SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : Bush to meet Pope

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re: Bush to meet Pope


I have a personal plea here, and that is that just one of you anti-abortionists, puts into words what they believe a doctor should do when he knows a pregnancy is going to kill the mother eventually.

Does it depend on whether the baby can be saved if she carries on but she herself dies in the process? You would advise her to go that route?

Or, should both be loving nurtured through until both die?

Is this what you believe Christians should do in these circumstances - when it is your daughter, your wife, your sister who will die?

Is it so simple in your minds that there should be no further thought to it - that it would be murder to take the pregnancy, but it is not murder not to save the mother's life?


These are the dilemmas faced by the medical profession which have led to the existence of law permitting therapeutic abortion. This law exists to promote health and well-being.

Please think carefully. The misuse of abortion law by men and women of child-bearing age does not mean the law itself is at fault, does it?



 2007/6/20 20:48
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Quote:
absent fathers



Is this the determining factor for whether or not we abort God's creation? [i]An absent biological father?[/i] Or were you talking about aborting complicated pregnancies where the father was absent? Sister, I asked you to clarify what your quote meant, and you didn't. You instead said you couldn't understand what I didn't understand. Let's see how we can resolve this.

You said that it would be [i]out of order[/i] to tell a woman [i]not to have an abortion[/i] if the father wasn't willing to cooperate. I can't imagine what this means...I am afraid to. Are you implying that the decision to murder, abort, terminate a human life should be contingent on the role of the biological father?

Please excuse me for not plumbing the depths of SI to read up on all your previous posts. In truth, your last post left me with a cold chill. Maybe I'm just not understanding you correctly. This wouldn't be uncommon for me!

Thanks for your patience.

Brother Paul


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2007/6/20 20:57Profile









 Re: Bush to meet Pope

Hi Compliments,

I think you explained very well a great many truths, which I accept. And btw, your description was not too graphic for me.

Of course, I would like to comment further, to explain what I would add from scripture, to show the greater differences which may be admitted.

You said:

Quote:
the 'seeds' are actually living. They look like 'tadpoles' with a little tail.

Indeed. Each is one living cell, with its own peculiar function, as is the seed it joins.

But, every other body cell is also living in the same way, and while the form is developing - first outside the womb, then eventually bedded into it but still separate (in fact) - it remains incompatible with spontaneous life outside an incubator, until at least 37 weeks of pregnancy, although week 37, 38 and 39 can have their own difficulties.

As always, there will be exceptions who survived against the odds. But despite appearances and anecdotal evidence, many boys born at 36 weeks or before, succumb to fatal infection.

I acknowledge that God has His chosen ones, who are foretold (like Isaac, Samson, John and Jesus) and others like Noah and Moses, without whom history would have been slightly different at least. And I acknowledge the image of God in man - which is what makes the subject of therapeutic abortion the most difficult, in my view.

But, therapeutic abortion has been developed round the fact of the marred vessel - the pregnancy incompatible with health of the baby or the mother - and the desire to minimise the physical and emotional trauma of mounting the (predictable) rescue of one or other, later, at greater cost of life or loss, and expense.

While you have majored on the foreknowledge of God, I would major on the time factor for His planned people to come into existence. Just as He formed Adam, the formation of a body in the womb is a time-limited process. Eventually, if all goes well enough, the body emerges and is filled with its own spirit, thus becoming a living soul. I do not dispute that if this happens, the prior influences of its mother's overshadowing life - and its father's if he's in the frame - do come into play. Even if the father is dead by the time the child is born, his influence will show in many ways genetically.


contd.

 2007/6/20 21:31









 Re: Bush to meet Pope


Hi Paul,

I'll interrupt my reply to Compliments to try to clarify. It seems you have not read an earlier part of this thread, where I allude to the lack of pressure on males not to create a situation where therapeutic abortion is sought. Period.

So far, ginnyrose has not answered my questions to her, following her statement (which left me speechless initially) that the male found it harder to control his sexual drive, so the female should be the one to resist it. And Krispy has not answered whether he acknowledges that there is [i]ever[/i] a case for therapeutic abortion.

I'm not sure what you feel on any of these three points, but as I said earlier also - in a different way - I think the Church has to be much more realistic with all the issues if it is to deliver a loving alternative to non-Christians who don't want to stay pregnant.

You picked up on the phrase 'absent fathers', and really, what I was getting at, was that they get out of this noose far too easily. If boys want to become fathers, they need to find a girl and [i]marry[/i] her first. It's that simple.

If they don't want fatherhood but nevertheless put [i]themselves[/i] at risk of it, then I feel 'society' should make a great deal more effort to make them share the burden they have brought [i]on themselves[/i].

My meaning is more that it is out of order for the girl to [u]take all the pressure[/u] of an unwanted pregnancy alone, and it is verging on inhumane to treat ber as if she got pregnant by herself. I want to see the boy there, getting an understanding of the meaning of his indiscretion - for [i]all of them[/i].

This is my objective view. I don't believe therapeutic abortion is murder, even though it is deeply disturbing and should be avoided for [i]that[/i] reason, unless there is medical cause.

I believe also, that if scripture did not repeat the picture of the earthen vessel - the glory of the Lord filling the temple - so often, it would be easier to go for the 'murder' interpretation. But, even God in the Old Testament would not allow certain types of abnormal human into the outer court of the temple. And this made it even more outrageous after Jesus had cleansed the temple one time, that the blind and the lame went to Him [i]there[/i] and He healed them [i]there[/i].

If you're reading between the lines here, I am much more in favour of praying for the form of unborn babies who may be deformed, that they may be delivered in a better state of health than they were conceived. This is another reason I hear more hypocrisy than I care to, in the cries of the anti-abortion lobby, because the way it is portrayed strikes me as legalistic and carnal.

