the baby will be born into poverty? Parents aren't as good with these things as you might think. You want to believe that a teen girl's parents will give them a hug and tell them it will be ok, but this hardly ever happens.

I've had quite a few pregnant friends. ALL of them, their parents gave them some money and told them to get out.

One of my friends lives half an hour from town. She had walk in the middle of the night, in febuary, to stay with another one of our friends. It was heartbreaking.

 

[rcorley]

I'm not sure. But you still did not answer my question. What if the pregnancy is dangerous? What if the baby will be born into poverty? Parents aren't as good with these things as you might think. You want to believe that a teen girl's parents will give them a hug and tell them it will be ok, but this hardly ever happens.

I've had quite a few pregnant friends. ALL of them, their parents gave them some money and told them to get out.

One of my friends lives half an hour from town. She had walk in the middle of the night, in febuary, to stay with another one of our friends. It was heartbreaking.

Unfortunately life is full of "what ifs". What if I don't get this job. What if she doesn't say yes when I ask her the big questions. Etc...ad nauseum. That is life. We don't know the answers to all of the potentials facing us.

As for the parents of the teen girl, I do understand that many parents respond to this situation in a bad or VERY bad way. I get that some will kick the girl out; I get that some will demand that the girl have an abortion. But as an adult, we have to make decisions based on what we know to be true in the face of those that would seek to undermine our sense of safety and need for compassion.

My heart breaks for girls in this position. I would not wish this situation on any teen. And I sometimes get the disappointment and anger that a parent may have. You have to see some of this from there side. Just a few years ago, their sweet little girl was playing with baby dolls; now she's having a real live baby.

It's a traumatic shock to the girl and her family. But that in no way condones the act of throwing her out on her own (unless there are other factors going on besides the pregnancy). A family (in theory) should be the place to work these things out; a place of support and security in a rapidly changing world.

Now I know that's not the way a majority of the world is today. Families have problems; some of them major - but we should strive to grow as individuals and families. We should be what we hope for.

As to the questions of dangerous births and poverty, I understand where you are coming from. The heart-wrenching news that you have to choose between your life or your baby's is something I find unbearable. I actually spoke about a friend of mine that was faced with that decision in another post. If you'd like to read her story and how she chose, let me know and I'll PM the thread to you. I, in no way, would stand in judgment over a family faced with the news that a pregnancy could jeopardize the life of the mother. If they choose to abort, I would be saddened that they did so. God wasn't given the opportunity to work a miracle in that situation. But there is forgiveness and mercy and restoration for that family. But you are attempting to sanctify the act of abortion based on what is statistically a VERY small portion of the abortions performed today. Most abortions are performed for convenience rather that danger to the mother.

As to the poverty question: you don't know this about me, but I came from a VERY poor family. My mom was a divorced-mom living in the deep-south USA with two sons. We had nearly nothing. We spent many times going weeks on rice and gravy because we couldn't afford meat or other food. I grew up with kids that were worse off than we were. But I now live in VASTLY different circumstances. That is because of hard work, education, and a mom that believed in her sons' ability to succeed. You may be in poverty today, but that doesn't mean you have to be in poverty tomorrow. And with that understanding, you see the abortion due to poverty option is fairly selfish. What good is an abortion to prevent the child from being poor when you don't even know what job you'll have in 10 years.

Hope that addresses your questions. Still waiting to hear back from you about the rape/incest questions and my response to them.

And let me restate that you ask great questions. I don't agree with your reasoning or results, but I'm glad you're asking. Please don't take these answers as insults to you. We are just coming from different worldviews and both passionately believe our views. I used to passionately believe the things you are saying in this forum as well in others that I've seen you bring up. I've just grown from those views. But again...thanks for taking the time to seriously address these issues and listening to what others have to say.

 

[Ryanswife]

I'm not sure. But you still did not answer my question. What if the pregnancy is dangerous? What if the baby will be born into poverty?

So what if a baby were born into poverty? Many people are born into poverty. That doesn't automatically mean that their life is going to be horrible and that they will never amount to anything. Nor does it mean that they are destined to be a burden on the economy. When I had my first child my husband (who was my boyfriend at the time) and I didn't have two dimes to rub together. We were young...still living with our parents...had low income....not the ideal situation to have a child, but we accepted our responsibility. We moved into an apartment that was in what would be considered the "ghetto". We didn't have much, but our baby was protected and had what he needed. We adjusted our lives to care for our son. We did what we had to do. We were willing to sacrifice. 99% of the time abortion is for no other reason than pure selfishness or simple fear of the unknown. Someone is not willing to give something up for someone else or they are afraid of change.

Anyway, my husband and I now have 2 children and we own our own home in a nice neighborhood and my children want for nothing. Just because we didn't have much when we had our first child didn't mean that we were never going to be able to have better in the future.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

This is where you and I differ in worldviews. To quote you, "We don't need to destroy the people that are already living."

