Planned Parenthood Plans 40 Days of Prayer (L)

[Jay]

Originally Posted by jfrog

99% or 1% or even .1% it doesn't matter. All it takes for hypocrisy is one action that goes against your stated beliefs...

The problem with your premise is that all Christians will turn hypocrite on this issue.

It is nearly impossible for a woman's health to be threatened by a pregnancy during the period that abortion is legal in most states. Therefore this is an irrelevant instance.

In the instances of rape or incest, most of these do not produce children. It is legitimate to say that I have not yet had to face this possibility of making this decision as I am not married. However, I while I might not wish to have the child raised in my home (something that I would need to pray about), I can not justify abortion.

To kill the child who is the result of rape or incest is a violation of Scripture. Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 both say that the children are not to be executed for the sins of the parents. Aborting a child because of the sin that the father committed is murder when these verses are taken into account. Thus a true Christian will oppose abortion in all circumstances.

The only reason that some of us allow the exception (I do not) is to move eliminate the concept of abortion on demand. After that goal is acheived, we will then be able to finish the job.

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I think it does just that, though.

It is speaking of the woman going into labor prematurely and a live birth - not miscarriage! The Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used in this text but the word for normal live child birth. Therefore, if the fighting only caused the woman to go into labor early, but there was no injury, they agree on a penalty. If the child or mother is hurt or dies it's limb for limb, and life for life.


http://www.abort73.com/abortion/exodus_2122_25/

The Premature live childbirth view of Exodus 21:22-25 does not allow for abortion but defines abortion as murder punishable by death. The text is interpreted to mean, if a woman is accidently struck when two men are fighting and she gives birth prematurely but no injury is sustained by either her or her baby, then the courts shall fine the man who injured the woman and payment shall be made to the husband. But if either the woman or the baby is injured or killed, the law of eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, and life for life will be enforced.

This view is the best view for reasons listed below.

-The normal Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used in this text but the word for normal live child birth, see Gen. 25:26; 38:28-30.

-Moses knew the normal word for miscarriage for he used it both before and after this text, but he did not use it here which tells us he did not have a miscarriage in mind but premature live birth (see Gen. 31:38; Ex. 23:26; Job 2:10).

-The word “injury” both in vss. 22-23 is indefinite in that it does not designate either the mother or the child but is left indefinite so that it applies to both mother and child.

-The fact that this is the only place in all of the Bible where the death penalty is required for accidental death is significant. It shows us the value God places on both mothers and their unborn children. The death of either the mother or her child by accident would bring with it the death penalty!

I found this to be a very interesting. I will need to do some research myself, but I have often figured that this was something that like that. I also remember that judgment is promised against nations whose soldiers performed 'abortions' on pregnant women during times of war. This is repeated many times in the Prophets.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jay

The problem with your premise is that all Christians will turn hypocrite on this issue.

It is nearly impossible for a woman's health to be threatened by a pregnancy during the period that abortion is legal in most states. Therefore this is an irrelevant instance.

In the instances of rape or incest, most of these do not produce children. It is legitimate to say that I have not yet had to face this possibility of making this decision as I am not married. However, I while I might not wish to have the child raised in my home (something that I would need to pray about), I can not justify abortion.

To kill the child who is the result of rape or incest is a violation of Scripture. Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 both say that the children are not to be executed for the sins of the parents. Aborting a child because of the sin that the father committed is murder when these verses are taken into account. Thus a true Christian will oppose abortion in all circumstances.

The only reason that some of us allow the exception (I do not) is to move eliminate the concept of abortion on demand. After that goal is acheived, we will then be able to finish the job.

That's a very sensible position Jay. I must say, I see nothing hypocritical in it

One question, do you believe abortion if the mother's life is threatened is acceptable?

I found this to be a very interesting. I will need to do some research myself, but I have often figured that this was something that like that. I also remember that judgment is promised against nations whose soldiers performed 'abortions' on pregnant women during times of war. This is repeated many times in the Prophets.

I found it interesting too. I would also be interested in seeing the verses issuing judgment against nations whose soldiers performed 'abortions'?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by jfrog

That's a very sensible position Jay. I must say, I see nothing hypocritical in it

One question, do you believe abortion if the mother's life is threatened is acceptable?

I found it interesting too. I would also be interested in seeing the verses issuing judgment against nations whose soldiers performed 'abortions'?

