Why Can't We Love Them Both

[JenSen]

A website I stumbled across, abortionfacts.com, has a free online book to read called "Why Can't We Love Them Both" (http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both.asp).

From the intro:



Your authors have been teaching, writing, and lecturing in the field of human sexuality for forty years, and have been in the thick of the struggle over abortion for twenty-five years. Is there any common ground?

We certainly can take sides, and many do with great passion, and dedication. We, however, see one glimmer of light, that hopefully would appeal to both sides, and certainly would to those in the middle. It is the recent emphasis on the simple question, "Why can’t we love them both?"

Why can’t we all stand with the pregnant woman? Why can’t we tell her that we share the agony of her decision? That we really know of no "convenience" abortions? Why can’t we tell her that we stand with her, not against her? Why can’t we begin to discuss constructive alternatives to abortion, adoption being an alternative par excellence?

Why can’t we cooperate in giving her all the information there is to be given from both sides of this controversial issue? Why not fully informed consent? Give her all the reasons for abortion? The law allows, even requires this. But also give her all the reasons for waiting, and most emphatically offer to her all of the constructive alternatives that now exist. If our laws continue to dictate that she be given that choice of life or death for her unborn, at the very least that choice should be a fully informed one. It should not just be in-6 formed in terms of technical information. No, it should also be a choice that is made in view of the fact that there is a warm and loving alternative to the technical quick fix of abortion.

In the coming years, the hallmark of the pro-life movement at least, should not be just to save the baby, but to love them both.


I've started reading the book. It's interesting, and it makes a great point about the attitude women and their children need to see most in those around them. Thought I'd share it.

[dizzle]

There are no reasons for abortion unless she is going to die. Do we sit with potential murderers and tell them the pros of murder? And then give them reasons not to murder? Do we tell would-be murderers that we share in the agony of their decision?

And it is CRAP to say "we really know of no 'no convenience' abortions.


Give the author my email address and I will tell her/him of two of them. Mine.

IMHO anyone who would write this way really doesn't believe abortion is wrong because it murders an innocent human being. Not really. Substitute nazis or slavery or any other issue on which people are clear for this and the twaddle shows through.

[JenSen]

Dee Dee, did we both read this totally differently? I read it as being a prolife work... that the writers are saying that women who are told everything about abortion should also be told everything about keeping a baby... and that they didn't believe abortions should be seen as convenient ways out... did I misread that completely? My mind's been more than scattered lately so that's a possibility... just tell me. I don't they support abortion, I would not willingly post anything in this forum that supported that..... and if it supports that... I fully retract posting it here and apologize

[dizzle]

They definitely don't support abortion, but they are promoting a kinda touchy feely approach that I find inappropriate and incoherent.

[Chocobear]

There are no reasons for abortion unless she is going to die. Do we sit with potential murderers and tell them the pros of murder? And then give them reasons not to murder? Do we tell would-be murderers that we share in the agony of their decision?

So ... it's murder if the woman does it because she doesn't want to raise the child. Yet it's NOT murder when she has the abortion to save her own life? :eh: Isn't the end result the same for both cases? Whether the woman has the abortion because she doesn't want to raise the child or because she wants to preserve her own life, the child's life is ended. No matter what the mother's justification is, the child is murdered.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

This book calls black white. It is wrong.

There ARE convenience abortions: nearly all of them.

We refuse - in virtually all cases - to sympathise with an agonising decision, any more than we sympthise with those facing the "agonising decision" of whether or not to murder adults, rape, kidnap or any number of other things. Contemplating a savage evil and crying for recognition of the agony of our decision is not something that should evoke sympathy, but rather moral contempt.

If people came to drag me away to the gallows for no morally defensible reason, and you or anyone else stood between me and them, explaining that they are welcome to their agonising decision, but that you want it to at least be an informed one, what does that make you?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

So ... it's murder if the woman does it because she doesn't want to raise the child. Yet it's NOT murder when she has the abortion to save her own life? :eh: Isn't the end result the same for both cases?The end result if she keeps the baby is NOT the same in both cases. Moreover, the loss of life is not the same in both cases. And further, inentions count for a great deal in moral decision making, and the intention is very different in each case.
Whether the woman has the abortion because she doesn't want to raise the child or because she wants to preserve her own life, the child's life is ended. No matter what the mother's justification is, the child is murdered.Of course the child dies in both cases. But the mother dies in only one of them.

[dizzle]

So ... it's murder if the woman does it because she doesn't want to raise the child. Yet it's NOT murder when she has the abortion to save her own life? :eh: Isn't the end result the same for both cases? Whether the woman has the abortion because she doesn't want to raise the child or because she wants to preserve her own life, the child's life is ended. No matter what the mother's justification is, the child is murdered.

I think you are equivocating on the word "murder" which is the unjustified taking of a life. Not all killing is murder. The question then becomes is it justified in this instance. In one scenario to me it is clear, and on the other I could be persuaded.

Here is the clear scenario: If the pregnancy continues, both die. It is clear her that abortion would be justified, under no circumstances would one of them live.

