Nice question. You're definitely gonna make some people mad.
It's also worth noting that aborted fetuses go directly to heaven; if they were born, there is a chance that they would get in with the wrong crowd, lose sight of what's important in life, and end up being damned for all eternity in the fires of hell.
At least, according the the Vatican, they go directly to heaven. But that was just decided last year - before that, all unbaptized infants went to Limbo, from which there is no escape, ever. That's because an infant has never sinned, so it can't go to hell. But no one will enter the kingdom of the father except through Jesus, so the unbaptized couldn't go to heaven, either. Luckily for them, the Pope decided that they really COULD go to heaven without Jesus' help. So that's a relief.
Anyway, good point.
********
male_lonely_shy: You say that 90% of the abortions performed in the US are because women don't know how to keep their clothes on... Are you suggesting that pregnant women happened to be walking past the abortion clinic and their clothes fell off, so the doctors performed abortions on them?
2006-09-04 15:27:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by abram.kelly 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
That's an original analogy! I never would have thought to make the comparison.
Let's see, God allows his son to be wrongfully killed so that we can all benefit vs. a mother allows a dr. to kill her son/daughter, so that she can benefit. There is no real comparison to God's son, and any other mother's son, because of the very nature of God and his Son, but to a human mother who actually WANTS her human son, and agonizes over his death, yes, I can see a comparison of sorts... That's very insightful.
However, I have heard a justification for abortion in the situation that you discribe, which is really the only justification that I can personally see for abortion at all. It goes like this:
A pregnant woman finds that she cannot take the child to term
or she will certainly die. The baby is causing diabetes (or
whatever) and if she doesn't abort immediately, she will die.
She has no desire to kill the baby, but the baby is killing her
(without meaning to of course). Should we allow the baby to
kill her, or should we prevent the baby from killing her?
Abortion in this case, is literally a matter of self-defense. Either
the mother or the baby (or both) will die, because of the baby,
therefore, the baby should not be permitted to take the life an
innocent person (the mother). In order to prevent the baby
from doing this, the pregnancy is terminated. If the baby is old
enough to survive outside the womb, every effort should be
made to save him. Remember, the object of this termination
of pregnancy is not to kill anyone (even the baby), but rather is
to prevent the loss of life (the mother). In other words, an
abortion is only permissable if the object is to SAVE a
life....even if it results in the actual loss of one.
I know that most people will find this explanation a bit convoluted, but after I went to all the trouble of thinking it out, a philosophy teacher told me that it had already been articulated by a very philosophic Catholic priest (sorry, I can't remember his name). I guess there really is nothing new under the sun.
Anyway, I wonder how many women who abort actually find themselves in this unenviable position. Not many people would object to termination of pregnancy if this were the usual course of abortions. Unfortunately, from what I have heard and read, it is not. I know of a mother of 2 who terminated because the doctor thought there was a chance that something might be wrong with the baby. I read of one woman who terminated at second trimester because she wanted a boy, not a girl. Another terminated because she had non-refundable tickets to a cruise.
There are all kinds of reasons that people use to terminate pregnancy, but I can't justify the deliberate, arbitrary taking of a human life.
Hoping the best for you...
2006-09-04 23:34:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Debra N 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
This is a horrible situation that, thankfully, only comes up rarely.
As I see it, there are a few significant differences. I will skip the idea of God knowing that Jesus would be raised from the dead.
The first significant difference that I see is that Jesus willingly died on the cross. He had a choice. He could have acted at any time to alter the course of events, but He did not. He was not depending upon His Father to protect Him; He was quite capable of doing so Himself. An unborn child obviously has no such power.
The second significant difference I see is that God did not cause the death of Jesus. He allowed the death of Jesus, but did not cause it. The argument that God knew what was going to happen and therefore was responsible does not work for me because of the concept of free will. Men decided to kill Jesus, not God. In the situation of an abortion, the mother is making the decision to end the life of her child, thus actively participating.
The third significant difference is that Jesus died as a sacrifice affecting the eternal disposition of people, not just the mortal disposition. The place more worth or even equal worth on the mortal life than the eternal life is a mistake that we often make. The eternal life has vastly more importance to each and every one of us.
To any woman or couple out there who has had to make this choice, is considering this situation now, or may be in the future, my prayers go out to you. My wife and I have two children of our own, and she has had three miscarriages along the way. We have pondered this question ourselves, hypothetically as we never had to make this decision, and we know that we would not choose to have an abortion performed.
2006-09-04 22:55:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by hisnamesaves 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Jesus made the choice to die on the Cross. And it also helps that he was a fully grown man at the time... not a infant that is uncapable of making decisions regarding its own life.
With abortion, the child does not have a choice. But this specific case you're referring to, in cases where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother... that's a gray area, but I still maintain that abortion is an absolute LAST resort, and only to save the mother's life- after the life of the baby has already been compromised (that is, it won't survive even if the doctors don't do an abortion.) But cases like that are rare, so... I think decisions like that should be left up to the parents. Whatever they decide, I am sure God will understand, or at the least, He will not condemn them for whatever resource they choose.
