|
Post by kevin on Apr 23, 2007 7:09:15 GMT -5
This thread is for pro-lifers only. We already know how pro-choicers feel, so if you are pro-choice, please refrain from contributing your opinion to this thread. Thanks!
Abortion -- huge topic, some say already beat in the ground. Really not much more to say on it but I will be the first to admit, even as a Christian who believes in the sanctity of life, that I struggle with abortion for those who are a victim of rape or whose lives are in great danger due to the pregnancy.
Abortion has been viewed as a procedure of choice, as in it is the mother's choice to do what she wants with her body. But I see it this way: a woman who willingly has sex has made the choice already. She knows the consequences, therefore she's made her choice.
A woman who has been raped has not been given a choice. Is she therefore supposed to not only live with the actual memory of the rape for the rest of her life but to further be reminded of it for at least 9 months while carrying the child of it?
And what about a woman who has been shown definitive proof that carrying the child to full term may strongly lead to her own death? Is she just to say "well, I've lived my life, time to give new life" and go on?
Now, I'm totally against partial birth abortion of any kind, so let's remove that from the equation.
As a final statement, in either case I would encourage the woman (if I had the ability to do so!) to continue with the pregnancy. But I would not make it against the law for her to not do so. This may seem out of line with my belief in the sanctity of life and my Christianity, but I still have a human side that struggles with this.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Apr 23, 2007 7:57:02 GMT -5
Kevin, I was argued down not too very long ago for taking a stance similar to yours. I could never and would never consider abortion. I had very serious health issues with all three of my pregnancies, and never once thought that termination was the answer. I believe that every life is given by God and He has a purpose for each and every one. That being said, I would never force my personal beliefs on another person, and I would never judge another woman if she felt she had to choose termination. I also do not think that men who are not the father (of a child in question) should have no say in the matter at all. No offense to any men here, but I would not trust my health and well being to a man who will never be able to know the situation first hand.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 8:00:14 GMT -5
The only time I think abortion could be valid is if the mother's life is actually in danger. Self defense being one of the few circumstances God allows for the righteous killing of another person. Being a reminder of a negative event, that you had nothing to do with, is not justification that you should be killed.
As far as partial birth abortion, the life of the mother scenario is logically refuted due to the fact that if timing is of such urgency that the mother's life is in danger, then the doctor wouldn't stop 3/4 into the child bearing process, in order to take the time to kill the baby. If the motivation is truly for the life of the mother, the inducement would occur at the latest time possible and the baby would either live or die but would have a chance, though that chance is small in whatever percentage of cases it would constitute. The technology and medical knowledge as increased a lot to keep babies alive that are born pre-mature.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 23, 2007 15:14:44 GMT -5
Abortion is only an option if the pregnancy endangers the mother's life while the chance for the child's life is highly unlikely, for example a child that forms outside of the uterus or a child whose skull will not develop enough to survive and causes large amounts of hormones to flood into the mother increasing her odds of cancer.
My cousin experienced a pregnancy where the child's skull was extremely under developed and they were advised that his wife would be in danger if she carried the child to term. It was a very bitter cup for all of us to drink. Praise God the separation is only temporary.
2 Samuel 12:22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live? 23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 23, 2007 19:17:37 GMT -5
Its amazing how you start thinking more deeply about a subject once you put your mind to do so. Like I said, I would encourage a woman who was raped to have a child if she became pregnant from the act, but I can't force this choice on her. Only she knows what she has been through and what she can handle.
But there is a logical side of me that sees the potential for abuse in this approach. If abortion became illegal except for victims of rape and life-threating situations, there may be more false rape accusations. Or a woman could just merely say she was raped and without definitive proof, how could you say she was wrong? Obviously, you could not likely wait for the courts to convict the supposed rapist because by that time, the pregnancy could be too far advanced.
And I'm certain there are any number of doctors who would sign off on anything that would say that a woman's life was at risk so the procedure could be performed.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 19:40:56 GMT -5
"I said, I would encourage a woman who was raped to have a child if she became pregnant from the act, but I can't force this choice on her. Only she knows what she has been through and what she can handle."
I still don't understand that reasoning.
I believe you said you have a child. What if you were raped by men, beaten and tortured and it was directly due to your child. Would the memory of that event cause you to kill your child? Then how could the same memory cause you to kill a child that had nothing to do with the horrible things that were done to you?