The other scenario: If the pregnancy continues, the baby might live, but the mother will die. This is a tough one, but I still feel that abortion would be justifiable.

Another scenario: (which I don't think happens in real life to any meaningful extent) - if the abortion continues, the baby will live, but the mother will die. This is the one that is in the grey.

[Chocobear]

I look at it this way:

Yes, there is a chance the mother will die. But you know what? Labor is risky. You never know what could happen. There are no guarantees. Even the healthiest of mothers could face complications during childbirth.

Also, the mother has had the opportunity to live. Don't you think the baby should be given that same opportunity? And I find it appalling and disturbing that people who state that they are followers of Jesus Christ would advocate abortion for any reason. Because not once did Jesus say that murder was acceptable.

I cannot imagine being told by my doctor that I could die while giving birth to my child. But what I find even more unimaginable and inconceivable is even considering putting my welfare above the welfare of my child. If I'm so selfish that I would rather have my child murdered than die bringing him or her into the world, then I have no right to call myself a mother. Because one of the things that come with motherhood is self-sacrifice: your child's needs must come before your own.

I believe Jesus' words in John 15:13 can be applied to this situation:

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.

Or, to make the verse directly apply to this situation:

Greater love has no mother than this, than to lay down her life for her child.

If God decides to bless me with a child, and if there's a chance that I'm going to die while giving birth to him or her, I'm going to take that chance. Because there is no way I could live with myself if I chose to have that child murdered, all for the sake of preserving my own life. It's just not worth it. My life is in God's hands, and so are the lives of my future children. He should be left to determine how, when and where we pass on.

[themuzicman]

How can you be standing with "both of them", if the you're doing to discuss killing one of them with the other one?

The only way to stand with both of them is to find an equitable solution for both of them, one where neither dies. If that's not possible, and the choices are "one dies" vs. "both die", then we can discuss abortion.

If not, then you cannot say that you stand with the child, if killing the child is on the table

Michael

[joel]

Also, the mother has had the opportunity to live. Don't you think the baby should be given that same opportunity? And I find it appalling and disturbing that people who state that they are followers of Jesus Christ would advocate abortion for any reason. Because not once did Jesus say that murder was acceptable.

A while back I saw an episode of a medical tv show (I think it might have been Grey's Anatomy) where an older man and a young lady were brought in from an accident. They were joined together by a metal rod that passed through both their torsos. The doctors determined that it was impossible to save both their lives. But that it might be possible to save one of them. So, they essentially had to kill one of them, in order to save the other. They ended up deciding to save the older man because he had a much greater chance of survival, even though the man resisted that decision.

Such an action is not considered murder under our laws. Nor do I think it should be. If it were, the result would be that doctors, in such circumstances, would have the choice to either (1) let them both die, or (2) to save a life and then be prosecuted for murder as a result.

You may very well be right that it is always the morally correct thing for the mother to choose her baby over herself. But I'm less sure that that should be enforced by law. Even if it should be, what about other cases, such as where the mother is incapacitated (or for some other reason) and someone else has to make the final call? The father, the doctor? Or should law determine once and for all, for every case, that it is always the baby that must be saved, no matter the respective odds of success (or other relevant factors) in the particular instance?

Also it seems more clear cut in the case where the baby is certain to die either way but we have the ability to save the mother.


As for the "love them both" thing, I think it's an overreaction to the pro-choice argument that pro-lifers hold their position only because they hate (or "want to subjugate") women.

[dizzle]

Additionally there can be other considerations such, say the mother is single and has four other children at home. She orphans all of them?

When there is a very high probability of the mother's death is the pregnancy is carried to term, there isn't a moral bright clear line.

[Chocobear]

As for the "love them both" thing, I think it's an overreaction to the pro-choice argument that pro-lifers hold their position only because they hate (or "want to subjugate") women.

I agree. I, myself, am a woman. So I find the assumption that because I'm pro-life, then "clearly" I hate women, ridiculous. Another reason I am not pro-choice is because I know what abortion does to people who have made the decision to terminate the lives of their unborn children. I know this, because a couple that I know (before they became Christians) chose to end the lives of more than one of their unborn children. To this day, they are left to wonder what those unborn children would have been like; to this day, they regret choosing to end the lives of those children.

When there is a very high probability of the mother's death is the pregnancy is carried to term, there isn't a moral bright clear line.

To me, there is. I despise abortion, no matter what "justification" is used to support it. It is evil, harmful, despicable, and I wish it had never been invented.

[Chocobear]

See Exodus 21:22-25. If a person is punished for accidentally killing the mother and/or her child ... what do you think the punishment for purposefully killing the mother and/or her child is?

Think about that.

[Augusta]

Dee Dee, did we both read this totally differently? I read it as being a prolife work... that the writers are saying that women who are told everything about abortion should also be told everything about keeping a baby... and that they didn't believe abortions should be seen as convenient ways out... did I misread that completely? My mind's been more than scattered lately so that's a possibility... just tell me. I don't they support abortion, I would not willingly post anything in this forum that supported that..... and if it supports that... I fully retract posting it here and apologize

JenSen, I am reading this the way you did. It's alot to digest, (meaning it's a full book) but so far IMO the authors are uncompromisingly pro-life. Their compassion comes through strongly and this has great appeal to me.

