Again, there are a good percentage of doctors that do not believe there ever is such a decision to be made.
We are ALL nothing more than DNA mass.
Personally, I could not make the choice to throw Grandpa overboard because he is in a wheelchair and percieved to be of lessor value than Grandma.
There has been a number of scenarios proposed on this question of choosing between the mother and the child. I don't know of a full term child that has to be aborted to save the mother, is that even possible with the availability of a C-section? I know women use to die in child birth but I think that with a C-section the likelihood of that today is minimal.
However, if there was a legitimate choice to be made, such as a tubal pregnancy or any other situation where that might be the case I think the mother’s life is the obvious choice. People are forced to make choices about who’s life to save, it’s harsh but true. A fireman with enough time to save only a child on one side of the house, or the mother on the other is choosing to let one of them die. I realize this is not a perfect analogy because he is not doing anything to kill one of them but he is making a choice.
What movie was it where the father the son and daughter are dangling from a rope and it won't hold the weight of all three so the father tells the son to cut him lose? Even though the son couldn't do it, would it have been wrong to save his and his sisters life by effectively killing his father? Or should they all perish?
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
There has been a number of scenarios proposed on this question of choosing between the mother and the child. I don't know of a full term child that has to be aborted to save the mother, is that even possible with the availability of a C-section? I know women use to die in child birth but I think that with a C-section the likelihood of that today is minimal.
However, if there was a legitimate choice to be made, such as a tubal pregnancy or any other situation where that might be the case I think the mother’s life is the obvious choice. People are forced to make choices about who’s life to save, it’s harsh but true. A fireman with enough time to save only a child on one side of the house, or the mother on the other is choosing to let one of them die. I realize this is not a perfect analogy because he is not doing anything to kill one of them but he is making a choice.
What movie was it where the father the son and daughter are dangling from a rope and it won't hold the weight of all three so the father tells the son to cut him lose? Even though the son couldn't do it, would it have been wrong to save his and his sisters life by effectively killing his father? Or should they all perish?
I know of tubal pregnancy, where abortion was not done, and God had his way and the baby died - much the same way as He does with a terminal cancer patient. Also, medical science is now working on ways to save tubal pregnancies.
About the Fire Fighter - who will he save? Generally speaking, we are taught to save those who cannot help themselves first, be they invalid, elderly or small children and babies.
It is an indictment on our nation that the defenseless innocent have become disposable and are percieved to be of lesser value.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
There has been a number of scenarios proposed on this question of choosing between the mother and the child. I don't know of a full term child that has to be aborted to save the mother, is that even possible with the availability of a C-section? I know women use to die in child birth but I think that with a C-section the likelihood of that today is minimal.
However, if there was a legitimate choice to be made, such as a tubal pregnancy or any other situation where that might be the case I think the mother’s life is the obvious choice. People are forced to make choices about who’s life to save, it’s harsh but true. A fireman with enough time to save only a child on one side of the house, or the mother on the other is choosing to let one of them die. I realize this is not a perfect analogy because he is not doing anything to kill one of them but he is making a choice.
What movie was it where the father the son and daughter are dangling from a rope and it won't hold the weight of all three so the father tells the son to cut him lose? Even though the son couldn't do it, would it have been wrong to save his and his sisters life by effectively killing his father? Or should they all perish?
Cliffhanger
__________________
Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
"You will be hated for my sake-Just remember that it should be for MY sake and not YOURS-
Do NOT act in such a way as to be offensive, and then blame it on me"
I know of tubal pregnancy, where abortion was not done, and God had his way and the baby died - much the same way as He does with a terminal cancer patient. Also, medical science is now working on ways to save tubal pregnancies.
About the Fire Fighter - who will he save? Generally speaking, we are taught to save those who cannot help themselves first, be they invalid, elderly or small children and babies.
It is an indictment on our nation that the defenseless innocent have become disposable and are percieved to be of lesser value.
In many cases, if I understand it correctly, tubal pregnancies can cause serious problems and death to the mother, and the child has no chance.
I certainly do not advocate abortion, certainly not for birth control reasons, but there may be times when it is the best alternative. I do realize that this would be very rare, and I don't think any major legislation against abortion would prevent a necessary abortion.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
Honestly, the "life of the mother" argument is the only exception I see on this issue, and truthfully it is so rare as to be only a couple percentage points of the total procedures performed.
I'm a bit less inclined to accept the "rape and incest" reason but at the same time try not to judge since the women involved have already gone through a very traumatic ordeal and don't need another human pointing a self righteous finger at them. But I would bet that all of these only make up one or two percent as well.
And back to the subject, we've also run into a couple (and ONLY a couple) of people who felt it was wrong for a woman to have ANY professional career. I can imagine a few UC churches putting pressure on new convert women to quit their jobs if they were doctors, lawyers, managers, etc..... (but then again we jut up against the issue of work versus money brought in.)
It was just a way of saying child, nothing more meant. By using a coarse decription of the unborn child, I avoid all of the emotional drama associated with such a terrible situation. By the way, not making light of that situation as it does happen. When it happens, the life of the mother is more important than that of the unborn amalgamtion of seed and egg.
Are you married 1399? Would your wife feel the same way?
I know I wouldn't. If either of my sons would have been born, and lived healthy long lives with me dying during thier births, I would have died a happy and blessed woman.
This isn't a debate about abortion, just a question. Would your wife feel that way?
__________________ Mrs. LPW
Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
I am to love my wife as Christ loves the Church. If I do this, then my children will do well to see an example of how God wants a family to be.
In pursuing this godliness, I make the stand to love my wife more than anything or anyone else, EXCEPT GOD.
That means, that if the unborn child, amalgamation of seed and egg-- that brat, was to threaten the life of my wife, by God my allegiance is with my wife first.
That near full-term child, of course I'd try to do what we could within reason, to save it's life. But my wife's life is more important and I believe I am in the will of God to think so.
I hope no one reading this thread has gone through this or will go through this. I hope I never go through this. But if I do, I choose my wife over that bundle of dna material.
Does your wife agree with this? Nevermind, I read the rest of this thread. You are right, in that children join the marriage whereof husband and wife are one. That however does not mean they are of lesser value than a spouse. I have put 3 of my children in the ground, not by choice however. I hope you are never faced with that choice Mike.
__________________
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6:8 KJV
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2 KJV
Last edited by Cindy; 07-11-2008 at 09:33 AM.
Reason: punctuation
Linear Mode
