Abortion

[hmbld]

13 minutes ago, soonsister said:

I think the extremist view that believes a woman's womb is not her own, while stating without exception that a pregnant woman should have to die when her pregnancy presents as a terminal complication is defeated of its own purpose in espousing a pro-life ideology. When the life of a mother is to be extinguished because the baby inside her is going to otherwise kill her without the mother having an abortion so as to have her life saved, the argument for the sacredness of life is extinguished without exception.

There's nothing that will augment such a view. No alternative ideologies will register. It is simply untenable to argue a woman's life must be surrendered because a life saving procedure is unacceptable. That makes then the extremist perspective about the procedure Not in any way about the sacredness of life.

 

Further and lastly, the extremist pro-life anti-abortion platform can never be argued from the articulated God ideology in order to sustain the extremist view. Because God did not forbid abortion in the scriptures. And beyond that God did not exemplify the higher order or role model of pro-life ideology.

To argue that abortion is immoral and against God is to demonstrate a lack of continuity with the scriptures that report God slaughtered those in the womb himself.

He drowned innumerable pregnant women during the deluge. He ordered the first born of every house in Egypt, which in that era would have counted as 'first born' those in utero being families referred to those babies as that promise.

While he also ordered the Hebrew armies at his disposal acting at his behest, his command, for his glory, by his predetermined will, to slaughter pregnant women at Samaria. Hosea 13:16 as one example.

The argument that God is God and can do as he will often comes in rebuttal of such observation in scriptures. However, the rebuttal to that is simple. Women died by numbers when abortion was illegal. Laws forcing women to remain pregnant against their will while making that argument about God's ability to kill life in the womb says that man is to be forced by law to uphold a higher moral standard for life than does the giver of the law being argued.As well as life; God.

To think man made laws are righteous to preserve life in the womb, when arguing a woman's life is to be extinguished because she should not be able to have an abortion to save her life no matter what, revokes the pro-life standard.

These type threads go on for pages. In this particular case it is a kindness to observe the author has already made their declaration concerning their point of view. No thing will be accomplished in countless more pages because the extreme has already declared it will not be moved. All anyone to the contrary is doing is arguing their own reason for holding to their own immovable perspective.

If God can slaughter life in the womb because he's God we cannot argue for a higher standard in ourselves by man's law concerning life in the womb.

Pro-life is pro-life. When God isn't pro-life the extremist view is arguing for suppression of and death of women. As the OP does when stating no matter what a woman should never have an abortion.

 

My perspective. I'm here because my mother was pro-choice. She was date raped and could have chosen to abort but didn't.

And for the record I'm pro-life. Which means I'm pro-women's life too.

 

Believing that murdering babies is wrong is not an extremist view. Your argument that God killed unborn babies does not hold up. If it did, then since God killed sinners in the ot, then I also can. Nope. 

Edited January 25, 2017 by hmbld

[Paper mache]

11 hours ago, JTC said:

There is another reason to consider an abortion that hasn't been mentioned yet. This brings up another issue that is a terrible thing in and of itself. I'm talking about a baby that going to be born addicted and especially to Heroin. There are women that are addicted to heroin and then they go ahead and get pregnant and some do it to then sell the baby. There were posts on a drug board about 4 yrs ago by such a woman. This is how i know. We don't know what kind of life a child born addicted will face but maybe it's not something worth living. Btw, the woman who did this had done it more than once and she intended to keep doing it. She was then banned from that board. But babies that are coming into this world already addicted maybe should be aborted. Because even though the baby is weaned off the drug I wonder if it creates a predisposition in that person for that drug. So if the baby was addicted to Heroin what will happen if as a teenager the person breaks a leg. The Doc gives them some pain killers and then for an unknown reason the person can't stop using opiates. They often say things like they feel like they went home. Maybe it's because since the day they were conceived they had an opiate in their blood. That's a horrible life to live.

I also think we need to stop women who do this from ever getting pregnant again. That may sound barbaric but there are so many wonderful women who can't get pregnant. We don't know why these things happen but they do. I just don't like women who allow themselves to get pregnant while they are addicted. They have no respect for life, much less for God. I think we should prevent such women from ever getting pregnant again.  

Would you support killing just anyone who got addicted to something? I disagree with you here. 

But I do agree on the part that we should keep women like that from getting pregnant, if possible. 

[Paper mache]

42 minutes ago, soonsister said:

I think the extremist view that believes a woman's womb is not her own, while stating without exception that a pregnant woman should have to die when her pregnancy presents as a terminal complication is defeated of its own purpose in espousing a pro-life ideology. When the life of a mother is to be extinguished because the baby inside her is going to otherwise kill her without the mother having an abortion so as to have her life saved, the argument for the sacredness of life is extinguished without exception.

There's nothing that will augment such a view. No alternative ideologies will register. It is simply untenable to argue a woman's life must be surrendered because a life saving procedure is unacceptable. That makes then the extremist perspective about the procedure Not in any way about the sacredness of life.

 

Further and lastly, the extremist pro-life anti-abortion platform can never be argued from the articulated God ideology in order to sustain the extremist view. Because God did not forbid abortion in the scriptures. And beyond that God did not exemplify the higher order or role model of pro-life ideology.

To argue that abortion is immoral and against God is to demonstrate a lack of continuity with the scriptures that report God slaughtered those in the womb himself.