But I can see how other people may want / need a more forceful and direct approach. I want to say this is a personality preference sort of thing (and I'm in the compassionate camp), but that sounds too trivial for a discussion like this.

I'm glad you posted it.

[dizzle]

This book calls black white. It is wrong.

There ARE convenience abortions: nearly all of them.

We refuse - in virtually all cases - to sympathise with an agonising decision, any more than we sympthise with those facing the "agonising decision" of whether or not to murder adults, rape, kidnap or any number of other things. Contemplating a savage evil and crying for recognition of the agony of our decision is not something that should evoke sympathy, but rather moral contempt.

If people came to drag me away to the gallows for no morally defensible reason, and you or anyone else stood between me and them, explaining that they are welcome to their agonising decision, but that you want it to at least be an informed one, what does that make you?

Want to repeat this to show that none of this is about "compassion." To disguise coddling murder as compassion makes a mockery of the word.

[Chocobear]

Those of you who believe that abortion is acceptable only when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, seem to have forgotten that God is a God of miracles. Do you really think that the same God who parted the Red Sea; brought Lazarus and who knows how many other people back from the dead; and has been known for healing countless people afflicted with any number of things, is incapable of preserving the life of the mother whom the doctors say will die if she gives birth? Just because a doctor tells a woman that she'll die if she gives birth to her child (or children), that doesn't mean that he's right. Very few doctors are aware of the fact that God is known for bringing about miracles every day, everywhere around the world.

Here's a well-known fact: doctors don't know everything. Yes, they have medical degrees. Yes, they are trained medical professionals. But at the end of the day, they do not know (for certain) what the future holds for us. For instance: Back in the early 70's, my father was diagnosed with non-small cell carcinoma of the lung. The doctor gave him only a few months to life. (I believe it was 6.) Guess what? My father lived until April 4, 2004, and passed on at the age of 59. Why did he live that long? Well, for starters, he went through procedures and took medications that increased his chances of survival. But the main reason that he remained on this earth until the age of 59 was because God willed it. God had my father in the palm of His hand, and He was not going to call him home until it was time.

And oh! By the way, the doctors also predicted that my father was unlikely to father another child, as a result of one of the operations he had to go through.

I guess God had other plans, because here I am!

So in the end: doctors know very little when it comes to the grand scheme of things.

The very One who created us and helped to bring us into the world, is the same One who has the power to sustain our lives.

Those of you who believe that abortion is a horrible thing when it is performed for the sake of convenience, and yet support abortion when the mother's life is in danger, are hypocrites. You can't rally against abortion one moment, and then advocate it the next. Whether the abortion is performed because the woman doesn't want the child or because her life is in jeopardy, the result is the same: an innocent life has been taken by human hands.

The shame of the matter is: I used to think like you. I used to believe that abortion was acceptable only if the woman's life was in jeopardy. Oh, how I was deceived! I was a stupid, naive, blind high school student who wrote about the horrors of abortion for an English paper ... and yet advocated it for the sake of preserving the mother's life in the same English paper. If I had taken the time to research the topic thoroughly (including visiting websites that describe abortion in detail), perhaps my eyes would have been opened and I would have realized just what a horrible procedure it truly is. Thankfully, my eyes were opened to the truth as a result of my being saved by my faith in Jesus. Now I know that abortion is 100% unacceptable, 100% evil, and 100% murder ... for whatever reason.

I wonder if those of you who advocate abortion, for whatever reason, have taken the time to read about the various abortion procedures and their side-effects. I have. Extensively. And let me tell you this: abortion has become an even monstrous and despicable procedure, now that I know the details and what it does to the woman who chooses to have it.

OREGON RIGHT TO LIFE - Methods
http://www.ortl.org/abortion/methods.php

Notice the final side-effect listed under each abortion method? Now, are you going to tell me that abortion is a safe procedure for the mother to go through? What do you have to say about the women who have abortions because they believe their doctor's assertations that she will die during childbirth ... and then die as a result of their abortions? So now, not only has the life of the child been ended but the mother's life has been ended as well. (Yes, DeeDee and Jack! It does happen! Denying it doesn't change the fact that women have died from each and every method of abortion.)

However, if she had waited and given birth to her child, a miracle could have taken place and her life would have also been spared.

SUCTION ASPIRATION - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suction_aspiration
You'll notice that this article conveniently leaves out the fact that in rare cases, the mother loses her life as a result of this procedure. Hmm ... I wonder why?

DILATION & CURETTAGE (D&C) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_curettage
Once again, the article conveniently leaves out the fact that in rare cases, the life of the mother is ended as a result of this procedure.

RU 486/MIFEPREX - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU_486
At least whoever wrote this article had the guts to admit that women have died as a result of taking this drug.

