Can A Real Believer Support Abortion Rights?

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Ev. Duane Williams

What sins do a baby commit in the womb?

Can David please write a metaphorical Psalm without having his words taken out of context and used to condemn the unborn to hell?


Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. Deut. 1:39

For before the children shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. Isaiah 7:16

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) Romans 9:11

So, all aborted, miscarried, and still-born babies will be in heaven, then?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Abortion to save the life of the mother? I suppose so.

Abortion as a form of birth control? Absolutley not.

In theory it sounds that easy. But if the state is forced to enforce some form of abortion law, it will have to call into question every case where an abortion may be necessary. I wouldn't want my wife's health risked by political wrangling.

Sometimes we have to step back and allow people to make choices even if we strongly disagree with them, knowing that God is a righteous judge and that God will judge the individual justly.

Besides, abortion law will never change in our country. Those that think it will are delusional. We need to move on to delivering the message...not politicking.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I don't know if you live in an area where Obama runs his campaign ads but I do and 9 out of 10 of them emphasize the difference between himself and McCain on the issue of Abortion. He has some commercials that are dedicated to that issue alone. He would not support a bill that banned abortion except in the cases of rape or incest or for the life of the mother. He wants abortion on demand.

I would support a bill that banned abortion except for the three reasons stated above even though I am not comfortable with the first two. The reality is Obama is prod of his abortioon on demand view. And this cannot be reconciled with Scripture. A friend of mine at the ACLJ has a few tag lines that he runs each day here are a couple of them.

Jim wonders whether freedom of choice extends to all male children under two in Judea and makes Herod an okay guy facing a question above his pay grade.

Jim thinks people are too hard on Pharaoh for killing the baby boys . . . just think of it as him exercising his freedom of choice.

Jim thanks God that Obama's pals at Planned Parenthood didn't murder John the Baptist, an inconvenient child born at an age when birth defects are real "threats".

Jim worries that if God is the defender of the weak, and if unborn children are the weak, then our abortion laws make us God's enemy.

It’s easy to say that we would support laws that only allowed for an abortion if the woman’s life or health was in danger, or maybe for some in cases of rape and or incest. However, these are very simplistic statements that are very difficult to enforce. For example I knew of a mother to be who had a cancerous growth immediately outside her uterus. The doctors were divided on rather she should abort or carry the child. The treatments would have caused her to either loose the child or to have the child seriously deformed. She had the option to forgo treatment and try to carry the child to term, but there were two very risky issues….the growth may have sapped nutrients from the child and left it still born or deformed and left her cancer too far advanced to treat, killing her. Some doctors on the staff believed that some promising treatments may be available after carrying the child to term. They were divided. Ultimately they left the choice up to her as to what she desired to do.

Here’s the deal…imagine these doctors being unable to justify the procedure legally to meet the government’s requirements. This would leave her in a very difficult and dangerous situation. Not to mention the potential politicization of the situation on the local level if it were an election year. Imagine a politician wanting to appear “tough on abortion” and it’s your wife on the table.

As much as a hate abortion, I don’t think government is the answer.

I think your friend is misinformed. Nobody is forced to abort in the United States. It’s a single personal choice made by far too many women yes….but it’s not a genocidal edict. Now, in China the story is different, they force abortion through policy. But nobody seems to care about how cozy America is with China as far as trade policy and borrowing money for the Iraq War.

Nobody in “Planned Parenthood” could murder John the Baptist because nobody forces an abortion in the United States. These are ignorant arguments meant for polemic points in my opinion. I’d like to see how he handles such a dark day if the doctors told him and his wife that abortion was an option that should be seriously considered. It’s easy to point the finger, puff out the chest, and act all moral and righteously indignant when you’re not the one who has to make such difficult choices. When the rubber meets the road….I don’t think the government is qualified to govern such situations.

As far as being a defender of the weak…the context of those texts are typically the poor, widows, fatherless, and strangers. Those qualified to glean that were neglected by the rich and powerful. Of course few even dare to consider the implications of the subject in context.

As far as abortion goes…pessaries were available since the times of ancient Egypt. Yet the Bible doesn’t address them. Some rabbinical authorities believe that there is a veiled reference to one in Numbers 5 but that’s a complex hermeneutic.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I think what bother's me the most is when Christians say this issue doesn't or can't matter. How can it not? How can you endorse or vote for candidates who you know support abortion? They don't take a "neutral" stance. Far from it.

It isn't the "only" issue that matters to me (obviously), but it IS an important one.

All candidates support abortion rights. The Republicans are just masters at acting prolife to fool single issue voters into voting for them. It's a "wedge issue" to wedge out those passionate on the subject. Trust me...the Republicans don't want abortion to go away...they'd loose a large voting block if the issues moved on from abortion to jobs, health care, and economy.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I would be more satisfied with this point of view IF the democratic candidates would say they are going to be uninvolved, instead of voting one way or the other on abortion. The truth is, the democrats ARE doing something "about it"--they're actively making it more accessible every day. I'd rather have a Republican who isn't changing the present laws than a Democrat who will make the laws even more lenient than they already are.

Actually, though, quite a few Republicans have worked toward REAL change on the issue of abortion, and HAVE actually passed laws to at least keep things in check. Better than nothing, but more definitely needs to be done.