It would depend on how we defined 'threatened'. If we are discussing a case where the baby may be born fine but the mother may perish, then the life of the child is still sacrosact. However, if there is no hope, such as the child is already dead, then it is right to bring the everything to an end. However, the first is infinitely more likely to be than the second,

This then leaves us the gray area of the probabilities of a mother surviving to deliver the baby. It is a known fact that pregnancy is hazardous and carries risk to the lady's health. With this in mind, she has accepted the risks and must protect the child, even at the cost of her own life. People should be careful when a doctor recomends artificially ending a pregnancy by abortion. I would never recommend an abortion.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jay

It would depend on how we defined 'threatened'. If we are discussing a case where the baby may be born fine but the mother may perish, then the life of the child is still sacrosact. However, if there is no hope, such as the child is already dead, then it is right to bring the everything to an end. However, the first is infinitely more likely to be than the second,

This then leaves us the gray area of the probabilities of a mother surviving to deliver the baby. It is a known fact that pregnancy is hazardous and carries risk to the lady's health. With this in mind, she has accepted the risks and must protect the child, even at the cost of her own life. People should be careful when a doctor recomends artificially ending a pregnancy by abortion. I would never recommend an abortion.

Becoming pregnant does not mean a woman has accepted that she will carry that child to term NO MATTER WHAT.

Accepting the risks can be as simple of a process as I know some women get really sick during pregnancy. I hope that doesn't happen to me but if it does then I am going to do everything in my power to make sure I stay alive. That's an acceptance of risk that doesn't involve a woman having to protect the unborn NO MATTER WHAT.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by Jay

It would depend on how we defined 'threatened'. If we are discussing a case where the baby may be born fine but the mother may perish, then the life of the child is still sacrosact. However, if there is no hope, such as the child is already dead, then it is right to bring the everything to an end. However, the first is infinitely more likely to be than the second,

Jay, I like you. I just want to caution you that right now, with no wife and baby, you feel this way. Circumstances can and do change...and so does our actions. Sometimes the mother truly may perish. That does happen. But the mother does not always have to perish to bring a child to birth without the child dying. It is medically complicated to explain. Not sure I have the capacity to do that as I am not a dissertation writer.

Originally Posted by Jay

This then leaves us the gray area of the probabilities of a mother surviving to deliver the baby. It is a known fact that pregnancy is hazardous and carries risk to the lady's health. With this in mind, she has accepted the risks and must protect the child, even at the cost of her own life. People should be careful when a doctor recomends artificially ending a pregnancy by abortion. I would never recommend an abortion.

Again, this "gray area" you post of...

If it is known that a woman has a certain disease that may pose a great risk of dying to her and/or the baby if she ever gets pregnant, I would think that she should know all her risks beforehand. Some women have been told by their physician about the possibility of not being able to withstand a full-term pregnancy, with the possibility of dying...these women know the risks and many have taken steps to ensure they never become pregnant. They instead become mothers by adopting.

The issue we have recently been discussing is that at times, healthy, pregnant women rapidly develop life-threatening illnesses such as eclampia/toxemia, DIC, placenta abruption etc during their pregnancy. Nobody knows why this illness develops. It is a complication of pregnancy that sometimes happens. The body reacts and some women retain water and develop blood pressure so high to be "stroke level"..and some women do have strokes.

Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) is a pathologic disruption of the finely-balanced process of hemostasis (blood clotting). Massive activation of the clotting cascade results in widespread thrombosis (also blood clotting), which leads to depletion of platelets and coagulation factors and excessive thrombolysis (dissolution of a blood clot). The end result is multiorgan failure and hemorrhage (profuse bleeding).

DIC was first described in 1901 as a state of "temporary hemophilia" in two pregnant women; one had a retained fetal demise and the other had a placental abruption [1]. Peripartum hemorrhage is estimated to account for 1 to 5 percent of all cases of DIC in high-resource countries; the frequency is higher in low-resource countries [2].

Any patient in DIC presents a major management challenge, and this challenge is further complicated when a viable fetus is also present. For example, delaying delivery [not abortion] to transfuse the mother in DIC may not be in the best interest of a fetus with a nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing, whereas performing an emergency cesarean delivery [not abortion] on a mother in DIC may not be in her best interest. Even in the setting of fetal demise, labor and delivery of a woman in DIC carries the potential for catastrophic hemorrhage.

Note: comment in brackets is mine.

www.uptodate.com/ contents/ disseminated-intravascular-coagulation-during-pregnancy

That introduction to DIC is a very short explanation of what it is.

There are other pregnancy complications but I can't put them all on here.