And in case you wonder, I definitely [i]would[/i] stay with a girl having an abortion, because I think that's what Jesus would do.

 2007/6/20 22:00









 Re: Bush to meet Pope


To Compliments contd.


The law does not recognise a child until it is separated from its mother's womb. It cannot be legally named, or identified without a face and a history of independent breathing and heartbeat.

Although it is one [i]flesh[/i] with both its parents equally, it is deemed to be part of the mother's body because entirely her strength supports it and her body changes to accomplish this function throughout pregnancy. This is why, I suppose, the law is framed in the US to give the mother all power of decision over it.


Going back to 'living' cells, the human body is made up entirely of living cells and some body fluids like serum (in which blood cells are suspended) and cerebro-spinal fluid (to name but two). Each cell is a microcosm; its own little factory with all the necessary funtions of life.

But, remove the source of oxygen, or, remove them from their comfort zone, and they die off.

The body in a womb is not as inanimate as the dust from which Adam was formed, but it is as independently lifeless as the dust was until God breathed into him. The same goes for a baby, whose heart in particular changes configuration if all goes well at birth, and certain fetal vascular structures begin to atrophy if independent life commences outside the womb as it should - classified as a 'live' birth.

Far from a baby being [i]born already living[/i], it is born with the [u]potential for life[/u]. Some come out and do not breathe.

All that notional potential which was attributed to them in the womb by calling the baby 'alive', is instantly worthless and such a birth is termed 'still'. Iow, life-less. This is the fact which those who refer to a fertilised ovum as 'an unborn baby' would rather not consider.

But, God has made us thus.... Jer 18 ...

3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying:
6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay [i]is[/i] in the potter's hand, so [i]are[/i] you in My hand, O house of Israel!


Even some 'marred' human vessels, are capable of living and being loved by loving parents. But some will make it neither to birth [i]nor[/i] life.


2 Cor 4:7
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us.

What Paul said above is not mere poetry. It is a right understanding of the facts.


[For you, Annie, this is not 'science' as anything other than a definition and description of part of God's creation. ]



It's all very well choosing one's own child-bearing outcomes in the light of medical advice, but it is quite another thing to force one's preference on someone else.

A Christian friend of mine was under a lot of pressure from Christian 'friends' to be sterilised after her sixth baby. She even had an appointment to attend. But on the day, she realised her heart wasn't in it, so she cancelled - and went on to have two more children. Now that is pure honesty! Amen.

Above all others, this topic is both private and unavoidably public. If Christians are going to be utterly scriptural, there must be no contraception either, not just no abortion.

 2007/6/20 22:08









 Re: ?

Linn, two quotes is all that I can extract 'for now' ... hoping that other's who are better versed than I will fill in the 'gap'.

Quote:
If you're reading between the lines here, I am much more in favour of praying for the form of unborn babies who may be deformed, that they may be delivered in a better state of health than they were conceived. This is another reason I hear more hypocrisy than I care to, in the cries of the anti-abortion lobby, because the way it is portrayed strikes me as legalistic and carnal.

[For you, Annie, this is not 'science' as anything other than a definition and description of part of God's creation. ]



Linn, if killing deformed babies is not a part of modern day Science and this belief that "quality of life" has not been a modern day reason of extermination (as it is what started Hitler's theory), then show me "where" in The Word of God do you find anywhere that killing the unborn is warranted ? Seeing that we believe this is The Final Word on any beliefs.

If you believe that the O.T. verses against killing any unborn is "legalism" ... then your arguement is not with us.

If it is 'not science' --- then what did we do for almost 6000 years under God without abortion ? Was it all just legalism for that long ?

 2007/6/20 22:38









 Re: Bush to meet Pope


Annie,

I think you have misunderstood my 'reading between the lines' - which may be because you took it out of context, as the other bit you quoted.

I meant, I feel we should be PRAYING for deformed babies to be healed - NOT aborting them.

But, Krispy and ginnyrose were generally against the abortion of healthy babies. Neither have yet said what they believe about abortion for medical reasons. I'm waiting.

There was an earlier mention of inconsistencies (by ginnyrose), which is really why I'm trying to find out where they stand. I want to know how they justify their inconsistencies.

Now, on the innocents being the 'unborn', please could you give me a few chapter and verses when you are rested?

 2007/6/20 23:09









 Re:

Quote:
Dorcas said: but it is as independently lifeless as the dust

In that same documentry it showed under the same microscope in a woman's body, cells coming together to form a heart beat. It's incredible, you see a jolt in the cells, a few seconds later another, like trying to start your car on a winter day. And finally you see the beating of cells, the heart has not been formed, but the beat is there, the beginning stages.

Does the dust have a heartbeat?

 2007/6/21 8:24









 Re:

Hi Linn, I tried to say above, that I could only take "2" quotes. I should have added the word "seperate" in there, because I was trying to relay that I knew they came from two of your back to back posts.

I didn't mean that 'you' would abort babies 'just' because they are deformed, but that in reference to "Science", that has only been a practice, basically within our lifetime.

Lord knows how many Christians have done more than just "pray for deformed babies". They have intentionally adopted them and sponsor Hospitals and rehab facilities for them. And if the child is theirs, go further than most to give them the very best of loving care.
It would be an assumption to say that Christians don't pray for disabled children.

May I answer your last question with a link for now. It has the verses I looked up in e-sword under "innocent" on this page.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9410CV.asp


Thanks for your patience.
Love.
annie

 2007/6/21 9:03









 Re:

Thanks Annie for that link, very helpful!

 2007/6/21 9:12





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy