Question for fellow believers

[kross]

And yes, I condesend much. It is necessary in an environment where there are those new to the walk.

We are never called upon to be condescending, especially to those new in the faith. If you learned that in seminary, quick, go get your money back.

GOD condescended when HE gave us a savior. I condescend when I talk to my two year old nephew. Anytime I need to communicate a thought to someone who may not understand my vocabulary, I condescend.

And, when I am teaching a truth to people who can not take it in one bite, I condescend to that level of ability and maturity in JESUS.

Seminary is a way of paying for discipleship. Why would anybody do that?

[kross]

First..I am pro life.

Now, I would like to ask a question.

Say a woman is pregnant, and carrying the baby to term really would kill her. In this case..and this case only, could you support abortion?

If you are talking literal death (can't spell well) then saving the mothers life would be primary, sincethe baby would not live without the mother anyway.

Halfway in this thread, that question was asked, this is what I said.

Since when do we kill the children of a criminal because of his crime?

If I were a woman who was raped and got preg, I would probably want to rip it out with my fingernails. Would that make it right? NO. Would that matter to me? NO.

[Guest man]

First..I am pro life.

Now, I would like to ask a question.

Say a woman is pregnant, and carrying the baby to term really would kill her. In this case..and this case only, could you support abortion?

If you are talking literal death (can't spell well) then saving the mothers life would be primary, since the baby would not live without the mother anyway.

Why wouldn't the baby live?

[kross]

First..I am pro life.

Now, I would like to ask a question.

Say a woman is pregnant, and carrying the baby to term really would kill her. In this case..and this case only, could you support abortion?

If you are talking literal death (can't spell well) then saving the mothers life would be primary, since the baby would not live without the mother anyway.

Why wouldn't the baby live?

This is a true case.

My sister was 6 months pregnant. She developed accute eclampsia. The chances of the baby living outside the womb were virtually nil. If my sister continued the pregnancy she would die from kidney failure.

Her blood pressure was so high she was in danger of going into a coma. We were not allowed to even see her as any activity could cause a further rise in her blood pressure.

My brother in law was faced with a choice. Take the baby prematurely, with only a fraction of a chance for it to survive, or allow my sister to die.

Under the cercumstances, probably both of them die. That is tough but you need to save at least one if you can. And three months premature does have a chance to live. Not agreat chance, but a chance.

[kross]

First..I am pro life.

Now, I would like to ask a question.

Say a woman is pregnant, and carrying the baby to term really would kill her. In this case..and this case only, could you support abortion?

If you are talking literal death (can't spell well) then saving the mothers life would be primary, since the baby would not live without the mother anyway.

Why wouldn't the baby live?

This is a true case.

My sister was 6 months pregnant. She developed accute eclampsia. The chances of the baby living outside the womb were virtually nil. If my sister continued the pregnancy she would die from kidney failure.

Her blood pressure was so high she was in danger of going into a coma. We were not allowed to even see her as any activity could cause a further rise in her blood pressure.

My brother in law was faced with a choice. Take the baby prematurely, with only a fraction of a chance for it to survive, or allow my sister to die.

Under the cercumstances, probably both of them die. That is tough but you need to save at least one if you can. And three months premature does have a chance to live. Not agreat chance, but a chance.

What if my sister was at the point she could not survive the surgery?

That is called a no win situation. Sorry to be so cavalier, but that is a coin flip. It still comes down to deciding which has the best chance.

[kross]

First..I am pro life.

Now, I would like to ask a question.

Say a woman is pregnant, and carrying the baby to term really would kill her. In this case..and this case only, could you support abortion?

If you are talking literal death (can't spell well) then saving the mothers life would be primary, sincethe baby would not live without the mother anyway.

Halfway in this thread, that question was asked, this is what I said.

Since when do we kill the children of a criminal because of his crime?

If I were a woman who was raped and got preg, I would probably want to rip it out with my fingernails. Would that make it right? NO. Would that matter to me? NO.

Would you feel this way if it was your 11 yr old daughter?

Would you feel this way if you knew that carrying this pregnancy to term would cause permanent mental damage to your 11 yr old?

I don't know. It isn't

[Mom2Many]

My question if you go back to the OP has nothing to do with an emergency delivery of a baby in a medical situation. It has to do with the elective choice of abortion. Where one decides on her own that the child would be an inconvience, ect.. to her life and she choses abortion over adoption or having the baby and taking care of that baby.

Am emergency delivery of a child is not abortion of any kind. It's not taking the life of a child away, by choice. There is a difference.

[Mom2Many]

If I put this in the wrong place I apologize. But I do have a question for all the fellow believers' in Christ out there.

What I don't understand is how someone can call themselves a Christian and say they follow the Bible, believe in it and yet still support Pro-choice and homosexuality?? I do understand that we are supposed to love others' as Christ would, but loving them and supporting and backing up choices that are obviously not Biblical are two different things to me??

Thank you all who can help me out here!

Careful, m2m. You may be accused of questioning someone's salvation for that statement. I was. By a mod. (They may even delete this post)

I surely don't mean to question anyone's Salvation. Please accept my apology to anyone who may think that. I'm just confused as to how we can have our cake and eat it too and I was hoping to get some good points from this. Not have it turn into a debate as to whether we should or shouldn't get involved in saving lives along with saving souls.

[Mom2Many]

My question if you go back to the OP has nothing to do with an emergency delivery of a baby in a medical situation. It has to do with the elective choice of abortion. Where one decides on her own that the child would be an inconvience, ect.. to her life and she choses abortion over adoption or having the baby and taking care of that baby.

Am emergency delivery of a child is not abortion of any kind. It's not taking the life of a child away, by choice. There is a difference.

My sister was married to a devout Catholic. Due to his religious teachings he believed that all life and death situations were in the hands of God and were not open to human interpretation. We were worried he was going to let her die. It was hard for him, but he CHOSE to save my sister.

No one is arguing that abortion should be allowed for convienience...that is a given.

But, not all issues are black and white. Sometimes it does have to do with the mother's health. Sometimes it does involve issues of rape and incest.

We all agree with the premise of the OP. But, that makes for a very limited discussion and does not address the entire issue.

However, it's your thread so I'll depart.

Have a good night.

Katy, I know all too well what you are talking about. I myself just 5 years ago lost a set of twins to an early delivery. If they had not been delivered early, I could have very well lost my own life. Except God did intervene and he sent me into labor on my own. It was a decision He made, I didn't have to.

And although yes, it is a given, and I do understand there are circumstances that aren't so clear to others', I just wanted to know how it was possible to support both sides, pro-choice and being a Christian. I think the idea of it was a little confusing to me.

[Guest shiloh357]

Medical necessities have been greatly reduced in recent years due to medical advancements, making many of the "medical" jsuticifications for abortion obsolete. It is even possible for doctors to perform surgery on a baby while still in the womb.

The thing is that Roe v. Wade is all about convenience abortions and thus the "medical necessity" issue doesn't remove the black and white moral framework of the pro life position.

Medical necessity is really a nonissue because it is a given.