Here's what I think:

I'm sitting here with my six-month old son. I remember the day that I saw his ultra-sound. He was 20-weeks old. I saw his heart beating. I didn't see a fetus. I didn't see a choice. I saw my son. I saw an answer to two-years of constant prayer.

When would you have told me that my son was a human being deserving of life? At what time could my wife have chosen to terminate his life and it not be called murder? If not before birth, then when? We call people that kill infants murderers; and rightly so. We call people that abandon their children to starve inhuman; and rightly so.

So when my son drew his first breath, did he breathe in his right to life - his rights as a human being? Let's examine nature. When life exists, it requires food and grows. So when do we apply the gift of "life" to a fetus? It requires food. It grows.

Would it be after 30-weeks? Maybe. Would it be only after the baby becomes viable? Well science has pushed that back to 20ish weeks. Where is the line? That's the problem with our culture. People are scared of lines. We can't draw lines because it might offend someone. We would do well to remember the words of Edmund Burke when he said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Now my son is in my arms; I see his face - he looks like his Mom (thank God). I feel his little hands wrap around my finger as he studies it. I see his eyes as they turn to peer into mine. I place my hand on his chest and feel him breathing. I feel his heart beating.

He smiles at me and I melt. I heard him really laugh for the first time today. Do you know that I waited years to hear that laugh? Do you know that when he hugs me while on my shoulder that I sometimes cry? Do you know that when I come home and he looks over - sees me - and breaks out into the biggest toothless grin (well - to be honest, he's got two small teeth coming in), the joy welling up in me cannot be measured?

These are all emotions connected to that child that was once a 20-week old image on an ultrasound. When I first saw that image, it forever cemented in me that these children MUST be protected. We have become so blase' with this issue. We have become so concerned about hurting each other's feelings we avoid any issue that could potentially be interpreted as "you're trying to condemn me." It's not about condemnation or blame. It's about a child's life.

Well...the place I've chosen to stand is here - with my son and any other child. There are plenty of people speaking out for a woman's right to choose. I choose to speak for those that can't. I choose to fight for them."

what a wonderful story. Its true when you look at the ultrasound you see the humanity the unborn child has and that he is a living being with rights just as an other person should have. Its not a blob of cells or a parasite, its a child, with his own humanity and his own soul and personality. People need to wake up and not be brainwashed by these pro-abortionists who try to devalue and lower the humanity of the unborn child. The unborn need to be defended because they are literally being massacred everyday at the hands of these pro-abortionists. The womb which is suspoosed to be the most safest place for the child is now turned into a potential death zone all at the hands of pro-abortionists and feminists. And whats even more sad is that they are taking pride in it

 

[cowboysfan1970]

Sex is for procreation. Pleasure is a side-benefit. It's the natural consequence. Try having sex without birth control for a while and see what happens "naturally"

And until you are ready to make a REAL commitment that involves being able to provide for each other and the potential child, do yourself a favor and stay away from sexual relations. You will save yourself more heartaches than you can image...AND..side benefit...not have to face the option we're debating here. If all you want is the pleasure involved in sex, go find some toy. Stay away from rolling the dice with sex.

I was instilled with the belief that sex was only for procreation but then I heard the opposite being preched. There were other things, that you shouldn't ever drink or dance, even playing with cards was considered to be sinful, but sex was one area where we had to practice extreme dicipline and self-control, even in marriage. It was very old school, Victorian era Protestant and now I think it was deeply steeped in Legalism. I posted a topic about this over in the Apologetics section so I'm not going to go into a lot of detail here, but my question is why do you believe this to be true, and where in the Bible specifically can you back it up? I need to know why you or others think this to see if there was any Biblical truth to what I was led to believe. And I'm not talking about sex outside of marriage, I'm talking about only having sex in marriage because you intend to create a child. In other words, having sex because you want it or you find your spouse hot is the wrong thing to do.

 

[rcorley]

I was instilled with the belief that sex was only for procreation but then I heard the opposite being preched. There were other things, that you shouldn't ever drink or dance, even playing with cards was considered to be sinful, but sex was one area where we had to practice extreme dicipline and self-control, even in marriage. It was very old school, Victorian era Protestant and now I think it was deeply steeped in Legalism. I posted a topic about this over in the Apologetics section so I'm not going to go into a lot of detail here, but my question is why do you believe this to be true, and where in the Bible specifically can you back it up? I need to know why you or others think this to see if there was any Biblical truth to what I was led to believe. And I'm not talking about sex outside of marriage, I'm talking about only having sex in marriage because you intend to create a child. In other words, having sex because you want it or you find your spouse hot is the wrong thing to do.