Edit: Hopefully they will also consult Him before making a difficult decision like that!
2006-09-04 22:35:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by ATWolf 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Nope im a pro lifer and you didnt even make me close to mad... though i dont think your analogy is correct.
I think thats the one and only question that should be asked when admisitering an abortion. IS the mother's life in danger?
If yes you have to err on the side of life.. in this case the mothers
If no you have to err on the side of life.. in this case the unborn childs
the problem is many use abortion as a last resort birth control. but guess what folks if your not ready to have a child maybe just maybe you shouldnt have sex... I know its difficult but its by no means unreasonable or impossible.
People will say "but..but what if the condom breaks and so and so is only 15 and what kind of life will that child have" my answer is "You without knowing the outcome of a childs life will condemn it to no life at all?" Some of our best minds in our society and some of our leaders have come from such a background.
If you become pregnant unwantingly thats the breaks.. you do the best you can do for that child. if that means adoption then do so. there are People on waiting lists in the 1000's who can not have children on their own. If that means keeping the child do the best that you can do. But by no means should you commit a death sentence to your unborn baby because you are uncertain of his/her future or because its inconvienient.. i know a girl that got pregnant when she was 16.. she still finished highschool and had to delay college but still went ...she now has her masters in psycology. And she did this all without the help of her parents. She would be the first to say that it hasnt been easy. but she's glad she did it.
2006-09-04 22:44:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
The first thing that someone should be considering is whether the idea of sin is actually real.
If God is supposed to be perfect how could She have made anything or anyone that wasn't perfect.
Think about it. The idea of sin assumes certain things about God that seem highly unlikely.
First it assumes a God who is too incompetent to organize a simple educational field excursion and figure out a way to get all of the students home safely.
How likely is this that God would not be smart enough to come up with a plan for our salvation that is going to work?
It also assumes that God must have created us imperfect if we are sinners.
One might assume that God would be able to create someone perfect each and every time if he chose to. Assuming God is capable of this, then it follows logically that we must be perfect creations if we are actually creations of this perfect God.
Unless of course you are saying that God chose to create us imperfect.
If God created us imperfect then anything that may go wrong is Gods fault, not ours. This seems a bit illogical at best so I think that we need to assume that What God creates would have to be perfect.
If this is the case and Gods creations are perfect, then nothing that we can do could change what God created perfect and make it imperfect unless we think that we are more powerful than God is.
How likely is it that we the creation could be more powerful than the creator. I personally find this idea somewhat amusing, and a bit absurd.
Religion tells us that God is perfect. If this is true then it could hardly be logically for Gods creations to be considered to be anything less than perfect.
If this is the case then Nothing that we can ever do could possibly change this perfection that God willed, unless we were so powerful that our choices could override and change the will of God.
How likely is that????
Think about it.
The idea of sin is simple nonsense; a lie made up about God by religion.
Love and blessings
don
Source --- Course in miracles
2006-09-06 18:57:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Since the Bible doesn't explicitly address this subject all I can do is give you the general precepts that apply. A Christian woman should be praying that God will preserve both her life and the life of her unborn child. If God doesn't choose to do so then they will both be in Heaven with Jesus which is far better.
Philippians 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.
That way the choice is God's and not a mother who is frightened by a doctors report. A Christian knows that their life here is a small fraction of eternity and that they have precious promises waiting on the other side. While it may cause a period of grief and hardship for her family, it's better to trust that God will work all things together for good and to honor Him with every choice that we make.
Romans 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." 5 And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." Also he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." 6 And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.
2006-09-04 23:44:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by Martin S 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sounds like a selfish mother to take her own child's life just to save her own!!...
and that is QUITE a difference to sacrifice a Son that volunteered for the job and the sacrificing of a child before they are even born and reached the age of reasoning.
2006-09-04 22:32:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by ♥Tom♥ 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Hey James, you don't know your Bible. It says God knew
us in the mother's womb. Abortion is still "stopping a beating
heart" of the innocent.
Jesus paid the ultimate price for our sins. He knew the plan in
advance and told his disciples He would be killed. God allowed
His Son to die because He knew He would rise again and we
who believe on Him, also will rise again, so His Son Jesus'
death was the way it had to be for Him to take our sins upon
Himself, so He can take our sins away by going to Him instead
of us all being nailed to a cross. I know this is hard for un-
believers to understand, but when and if you're filled with the
Holy Spirit, then understanding of the scriptures is opened to us.
2006-09-04 22:39:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
At least 90% of the abortions performed in this country are not because the mothers life was in danger. The killings happened because most of the women getting them do not know how to keep their clothes on. Obviously you are trying to start something by comparing Jesus being sacrificed and the murder of a baby. I will still pray for you. God Bless.
2006-09-04 22:35:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