|
|
Post by PrisonerOfHope on Jun 27, 2011 3:39:20 GMT -5
I have to agree with Pastor Chuck on this one, even though I'm opposed to abortion.
|
|
|
|
Post by shann0 on Jun 27, 2011 13:06:05 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm against abortion too. But this situation is impossible, with the chance that she and the baby would die if she went on witht the pregnancy.
To the guy who made that video, who is he to judge? The Conjoined twins in the video may have had less severe deformities than this womans baby. We don't know.
God forgives women who have had abortions. It's certainly not an unforgivable sin.
|
|
|
|
Post by wateredseeds on Jul 1, 2011 11:44:37 GMT -5
I didn't get to watch the video...cause my work internet is extremely sluggish at times. Anyways, i wanted to give some insight onto the abortion exceptions clause for late term abortions...and for justifying abortions.
The first thing i want to say is that abortion is wrong, which i think we can all agree on. But i've been asked under what circumstances can it be justified? The answer is none. There is not a single situation where a pregnancy is viable that a child must be purposefully aborted. You say, but what about the life of the mother? Let me explain that one a bit.
Basically when the life of the mother is used as justification, it is because of an extenuating circumstance. But any doctor will tell you, that it isn't necessary to abort the child purposefully. What you do in that situation, where say the child is killing the mother(such as in a pregnancy that exists outside of the womb) you have to determine whether the child is viable or not. If the child is outside of the womb...it is likely already dead. If the child is viable, then you can REMOVE the child from the womb...and the doctor then works to save the life of both the mother and the child. This is not the same thing as an abortion...which is the purposeful killing of the child. This is an attempt to save the childs life. After all, if the mother dies before giving birth...the child will likely die anyways.
There is a common misconception regarding life of the mother situations. It is simply that when the life of the mother becomes in danger the child has be to killed to save her. And that is just not true. You work to save both their lives. Certainly it may not go as planned...and the child could still die...but there is no need to disect and destroy the child. It has to be removed at some point anyways....why do people think it is better to cut it up before removing it? The answer is of course that it is not better...it is worse. Abortion procedures are dangerous, and cause complications...and can even lead to breast cancer later in a womans life(this has to do with the development of the breast tissue during pregnancy, and the abrupt stop of hormones that cause it to happen...rather than a gradual reduction after having a child).
Certainly we live in a world of sin, and abortion happens. And of course we shouldn't condemn people for that. But we do need to educate people about the excuses used for abortion. When someone is raped(which is horrifying) and becomes pregnant as a result of that rape...she can legally get an abortion. While this may seem like a situation where we could justify it, there is a problem with that scenario. You have to take a woman who has been raped, and is already suffering inside, then dump an abortion on top of that. Psychologically that woman is destroyed. Whereas if she carries to term and gives the child life, and gives it up for adoption...you can rebuild her a lot easier. She can be helped psychologically by knowing that she gave the child life, a couple a chance to have a child....and she can be rebuilt from her tramautic rape experience.
There is simply no logical need to abort a child. Most cases that pro-abortion facilities plaster on posters....are situations i have suggested here. Not once though....do they suggest the alternatives. They don't suggest trying to save the child. Why? Because they are in the business of providing abortions. That's how they make their money. They don't care about the health and life of the mother or the child. It's a money thing for them. One of the main founders of planned parenthood converted to christianity and told the truth about their lies. They inflate statistics in their favor and flat out lie about what can be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by PrisonerOfHope on Jul 1, 2011 13:00:46 GMT -5
WS, the baby has two heads and it's a given that it's going to be either stillborn or die shortly after birth...if it doesn't die in the womb. Meanwhile, the life of the mother is in danger, and she has a husband and other children to consider - the other kids need their mom, and since the baby will die anyway, she has to look at the entire picture. Dead baby and dead mother...or just a dead baby? It's one of those situations that has no easy answers; I'm not in favor of making easy excuses for an abortion, but in this case, the situation is horrific and abortion is, sadly, the best solution.  |
|
|
|
Post by wateredseeds on Jul 1, 2011 13:04:13 GMT -5
POH,
There is a sollution. Remove the baby. This is NOT an abortion. They can still try to save the life of the baby....and if it dies through natural causes outside of the womb, then that is not an abortion. This is what i'm saying: People don't understand the difference anymore between an abortion and trying to save lives. You don't have to purposefully kill the child....just remove it from the womb, and do what you can to save it. If it dies, then it dies.
|
|
|
|
Post by wateredseeds on Jul 1, 2011 13:08:08 GMT -5
And guess who told me that sollution? A doctor. A doctor who is doing their job...would never recommend an abortion. They would recommend removing the child and trying to save it.
|
|
|
|
Post by shann0 on Jul 1, 2011 13:10:30 GMT -5
Abortion is a barbaric procedure, in which a child is ripped or cut limb from limb and removed by a suction device. In this situation, if a termination of the pregnancy were to be performed I would hope they wouldn't use such an inhumane and evil method. Babies in the womb can feel pain. But to say that she should be forced to continue with the pregnancy when the doctor said that she most likely wouldn't carry to term, her life is threatened, the baby would be terribly deformed and unable to survive would be irresponsible and even cruel. Her life would be threatened as baby with two heads would be much larger that a normal sized baby. Then the baby would surely suffer before finally dying anyway. As far as a rape, no I wouldn't consider that to be a case where abortion would be acceptable because that would essentially punishing the child for something the father did. Let's face it though, we aren't getting rid of abortion ever until the Lord returns. It's been around since those fallen ones taught it to mankind thousands of years ago. The best we can hope for in this life is to convince people that it's wrong and turn their hearts towards helping those innocent lives and the mother's who carry them. If anyone here has been victimized by this terrible practice or knows someone who has, there is an excellent counseling resource that helps heal hearts of survivors (mothers, fathers and families) that have been ripped apart by abortion. www.healinghearts.org/index.php |
|
|
|
Post by PrisonerOfHope on Jul 1, 2011 13:19:52 GMT -5
I agree abortion is grisly and inhumane; I would hope that in a case like this, the mother would ask that the child be injected with something first so it would be painlessly killed before it was aborted.
WS, there's just one problem with your solution: Cost. I doubt that any insurance company would pay for something like that, and I don't think most people these days - especially a young couple - could afford to pay for a procedure like that themselves. Not just the cost of the procedure, but the cost of trying to keep the child alive would be tremendous.
|
|