In many these cases when treatment does not help, the baby must be taken in order to save the life of the mother. Where it gets complicated is that frog wants to call this medical procedure "an abortion" because it does terminate the pregnancy. But giving birth also terminates a pregnancy if you want to split hairs. The medical community considers the medical procedure to take the baby as a "premature delivery". Many times the medical procedure to take the baby will result in saving the life of both the baby and the mother. Sometimes the baby does not make it...but in cases of full-blown DIC, placenta abruption, eclampsia, if they do not take the baby, the mother will die and the baby will die anyway. If the mother does not live because of physiological/hemodynamic changes in the body, the baby will not live. Simple as that.

Titus2woman, please feel free to correct me if I am not totally correct in the above. You have a lot of experience in this and I know new treatments have come into the medical practice that I am not aware of.

Frog says all abortions are willful. In the frame he/she puts this in, he/she may be correct. But I do not consider the above scenario to be a willful abortion. I consider it to be a medical procedure of delivery in the attempt to save the lives of both the mother and the baby.

So...I just want for you to be open to the difference between willful abortion because somebody does not want the baby, or the abortion doctor just wants to defend his money-making position by scaring the woman into thinking she cannot bring a baby to full term.

And the difference in the medical procedure delivery to save the life of a baby because of a medical emergency that cannot be turned around through medical treatment.

It is very important for couples contemplating marriage and children to educate themselves in medical care for a possible pregnancy as much as they can. Every woman should have a pre-marital gynecological check up.

Side note to Jay: I attended TCM for morning service today. They have moved their church to the other side of town.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Becoming pregnant does not mean a woman has accepted that she will carry that child to term NO MATTER WHAT.

Accepting the risks can be as simple of a process as I know some women get really sick during pregnancy. I hope that doesn't happen to me but if it does then I am going to do everything in my power to make sure I stay alive. That's an acceptance of risk that doesn't involve a woman having to protect the unborn NO MATTER WHAT.

As painful and cold as it might sound, I believe that when a woman becomes pregnant, she is required to see that the child comes first, even if that means placing her life at risk.

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Jay, I like you. I just want to caution you that right now, with no wife and baby, you feel this way. Circumstances can and do change...and so does our actions. Sometimes the mother truly may perish. That does happen. But the mother does not always have to perish to bring a child to birth without the child dying. It is medically complicated to explain. Not sure I have the capacity to do that as I am not a dissertation writer.



Again, this "gray area" you post of...

If it is known that a woman has a certain disease that may pose a great risk of dying to her and/or the baby if she ever gets pregnant, I would think that she should know all her risks beforehand. Some women have been told by their physician about the possibility of not being able to withstand a full-term pregnancy, with the possibility of dying...these women know the risks and many have taken steps to ensure they never become pregnant. They instead become mothers by adopting.

The issue we have recently been discussing is that at times, healthy, pregnant women rapidly develop life-threatening illnesses such as eclampia/toxemia, DIC, placenta abruption etc during their pregnancy. Nobody knows why this illness develops. It is a complication of pregnancy that sometimes happens. The body reacts and some women retain water and develop blood pressure so high to be "stroke level"..and some women do have strokes.

Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) is a pathologic disruption of the finely-balanced process of hemostasis (blood clotting). Massive activation of the clotting cascade results in widespread thrombosis (also blood clotting), which leads to depletion of platelets and coagulation factors and excessive thrombolysis (dissolution of a blood clot). The end result is multiorgan failure and hemorrhage (profuse bleeding).

DIC was first described in 1901 as a state of "temporary hemophilia" in two pregnant women; one had a retained fetal demise and the other had a placental abruption [1]. Peripartum hemorrhage is estimated to account for 1 to 5 percent of all cases of DIC in high-resource countries; the frequency is higher in low-resource countries [2].

Any patient in DIC presents a major management challenge, and this challenge is further complicated when a viable fetus is also present. For example, delaying delivery [not abortion] to transfuse the mother in DIC may not be in the best interest of a fetus with a nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing, whereas performing an emergency cesarean delivery [not abortion] on a mother in DIC may not be in her best interest. Even in the setting of fetal demise, labor and delivery of a woman in DIC carries the potential for catastrophic hemorrhage.

Note: comment in brackets is mine.

www.uptodate.com/ contents/ disseminated-intravascular-coagulation-during-pregnancy

That introduction to DIC is a very short explanation of what it is.

There are other pregnancy complications but I can't put them all on here.