DILATION & EVACUATION - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_evacuation
Once again, the potential death of the mother is not mentioned. Then again, I suppose that is a nasty little possibility that members of the pro-choice movement don't want to talk about.

HYSTEROTOMY - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterotomy_abortion
I'll say this: At least the author of the article admitted that women have died as a result of this procedure.

DILATION AND EXTRACTION (D&X, partial birth abortion) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion#.22Partial-birth_abortion.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion#Intact_D.26X_surgery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion#Circumstances_and_reasons_for_this_procedure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion#Controversy

Finally: Remember this:

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. (Genesis 9:6)

[Chocobear]

Now, to answer the questions posed by the article.

Why can’t we all stand with the pregnant woman?

In order to stand with the woman who chooses to have an abortion, I would have to support what she's doing. I cannot, will not, and will never support the intentional killing of an unborn child. This does not mean that I don't love her. It simply means that I cannot, with a clear conscience, support what she's doing. That would be like me supporting someone who's planning on murdering people in a shopping mall!

That we really know of no "convenience" abortions?

Convenience abortions do exist. A majority of the abortions that take place are performed because the mother is focused on one person, and one person only: herself. Whether it be because she doesn't want to ruin her figure, or because she's not ready to have children, or because she doesn't want people to look down on her for being a single mother ... the abortion is done because she views it as more convenient than allowing the child to live.

Why can’t we begin to discuss constructive alternatives to abortion, adoption being an alternative par excellence?

I was under the impression that people HAVE discussed constructive alternatives to abortion. The fact of the matter is: some women are just too selfish, and they would rather have their child murdered than give him to a family who'd love him and take care of him.

Why can’t we cooperate in giving her all the information there is to be given from both sides of this controversial issue?

Why not fully informed consent? Give her all the reasons for abortion? The law allows, even requires this. But also give her all the reasons for waiting, and most emphatically offer to her all of the constructive alternatives that now exist. If our laws continue to dictate that she be given that choice of life or death for her unborn, at the very least that choice should be a fully informed one. It should not just be in-6 formed in terms of technical information. No, it should also be a choice that is made in view of the fact that there is a warm and loving alternative to the technical quick fix of abortion.

I'm all for informing the people about the realities of abortion. But again: Some women are just too selfish to think of anyone but themselves ... including their child.

At the end of the day: yes, it is possible to love women who have had abortions. However, as I've stated before, I cannot support their decision to have their children murdered ... no matter what the reason. Because if I did that, I would be thumbing my nose at God and at the children.

Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them; they shall not be ashamed, but shall speak with their enemies in the gate. (Psalm 127:3-5)

[yxboom]

DDW has forgotten that God is a God of miracles.

[dizzle]

Those of you who believe that abortion is acceptable only when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, seem to have forgotten that God is a God of miracles.

That's nice and condescending. So in the example given above where the doctors can only save one of two adults, one will die - they do nothing because they would be forgetting that God is a God of miracles?

Do you really think that the same God who parted the Red Sea; brought Lazarus and who knows how many other people back from the dead; and has been known for healing countless people afflicted with any number of things, is incapable of preserving the life of the mother whom the doctors say will die if she gives birth?

Do you think that the same God who took David's child away from him and blinded a man from birth may have a different plan for the mother, and that it involves her going through this. It appears to me that you are forgetting that God is a God of sovereignty.

Just because a doctor tells a woman that she'll die if she gives birth to her child (or children), that doesn't mean that he's right. Very few doctors are aware of the fact that God is known for bringing about miracles every day, everywhere around the world.

Just because God can bring about miracles, they are miracles because they are rare and we are not to presume upon nor make responsible choices based on them.

Here's a well-known fact: doctors don't know everything.

Here is maybe a fact you don't know. Your talking to me as if I am still wearing a diaper and you are an angry school marm isn't doing anything. Or are you suggesting that what you just said is news to anyone?

Yes, they have medical degrees. Yes, they are trained medical professionals. But at the end of the day, they do not know (for certain) what the future holds for us.

See above. Wash, rinse, repeat.

For instance: Back in the early 70's, my father was diagnosed with non-small cell carcinoma of the lung. The doctor gave him only a few months to life. (I believe it was 6.) Guess what? My father lived until April 4, 2004, and passed on at the age of 59. Why did he live that long? Well, for starters, he went through procedures and took medications that increased his chances of survival.

The for starters is likely the for enders too. How many other people who believed in the "God of miracles" died?



But the main reason that he remained on this earth until the age of 59 was because God willed it. God had my father in the palm of His hand, and He was not going to call him home until it was time.

See above. Wash, rinse, repeat.

And oh! By the way, the doctors also predicted that my father was unlikely to father another child, as a result of one of the operations he had to go through.

I guess God had other plans, because here I am!


See above. Wash, rinse, repeat.

So in the end: doctors know very little when it comes to the grand scheme of things.

See above. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The very One who created us and helped to bring us into the world, is the same One who has the power to sustain our lives.

See above. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Those of you who believe that abortion is a horrible thing when it is performed for the sake of convenience, and yet support abortion when the mother's life is in danger, are hypocrites.