I do not believe that it is possible for abortion to ever be outlawed. I think provisions will always be in place to protect the life of the mother, or for cases of rape and incest. However, I do think it can be reduced and limited, so that all the abortions for the sake of convenience can be filtered out, and more importantly, late-term abortions should be completely banned--for any reason. The same trauma a woman can go through to abort a late-term baby, can achieve BIRTH or Cesarean birth of the baby. For abortion to even be available for late-term pregnancies is a horror and atrocity I cannot even begin to understand. EVEN in the case of mother's life, rape or incest--if the pregnancy has gotten to a certain point, there is no greater risk of delivery than there is of aborting the baby. Therefore, there is NO reason to abort. And by "abort", I mean deliberately END the life of the fetus; not just remove the fetus from the womb for the sake of saving the mother.

I have no objection to inducing delivery when the life of the mother is in danger, as long as proper attention is also given to saving the life of the child.

Sounds good on the surface...but in the end it will be the government deciding what constitutes actual threats to the life and health of the mother. This will fail to address complext medical situations that arise that doctors and medical science cannot anticipate. It's just more red tape and more moral grandstanding.

Then think about policing the issue. What do you do to those who procure abortions illegally? Prison? Execution? A fine? Get real....abortion is here to stay folks.

And regardless of how accessible it is...the ultimatley responsibility lays in the hands of individual women who choose abortion. No politician Democrat or Republican has ever forced a woman to abort.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Then think about policing the issue. What do you do to those who procure abortions illegally? Prison? Execution? A fine? Get real....abortion is here to stay folks.

So is murder, rape, etc.....

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Aquila

All candidates support abortion rights. The Republicans are just masters at acting prolife to fool single issue voters into voting for them. It's a "wedge issue" to wedge out those passionate on the subject. Trust me...the Republicans don't want abortion to go away...they'd loose a large voting block if the issues moved on from abortion to jobs, health care, and economy.

I'm aware the most support abortion at least in cases where the mother's life is in danger. However, there is a problem with the definition of abortion, as well. There is no need to confuse ending a pregnancy with necessarily ending the life of the child (deliberately). This is where too many people have been fooled.

It's one thing to "take the baby" to save the mother, and still try to save the life of the child. It's quite another to save the mother by taking the baby and either deliberately ending the life of the child, allowing it to die unassisted, or removing it with a method which will certainly end it's life. How does the latter contribute to saving the life of the mother? The answer is: It doesn't.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I'm aware the most support abortion at least in cases where the mother's life is in danger. However, there is a problem with the definition of abortion, as well. There is no need to confuse ending a pregnancy with necessarily ending the life of the child (deliberately). This is where too many people have been fooled.

It's one thing to "take the baby" to save the mother, and still try to save the life of the child. It's quite another to save the mother by taking the baby and either deliberately ending the life of the child, allowing it to die unassisted, or removing it with a method which will certainly end it's life. How does the latter contribute to saving the life of the mother? The answer is: It doesn't.

Great post. We can now save babies born as young as 24 weeks and sometimes younger.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Sounds good on the surface...but in the end it will be the government deciding what constitutes actual threats to the life and health of the mother. This will fail to address complext medical situations that arise that doctors and medical science cannot anticipate. It's just more red tape and more moral grandstanding.

Then think about policing the issue. What do you do to those who procure abortions illegally? Prison? Execution? A fine? Get real....abortion is here to stay folks.

And regardless of how accessible it is...the ultimately responsibility lays in the hands of individual women who choose abortion. No politician Democrat or Republican has ever forced a woman to abort.

I agree with your last statement.

However, there is a responsibility on government to PREVENT social ills and criminal acts. I believe abortion constitutes a criminal act. Abortion, defined as deliberately ending the life of the unborn child. NOT defined in the "gray area" as induced delivery, or other methods that relieve the mother of the pregnancy without endangering the life of the infant. This is, of course, impossible in early pregnancy. But in late term, there is the very REAL option of delivering the child which offers no more risk to the mother than aborting the child.

Abortion will be around, that is for sure, but it can be redefined and limited, and that is a good possibility.

Personally, I don't mind the government preventing murder. I don't find that to be intrusive.

And in the case of you and your wife being in the midst of such a decision--would it really bother you if the only options available were delivering the baby, as opposed to having the option to kill the fetus? Really? That would present some sort of anxiety to you?

It isn't wrong to end a pregnancy for the sake of the mother's life IF the infant is viable, and IF proper care is taken to salvage BOTH lives.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I agree with your last statement.

However, there is a responsibility on government to PREVENT social ills and criminal acts. I believe abortion constitutes a criminal act. Abortion, defined as deliberately ending the life of the unborn child. NOT defined in the "gray area" as induced delivery, or other methods that relieve the mother of the pregnancy without endangering the life of the infant. This is, of course, impossible in early pregnancy. But in late term, there is the very REAL option of delivering the child which offers no more risk to the mother than aborting the child.

Abortion will be around, that is for sure, but it can be redefined and limited, and that is a good possibility.

Personally, I don't mind the government preventing murder. I don't find that to be intrusive.

And in the case of you and your wife being in the midst of such a decision--would it really bother you if the only options available were delivering the baby, as opposed to having the option to kill the fetus? Really? That would present some sort of anxiety to you?

It isn't wrong to end a pregnancy for the sake of the mother's life IF the infant is viable, and IF proper care is taken to salvage BOTH lives.

At last! Some congency to the debate!!!!! Thanks.