The problem, in my opinion, is that the child has been the surrogate, for the feelings that the rapist brings up. Emotions are not valid reasons for murder. The woman needs to deal with the problem appropriately. In whatever way that doesn't involve the killing of the innocent party.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 23, 2007 19:58:29 GMT -5
I agree with you to some extent phinehas, but in the end, I'm not in the shoes of a raped woman. I have 2 children and one is a 17 year old girl (yes, she's still a girl!). Believe me, if she were ever the victim of a rape (God forbid), I would do everything in my power to assure that if she became pregnant from the rape that she would carry the child to full term and be with her every step of the way, encouraging and uplifting her for turning adversity and pain into life and joy. But that is because I have a the nature to do so. There are many others out there who feel the same way, I think. But what about the woman who doesn't have that support and love in her life? To her, carrying the child for 9 months may do significant harm to her mental well being.
But you are right, emotions are not valid reasons for murder. I just suppose that I struggle with this one aspect of abortion because I DO believe in the sanctity of life. Its a tough situation.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 23:07:59 GMT -5
From another thread:
solinvictus wrote:
".....life begins when the fetus is realistically viable outside the uterus."
I think it would be more correct to say that life can CONTINUE when the fetus is realistically viable outside the uterus. In order to be VIABLE, you have to be alive to start with.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 23:34:06 GMT -5
"but in the end, I'm not in the shoes of a raped woman."
Nor do you have to be in the shoes of anybody for the precepts of God to be correct. It isn't the person that makes a moral absolute valid or not but whether or not the circumstance calls for a specific moral absolute. In other words, a moral decision by applying an absolute rule, relative to the circumstances, should be followed. Example, as a general moral rule, lying should not be done, but what if it is to protect an innocent life? How about the disciples. They were taught that the government should be obeyed, but only if it did not violate a higher moral law in the process, hence they didn't stop preaching.
I really can't think of a higher moral law that would supersede a lower moral law as it pertains to abortion due to rape. What is the higher moral law that overrules the lower moral law in this situation?
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 24, 2007 6:57:36 GMT -5
"but in the end, I'm not in the shoes of a raped woman."Nor do you have to be in the shoes of anybody for the precepts of God to be correct. It isn't the person that makes a moral absolute valid or not but whether or not the circumstance calls for a specific moral absolute. In other words, a moral decision by applying an absolute rule, relative to the circumstances, should be followed. Example, as a general moral rule, lying should not be done, but what if it is to protect an innocent life? How about the disciples. They were taught that the government should be obeyed, but only if it did not violate a higher moral law in the process, hence they didn't stop preaching. I really can't think of a higher moral law that would supersede a lower moral law as it pertains to abortion due to rape. What is the higher moral law that overrules the lower moral law in this situation? This where the rubber meets the road. When we start using "precepts of God" when discussing an issue of the law, that's when we starting turning the heads of the "moral police" dissenters. In a healthy Christian world we obviously wouldn't even be talking about abortion or rape, but since we do not, we are talking about it. Therefore, we cannot fully apply our moral belief system although we'd prefer it that way. Yes, I'd like to see it the way you speak. But since the majority of people out there don't have the same moral standards, we can't expect to apply our wishes to their lives. That's where I came from originally although I wasn't clear about it. We're talking about meting out the rules to an uneven society. So whether or not the disciples did anything or not doesn't really apply here. They were followers of Christ and not all pro-lifers are. They are not mutually inclusive terms although I do hope that all Christians are pro-life!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 13:15:23 GMT -5
The points I brought up in regards to the disciples and moral absolutes, etc. is to change your mind about abortion, due to rape, being a moral choice and that there is a moral absolute that would trump it, not anyone else. Unless of course you can state a higher moral absolute for murder, other than the ones instructed by God. My premise is that rape is not one of them, nor emotions, financial hardship, career concerns, bad choices, temporary health issues nor permanent health issues that don't cause a loss of ones life. Given time, I could probably add in another dozen more of the assorted excuses. You get the point.
That being said, you are concerned about the other people. If the excuse is that different people may have a different moral standard, then how are any criminals laws to be applied?
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 24, 2007 20:47:19 GMT -5
I guess the difficulty arises in that while I am a Christian and believer in the sanctity of life, I also strongly believe in not forcing my beliefs on others. Yet by that concept, I could just as easily allow for abortions as a right of the mother, regardless of reason. That, I don't want. So in the end, I'll just have to face the fact that I am weak in that particular aspect of the abortion issue (pregnancy due to rape) and further seek guidance on reconciling this.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 14:32:16 GMT -5
You at least recognize that the position has a problem that needs to be reconciled. Let me know if I could help in that process.
|
|