No more so than believing that killing a German neighbor is morally different than shooting a Nazi. I am sorry if you can't handle that few things in life are as simple as your rant.

You can't rally against abortion one moment, and then advocate it the next.

Actually, a maturely developed moral code can.

Whether the abortion is performed because the woman doesn't want the child or because her life is in jeopardy, the result is the same: an innocent life has been taken by human hands.

Innocent of what? Of what is the child innocent of that the mother is guilty of? Neither are innocent in the eyes of God, and neither have committed a crime in the eyes of society - so you are advocating that you think innocent life should be taken - just a different one.


The shame of the matter is: I used to think like you. I used to believe that abortion was acceptable only if the woman's life was in jeopardy. Oh, how I was deceived! I was a stupid, naive, blind high school student who wrote about the horrors of abortion for an English paper ... and yet advocated it for the sake of preserving the mother's life in the same English paper. If I had taken the time to research the topic thoroughly (including visiting websites that describe abortion in detail), perhaps my eyes would have been opened and I would have realized just what a horrible procedure it truly is.

Indeed. Some of the manners of death that can happen to an adult are truly horrible as well.


Thankfully, my eyes were opened to the truth as a result of my being saved by my faith in Jesus. Now I know that abortion is 100% unacceptable, 100% evil, and 100% murder ... for whatever reason.


See above. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I wonder if those of you who advocate abortion, for whatever reason, have taken the time to read about the various abortion procedures and their side-effects. I have.

I can one-up you chickadee. I have had two abortions. Your arrogance is astounding. Being able to utilize google doesn't make the fount of all knowledge.


Notice the final side-effect listed under each abortion method? Now, are you going to tell me that abortion is a safe procedure for the mother to go through? What do you have to say about the women who have abortions because they believe their doctor's assertations that she will die during childbirth ... and then die as a result of their abortions? So now, not only has the life of the child been ended but the mother's life has been ended as well. (Yes, DeeDee and Jack! It does happen! Denying it doesn't change the fact that women have died from each and every method of abortion.)


Wow, Jack - can you believe we didn't know that :doh: Next thing she is going to tell us the sky is blue.

It "happens" that people die when having reconstructive surgery - see the story of the 18 year old in South Florida who died due to a rare disorder that made anesthia toxic to her. No doctor denies that. None.

However, if she had waited and given birth to her child, a miracle could have taken place and her life would have also been spared.

See above. Wash, rinse, repeat.

SUCTION ASPIRATION - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suction_aspiration
You'll notice that this article conveniently leaves out the fact that in rare cases, the mother loses her life as a result of this procedure. Hmm ... I wonder why?

In rare cases people die at the dentist.

DILATION & CURETTAGE (D&C) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_curettage
Once again, the article conveniently leaves out the fact that in rare cases, the life of the mother is ended as a result of this procedure.

In rare cases people die by being electrocuted in their own bathrooms.

RU 486/MIFEPREX - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU_486
At least whoever wrote this article had the guts to admit that women have died as a result of taking this drug.

People have died from penicillin.

DILATION & EVACUATION - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_evacuation
Once again, the potential death of the mother is not mentioned. Then again, I suppose that is a nasty little possibility that members of the pro-choice movement don't want to talk about.

Are you so delusional as to think that the pro-choice movement doesn't discuss that? Really you need to get out more. They do.



HYSTEROTOMY - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterotomy_abortion
I'll say this: At least the author of the article admitted that women have died as a result of this procedure.

Wow! There's a risk in major surgery! Who'd a thunk it.


DILATION AND EXTRACTION (D&X, partial birth abortion) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion#.22Partial-birth_abortion.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion#Intact_D.26X_surgery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion#Circumstances_and_reasons_for_this_procedure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion#Controversy


I get the impression you think too highly of wikipedia than you should.

[Vigilante]

If I were the husband, and the choice was before us, I'd choose to save my wife.
Obviously it would be very noble of her to give her life for the child's, and I'd surely see her again in Heaven some day, but I have to say, I want my wife more, and we can make more babies (if possible, or adopt more).

This is really not even something to argue about, because there is an emotional argument from both sides. The fact is, I'd either be killing my child, or killing my wife. And somebody could argue that this is "murder" no matter which way you look at it.
It's not that the child is less human, or less valuable, but my wife has a lot more going on right now than the child. She has to live on to be a wife, a mom, and I love her and need her. The child, we will grieve mightily over, and give up to God.

The fact is, I didn't marry my offspring, I didn't marry our kids, I married the woman, and she is the one I am foremost to guard and protect and keep my vows to. I don't say "hey thanks for the kid, bye honey!"
This doesn't mean I don't love the child, but again, somebody just as easily can say I didn't love my wife for killing her instead. How can I love my children more than my wife, that I'd choose them over her any day? Children are an awesome, awesome gift, and we are to raise and protect them, but they don't surpass the bond of man and wife. The love of my wife can't surpass my love of God (idolatry), and neither my love of my children surpass the love of my wife. How this relates to sacrificing one's life is to hard a question to ponder. I'd rather not anybody die, obviously. I'd die first if it would save BOTH their lives, but that can't happen. And should my wife be in out-of-her-mind suffering or unconscious or not able to think strait, my decision would have to be to try and save her first.