In many these cases when treatment does not help, the baby must be taken in order to save the life of the mother. Where it gets complicated is that frog wants to call this medical procedure "an abortion" because it does terminate the pregnancy. But giving birth also terminates a pregnancy if you want to split hairs. The medical community considers the medical procedure to take the baby as a "premature delivery". Many times the medical procedure to take the baby will result in saving the life of both the baby and the mother. Sometimes the baby does not make it...but in cases of full-blown DIC, placenta abruption, eclampsia, if they do not take the baby, the mother will die and the baby will die anyway. If the mother does not live because of physiological/hemodynamic changes in the body, the baby will not live. Simple as that.

Titus2woman, please feel free to correct me if I am not totally correct in the above. You have a lot of experience in this and I know new treatments have come into the medical practice that I am not aware of.

Frog says all abortions are willful. In the frame he/she puts this in, he/she may be correct. But I do not consider the above scenario to be a willful abortion. I consider it to be a medical procedure of delivery in the attempt to save the lives of both the mother and the baby.

So...I just want for you to be open to the difference between willful abortion because somebody does not want the baby, or the abortion doctor just wants to defend his money-making position by scaring the woman into thinking she cannot bring a baby to full term.

And the difference in the medical procedure delivery to save the life of a baby because of a medical emergency that cannot be turned around through medical treatment.

It is very important for couples contemplating marriage and children to educate themselves in medical care for a possible pregnancy as much as they can. Every woman should have a pre-marital gynecological check up.

Side note to Jay: I attended TCM for morning service today. They have moved their church to the other side of town.

I never said that the baby had to come to term, but that the life should not be ended by artificial means. That is what we means when we say abortion. The ending of a pregnancy early to save mother and child is not an abortion.

My morality does not change just because my circumstances will change. As long as God has not changed, I will not change my stance on legalized abortions.

I hope that you had a good time there at TCM's morning service. Any further details would be nice. Thanks for the update.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by Jay

I never said that the baby had to come to term, but that the life should not be ended by artificial means. That is what we means when we say abortion. The ending of a pregnancy early to save mother and child is not an abortion.

You made my point for me. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Jay

My morality does not change just because my circumstances will change. As long as God has not changed, I will not change my stance on legalized abortions.

I never meant for you to think that your morality will change. I don't believe in abortion any more than you do. However, since you clarified your thoughts that ending a pregnancy early to save mother and child is not an abortion, then I don't expect you will have any problems doing the right thing should something like this come up in your life. Peace to you.

[Michlow]

Originally Posted by Jay

As painful and cold as it might sound, I believe that when a woman becomes pregnant, she is required to see that the child comes first, even if that means placing her life at risk.

Out of curiosity, what if the "Mother" is your 13 year old daughter who was violently raped? Should she be given a death sentence as well as the horror that has already been visited on her?

What if the Mother is a widow, with 5 other young children?

Rarely are these things black and white. The Majority of women I know (and for the record, I am a big heathen, and so I am not speaking of christian women). Most of them WOULD sacrifice their lives for the life of their unborn child. But sometimes one must make a horrible painful choice for the greater good.

Just my thoughts....

[jfrog]

If human life starts at conception why is it not customary to have funerals and memorial services for miscarriages?

Also, if human life really begins at conception then why aren't names given before birth?

Also, why is it that not one society has ever counted abortion to be equal with murder?

Could it be that deep down people feel the unborn is something different than the born?

In my opinion if you want to eliminate abortion then you are going to have to make people really believe that there is no difference between the unborn and the born. You are going to have to start giving names as soon as pregnancy is confirmed. You are going to have to start holding burial services for unborns. So here's the problem, Christians want everyone to act like unborns are people when it comes to abortion but they haven't been acting like unborns are people in any way for 2000 years and have only actually been equating abortion to murder for maybe the last 100 years.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Michlow

Out of curiosity, what if the "Mother" is your 13 year old daughter who was violently raped? Should she be given a death sentence as well as the horror that has already been visited on her?

What if the Mother is a widow, with 5 other young children?

Rarely are these things black and white. The Majority of women I know (and for the record, I am a big heathen, and so I am not speaking of christian women). Most of them WOULD sacrifice their lives for the life of their unborn child. But sometimes one must make a horrible painful choice for the greater good.

Just my thoughts....

I have been away too long, and am going to attempt tho catch up with all haste.


I am going to reiterate my position. I do not believe that abortion should be legal under any circumstances. In the situation you described, I would do my best to see that there were no complications, and would talk to my daughter about her options, knowing full well that mine is the responsibility in the eyes of God. I would consider (albeit with pain and prayer) adopting the child as my own, or perhaps adopting it to a good Christian home (preferably where I could keep my eyes on it from a distance).

In the second, adoption is always a possibility and there is no reason to kill a baby just because it might be inconvenient.