I am in no way saying that the ONLY purpose of sex within the bounderies of marriage is procreation. What I said was that the PRIMARY purpose of sex is procreation. Here are my exact quotes:

"Sex is for procreation. Pleasure is a side-benefit. It's the natural consequence. Try having sex without birth control for a while and see what happens "naturally"

"Sex is for procreation. Pleasure is a side-benefit to cement the commitment with your spouse. If you are not able to deal with the natural consequence of having sex, which without birth control or abortion is having children, then don't have sex."
​

The Bible is very clear that we should not demand dictates on sex within marriage. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5:

v.1 "Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a
woman.
v.2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
v.3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
v. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband good for a man not to touch a woman.does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does
v.5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
​

I in no way state that the ONLY benefit of sex within marriage is procreation, but I do believe that the PRIMARY purpose of sex, within the confines of marriage, is procreation with the wonderful side-benefits of pleasure and relational building that occurs. I do not hold to any Victorian age view or that married couples can only have sex to procreate. Quite to the contrary, the Bible teaches that God created sex to be a wonderfully beautiful and pleasurable act. The Song of Solomon is a great example of the sexual/romantic relationship of a couple submitted to each other and God.

The context of this part of the debate was concerning the fact that many young women are forced into a corner to choose abortion due to the fact that they are having sex outside of marriage. I am pointing out that the natural consequences of having sex is procreation. Pleasure is a side-benefit...albeit a WONDERFUL side-benefit.

 

[cowboysfan1970]

I am in no way saying that the ONLY purpose of sex within the bounderies of marriage is procreation. What I said was that the PRIMARY purpose of sex is procreation.

That's what I thought you really meant but I was trying to see if maybe you meant the other - that it's sole purpose was procreation. To make a long story short that's what I was led to believe was true but I started hearing more and more Christians and ministers preaching a contradicting message. Now I'm trying to find out if there's any Biblical truth at all to what I had believed for most of my life. If I can't find anything or if no one can show me how that or other things might be true then I have to assume that it was just a product of an uber Victorian attitude that had managed to survive through the 20th century. Since then I've left that demonination and have joined another one but I'm searching for the truth. That's why I'm asking questions like this.

What's really bad about the abortion angle is that there are people that see it as a form of birth control.

 

[LunarPlexus]

What's really bad about the abortion angle is that there are people that see it as a form of birth control.

I hear that a lot, but I've never met anyone with that attitude. Someone who has had more than one abortion is not necessarily using the option as birth control. Although I believe there are far too many people who regard the option lightly..."If I get pregnant, I'll just have an abortion."
I have heard THAT before, and it disturbs me a little, but I am still glad that women have the freedom to include that as an option.

 

[superjesusboy]

you people are all silly! i understand that this is for the purpose of a debate, but the removal of a tumor is not an abortion, however you look at it.

but on the other hand, a baby that is about to be aborted doesnt have a mind, it isnt aware of whats happening, it hasnt even opened its eyes, it doesnt have teeth, fingernails, its not fully formed. and besides, i dont think that abortions should be treated as some sort of contraception, and done all willy-nilly. however, if a couple arent financially capable of raising a child, or if the child is doomed to be painfully disabled for its whole life, why not save it a difficult life in pain and always fighting against adversity? or another where the parents will resent it for causing a disruption in their lives? answer that for me please...

 

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

you people are all silly! i understand that this is for the purpose of a debate, but the removal of a tumor is not an abortion, however you look at it.

but on the other hand, a baby that is about to be aborted doesnt have a mind, it isnt aware of whats happening, it hasnt even opened its eyes, it doesnt have teeth, fingernails, its not fully formed. and besides, i dont think that abortions should be treated as some sort of contraception, and done all willy-nilly. however, if a couple arent financially capable of raising a child, or if the child is doomed to be painfully disabled for its whole life, why not save it a difficult life in pain and always fighting against adversity? or another where the parents will resent it for causing a disruption in their lives? answer that for me please...

Talking about silly!
Newborn babies don't have teeth, they don't get them until average about 6months old! Hardly a good yardstick to use for your argument. Although a fetus does have toothbuds and toenails at 11 weeks gestations, as well as a liver, kidneys, brain and lungs. still very first trimester - when most abortions are performed!
By 14weeks a fetus can frown, grasp, and even suck it's thumb!
Finding a line to draw in pregnancy on when a fetus becomes formed enough is, IMO, dangerous territory.

 

[Kerwin]

I have to disagree as a tumor is not a living being or even a separate organism. It is part of the human organism much like a fingernail, a hair, a flake of skin, etc. A tumor for this reason can be removed providing the purpose for so removing it will be less harmful than beneficial to the organism it is part of. A child within his or her mother's womb on the other hand is a separate homo sapient organism from the stage of life known as a zygote onward. According to our culture and to God no homo sapient should be treated differently than another under the law so if you would not justifiably kill a homo sapient who is born then it would not be justifiable to kill one that was not yet born.