I don't see how somebody can complain against this. On what grounds is my love for offspring supposed to surpass the love for my chosen wife that I should let her die so the child can possibly live? Perhaps this is why Christian marriages have so much trouble, they elevate their children to far above themselves to the point of sacrificing their own love and commitments for each other. Some parents drive themselves mad over the lives and behavior of their kids, and cannot let go, it is strange, but that is probably because I am not a dad yet.

Anyway, gotta go, one cannot think about this question for to long.


Peace

[Chocobear]

You know, DeeDee, I'll admit that when I first read your statement, I was filled with anger and I wanted to respond with a message that was just as sarcastic and spiteful - maybe even more so.

But then, I was reminded that God doesn't want me to do that. Rather, He wants me to deal with my anger issues and respond as Jesus would: logically and as respectfully as possible. So I'm going to try doing that for a change.

My message seems to have struck a nerve. As I wrote the post that you responded to, I strove to remain as respectful as possible while at the same time telling it like it was. I'm sorry you view my message as condescending and arrogant, because that wasn't my intention. However, I would like to know what, exactly, you find arrogant about my post.

The fact of the matter is: I do view your position as extremely hypocritical. One moment, you're condemning abortion; but then, you advocate it when the mother's health is in jeopardy. As the old adage goes: "You can't have your cake and eat it, too." You can't condemn something for one reason, but then support it for another. Otherwise, you don't really stand for anything and you become a walking contradiction. You can't have it both ways.

No more so than believing that killing a German neighbor is morally different than shooting a Nazi. I am sorry if you can't handle that few things in life are as simple as your rant.

You take a great deal away from your argument by comparing a helpless, defenseless and innocent child to a blood-thirsty, racist Nazi.

Innocent of what? Of what is the child innocent of that the mother is guilty of? Neither are innocent in the eyes of God, and neither have committed a crime in the eyes of society - so you are advocating that you think innocent life should be taken - just a different one.

The reason I believe the child is innocent is because he has done nothing to deserve what's about to happen to him. It's not as though he thought to himself, "Well, I think it's time for me to be born. I'm going to do as much damage as possible and see if my mom makes it." The only thing he's "guilty" of is doing the exact same thing we're all trying to do: trying to survive. For that, he's going to be destroyed in an extremely brutal, disgusting and (I believe) painful way? People treat their pets better than this! And yet, because he's still locked away within the womb and he can't speak for himself, and because his mother may or may not die while giving birth to him, he's going to suffer from a horrible and barbaric death?

It "happens" that people die when having reconstructive surgery - see the story of the 18 year old in South Florida who died due to a rare disorder that made anesthia toxic to her. No doctor denies that. None. ...

In rare cases people die at the dentist. ...

In rare cases people die by being electrocuted in their bathrooms. ...

People have died from penicillin.

There is no comparison, DeeDee. A person who goes in for reconstructive surgery, or for a dental procedure, or who goes to the bathroom, or who takes penicillin is not faced with the decision to end another person's life in order to save their own. You're basically comparing apples to motor oil, in my book. They're completely different scenarios.

I get the impression you think too highly of wikipedia than you should.

Did you read what the Wikipedia articles have to say? Because if you take issue with what the articles say, then please! By all means, post information that counters the statements made in the articles. But if all you're going to do is offer sarcastic one-liners, then don't waste your time or anybody else's.

Finally, I'll tell you this: the fact that your hackles went up and you avoided offering informative, well thought out responses tells me something - either your conscience was rubbed the wrong way, or you don't have much faith in your position. Because I have a great deal of faith in my position, and I'm not the least bit threatened by your opinions or anyone else's on this board. I'm confident in my belief that abortion is evil and that it is murder - no matter what the reason. I'm not rattled. Therefore, I'm not compelled to offer up a bitter diatribe and fly off the deep end, simply because you don't believe the same things I do.

My pastor said something that rings so true, especially in this situation: to paraphrase, "Those who quarrel, rather than argue their points logically and as respectfully as possible, testify to the fact that they have no authority."

Look at Jesus, for example.

Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place. Many followed him, and he healed all their sick, warning them not to tell who he was. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:

"Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations. He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory. In his name the nations will put their hope." (Matthew 12:15-21)

Jesus testified to the fact that He was in possession of a tremendous amount of authority by avoiding quarreling, yelling, shouting, beating down and getting in people's faces. He had great confidence in His message and in the One who sent Him, and this was proven by how he reacted when people said things that He took issue with. Not only that, but He responded logically and as respectfully as possible.

Take Vigilante, for instance. I don't agree with what he says, but I appreciate the fact that he took the time to be respectful and to offer up some thought-provoking comments. That alone tells me that he has confidence in his position.