He drowned innumerable pregnant women during the deluge. He ordered the first born of every house in Egypt, which in that era would have counted as 'first born' those in utero being families referred to those babies as that promise.

While he also ordered the Hebrew armies at his disposal acting at his behest, his command, for his glory, by his predetermined will, to slaughter pregnant women at Samaria. Hosea 13:16 as one example.

The argument that God is God and can do as he will often comes in rebuttal of such observation in scriptures. However, the rebuttal to that is simple. Women died by numbers when abortion was illegal. Laws forcing women to remain pregnant against their will while making that argument about God's ability to kill life in the womb says that man is to be forced by law to uphold a higher moral standard for life than does the giver of the law being argued.As well as life; God.

To think man made laws are righteous to preserve life in the womb, when arguing a woman's life is to be extinguished because she should not be able to have an abortion to save her life no matter what, revokes the pro-life standard.

These type threads go on for pages. In this particular case it is a kindness to observe the author has already made their declaration concerning their point of view. No thing will be accomplished in countless more pages because the extreme has already declared it will not be moved. All anyone to the contrary is doing is arguing their own reason for holding to their own immovable perspective.

If God can slaughter life in the womb because he's God we cannot argue for a higher standard in ourselves by man's law concerning life in the womb.

Pro-life is pro-life. When God isn't pro-life the extremist view is arguing for suppression of and death of women. As the OP does when stating no matter what a woman should never have an abortion.

 

My perspective. I'm here because my mother was pro-choice. She was date raped and could have chosen to abort but didn't.

And for the record I'm pro-life. Which means I'm pro-women's life too.

 

God never mentioned abortion directly, but there are verses that mention God knitting us together in the womb and knowing us in an intimate way before we are born. 

Also, the times God has killed have been for justified reasons. Killing an innocent baby for no reason is not OK. 

[HisFirst]

I tend to stay away from these issues as I adore babies and children and I also keep in mind those women who have had abortions for whatever reason and have lived to regret it and are traumatised by that action - it is difficult.

However, I looked up the history of abortion from earliest times(something I have never ever thought if doing before) and was surprised to see that  for the most part, the sanctity of an unborn babies life just doesn't seem to be that much of a big deal.

Many methods have been used to abort down the ages , with many women dying as a result - only in modern times has it been fairly safe (physically speaking) for the mother, and an "easy" route to take for unwanted pregnancies.

Before modern medicine and practises, the natural consequence of a difficult birth or complications during pregnancy was death - mother, child or both.

Now, with life  saving measures, we have the option of choosing - mother or child- the question is - what makes one life more "savable" than the other?

 

 

[hmbld]

13 minutes ago, HisFirst said:

I tend to stay away from these issues as I adore babies and children and I also keep in mind those women who have had abortions for whatever reason and have lived to regret it and are traumatised by that action - it is difficult.

However, I looked up the history of abortion from earliest times(something I have never ever thought if doing before) and was surprised to see that  for the most part, the sanctity of an unborn babies life just doesn't seem to be that much of a big deal.

Many methods have been used to abort down the ages , with many women dying as a result - only in modern times has it been fairly safe (physically speaking) for the mother, and an "easy" route to take for unwanted pregnancies.

Before modern medicine and practises, the natural consequence of a difficult birth or complications during pregnancy was death - mother, child or both.

Now, with life  saving measures, we have the option of choosing - mother or child- the question is - what makes one life more "savable" than the other?

 

 

Another question is, how often does it come down to one or the other?  Is this a false premise when premature babies are doing better all the time?

[HisFirst]

Just now, hmbld said:

Another question is, how often does it come down to one or the other?

Yes, I'd like to see the stats.

Just now, hmbld said:

 

 Is this a false premise when premature babies are doing better all the time?

See before modern medical procedures, premmie babies didn't survive, so modern practices are prolonging life and supporting life which before, death was a natural consequence if their situation - which is right/wrong , better?

Difficult.

[HisFirst]

Just now, Abby-Joy said:

Fallen angels taught people how to abort way back, pre-flood..

 

 

Hi AJ!

I've never heard that before. Food for thought.

Just now, Abby-Joy said:

 

.. it's been going on a long time.  

 

It has, so I've read.

Just now, Abby-Joy said:

Abortions are considered blood sacrifices...

 

 

I'll look into that.

Just now, Abby-Joy said:

 

 

 

 

 

[HisFirst]

Miscarriage is the natural method of the body when there is a problem during pregnancy and knowing a few women that have been through that , it has been devastating for them.

I can only imagine what the pain and suffering is with women who have regretted their decision to abort.

[hmbld]

2 minutes ago, HisFirst said:

Miscarriage is the natural method of the body when there is a problem during pregnancy and knowing a few women that have been through that , it has been devastating for them.

I can only imagine what the pain and suffering is with women who have regretted their decision to abort.

Yes, and thankfully, they can be redeemed by the blood of Jesus, just as we all can be redeemed of our sins.  In all the pain we see and endure, there is something good to point out.  

[HisFirst]

Just now, hmbld said:

Yes, and thankfully, they can be redeemed by the blood of Jesus, just as we all can be redeemed of our sins.  In all the pain we see and endure, there is something good to point out.  

And that is good news indeed!!