If you're willing to argue your point logically and as respectfully as possible, I'm willing to continue this discussion with you. But if all you're going to do is offer one sarcastic, mean-spirited comment after another ... I'm going to walk away. Because I'm not interested in quarreling; I'm interested in thought-provoking debates.

By the way: Enough with the, "See above. Wash, rinse, repeat," stuff. It's yet another thing that takes away from your argument.

Perhaps this is why Christian marriages have so much trouble, they elevate their children to far above themselves to the point of sacrificing their own love and commitments for each other.

That's what parents are supposed to do: protect the lives of their children and view them as more important than themselves. It's called love, and it's a very Christian thing to do. When you make a child, you take upon yourself the responsibilities and commitments that come with being a parent. The well-being of the child must always come first.

[joel]

The reason I believe the child is innocent is because he has done nothing to deserve what's about to happen to him. It's not as though he thought to himself, "Well, I think it's time for me to be born. I'm going to do as much damage as possible and see if my mom makes it." The only thing he's "guilty" of is doing the exact same thing we're all trying to do: trying to survive. For that, he's going to be destroyed in an extremely brutal, disgusting and (I believe) painful way? People treat their pets better than this! And yet, because he's still locked away within the womb and he can't speak for himself, and because his mother may or may not die while giving birth to him, he's going to suffer from a horrible and barbaric death?

You seem to be missing the point, and didn't answer the question. I think that before an honest discussion along these lines can continue you need to answer the following questions:

- Why do you think the innocent mother should die a horrible and barbaric death instead of the child? (And don't just reply back that the doctors don't know everything. Of course they don't know anything for certain, but consider circumstances in which they know to a very high probability.)

- In the situation where the baby will die a horrible death either way, why is it right to let them both die a horrible death, as opposed to saving one of them?

- Do your answers change at all if the two people involved are both adults (instead of one bing a child)?

[Vigilante]

Oh the pains of triage, but it's a sad reality.

[Chocobear]

Why do you think the innocent mother should die a horrible and barbaric death instead of the child? (And don't just reply back that the doctors don't know everything. Of course they don't know anything for certain, but consider circumstances in which they know to a very high probability.)

I don't think she should have to die. I believe that every medical precaution, with the exception of killing the child, should be taken. Also, I believe that God is a God of miracles, and that He alone should determine when, how and where a person dies. I do not believe that taking the life of a helpless, defenseless human being (especially in such a gruesome, horrible way) is acceptable - for whatever reason.

In the situation where the baby will die a horrible death either way, why is it right to let them both die a horrible death, as opposed to saving one of them?

Believe me. I'm not thrilled with the possibility of either person experiencing a horrible death. However, I'm also not thrilled with the idea of anyone purposefully taking the life of the child, either.

And I never said that these posts don't get me thinking.

Do your answers change at all if the two people involved are both adults (instead of one bing a child)?

That depends. Is one person seeking to end the other person's life? Is he or she driven by that desire? In that case, yes, my answer changes. However, these are two different situations. The child is utterly defenseless, and he doesn't have the will to kill his mother or anyone else. The adult, on the other hand, has that desire; he knows that if he points a gun at the other person's hand and pulls the trigger, that person's going to be dead and he's going to be a murderer.

You can throw out as many scenarios as you want to. But at the end of the day, I believe that abortion - for whatever reason - is wrong. That doesn't mean that I don't sympathize with the mother. It doesn't mean that I want her to die or to suffer. It simply means that someone has to consider the life of the child as well, and one of those people is me. I have a great love for children (especially babies, since I'm practically surrounded by them at church), and it breaks my heart to know that there is a medical procedure out there that takes their lives in such a brutal, disgusting way.

[joel]

I don't think she should have to die. I believe that every medical precaution, with the exception of killing the child, should be taken. Also, I believe that God is a God of miracles, and that He alone should determine when, how and where a person dies. I do not believe that taking the life of a helpless, defenseless human being (especially in such a gruesome, horrible way) is acceptable - for whatever reason.

I wish no one had to die!

Consider the story of the man who operated a draw-bridge for a train. One day the bridge was up, and a train with hundreds of passengers was approaching. The man went to go lower the bridge, like he always did, but then discovered that an innocent young boy, who didn't know any better, was playing amongst the workings of the drawbridge. The man shouted to the boy to get out, but it was too noisy for him to hear. There was not anywhere near enough time before the train would arrive for the man to get to the boy and back to lower the bridge for the train. If he lowered the bridge, it would mean (gruesome, horrible) death for the boy. If he did not lower the bridge, then it would mean (gruesome, horrible) death for the hundreds of passengers (and possibly the boy too, in the crash).

Do you still say that taking the life of a helpless, defenseless human being in a gruesome, horrible way is never acceptable for any reason? Do you say that the man should not lower the bridge? Do you think that he should be prosecuted for murdering the boy, if he lowers the bridge? Or, for that matter, prosecuted for murdering the hundreds of passengers if he doesn't?


Believe me. I'm not thrilled with the possibility of either person experiencing a horrible death. However, I'm also not thrilled with the idea of anyone purposefully taking the life of the child, either.
A situation could arise in which the only other alternative is to purposefully take the life of the mother (or is tantamount to that). Why do you think the mother should always be the one to be killed, rather than the baby? If you have to kill one why always the mother? (If your options are to kill one, kill the other, or do nothing, which is tantamount to killing them both.)

Or, phrasing it another way, if you can save the life of only one, why do you always choose the baby and never the mother?

What if you have the following situation:If you do nothing:
Probability of mother surviving: 0.01%
Probability of baby surviving: 0.01%

If you try to save the baby:
Probability of mother surviving: 0% (killing the mother)
Probability of baby surviving: 1%

If you try to save the mother:
Probability of mother surviving: 99.9%
Probability of baby surviving: 0% (killing the baby)
Which is the right choice?


That depends. Is one person seeking to end the other person's life? Is he or she driven by that desire? In that case, yes, my answer changes.
No, I'm talking about a situation where two people's lives are at stake (not because one wants to or is trying to kill the other) and doctors (or whoever is there to help) are able to save only one.


You can throw out as many scenarios as you want to. But at the end of the day, I believe that abortion - for whatever reason - is wrong. That doesn't mean that I don't sympathize with the mother. It doesn't mean that I want her to die or to suffer. It simply means that someone has to consider the life of the child as well, and one of those people is me.
Absolutely we consider the life of the child. But there are situations in which doctors (or others) have to choose between two (or more) lives (whether or not one of them is a child). We do not prosecute such life-saving action as murder, even if the rescuers essentially have to kill someone. That does not mean we are not considering the life of the person lost. It is not murder when the innocent victims are adults, and it's not murder when the innocent victims are children.

[Vigilante]

Consider the story of the man who operated a draw-bridge for a train. One day the bridge was up, and a train with hundreds of passengers was approaching. The man went to go lower the bridge, like he always did, but then discovered that an innocent young boy, who didn't know any better, was playing amongst the workings of the drawbridge. The man shouted to the boy to get out, but it was too noisy for him to hear. There was not anywhere near enough time before the train would arrive for the man to get to the boy and back to lower the bridge for the train. If he lowered the bridge, it would mean (gruesome, horrible) death for the boy. If he did not lower the bridge, then it would mean (gruesome, horrible) death for the hundreds of passengers (and possibly the boy too, in the crash).

Oh wow, what a horrible story. I'd hate to be that operator.

[Chocobear]

Joel, I'm going to say this one more time. There is nothing that you can say to me that will make me feel any differently. You can throw out every situation in the book, and still I will believe that killing a child is wrong. That doesn't mean that I don't care about other people's lives or their suffering. It simply means that I cannot, with a clear conscience, advocate anything that would end the life of those who are far more defenseless and helpless than we are.

You can call me heartless or whatever. But at the end of the day, I cannot and will not advocate the purposeful killing of a child. I just can't. And, quite frankly, I don't appreciate you or anyone else trying to pressure me or confuse me into going along with your way of thinking. You may not disagree with what I have to say. But please, I beg of you, stop attempting to change my opinion by throwing out one horrendous scenario after another. You may not respect my opinion, but please respect me.

[dizzle]

Joel, I'm going to say this one more time. There is nothing that you can say to me that will make me feel any differently. You can throw out every situation in the book, and still I will believe that killing a child is wrong. That doesn't mean that I don't care about other people's lives or their suffering. It simply means that I cannot, with a clear conscience, advocate anything that would end the life of those who are far more defenseless and helpless than we are.

You can call me heartless or whatever. But at the end of the day, I cannot and will not advocate the purposeful killing of a child. I just can't. And, quite frankly, I don't appreciate you or anyone else trying to pressure me or confuse me into going along with your way of thinking. You may not disagree with what I have to say. But please, I beg of you, stop attempting to change my opinion by throwing out one horrendous scenario after another. You may not respect my opinion, but please respect me.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Heat. Kitchen. Stay out.

[dizzle]

You know, DeeDee, I'll admit that when I first read your statement, I was filled with anger and I wanted to respond with a message that was just as sarcastic and spiteful - maybe even more so.

Yet you feel so humble that you had to tell us just how pious you are.

But then, I was reminded that God doesn't want me to do that. Rather, He wants me to deal with my anger issues and respond as Jesus would: logically and as respectfully as possible. So I'm going to try doing that for a change.

See above.

My message seems to have struck a nerve. As I wrote the post that you responded to, I strove to remain as respectful as possible while at the same time telling it like it was. I'm sorry you view my message as condescending and arrogant, because that wasn't my intention. However, I would like to know what, exactly, you find arrogant about my post.

Oh let's see... acting like Jack and I don't believe in miracles, that we think doctors are infallible, and don't know what abortion is. I could go on. You were pretentious and condescending in your post.

Since you refused to answer any of my questions, I guess my post struck a nerve. Wow, this Internet Psychologist game is fun!

The fact of the matter is: I do view your position as extremely hypocritical.

And I view yours as morally stunted.

One moment, you're condemning abortion; but then, you advocate it when the mother's health is in jeopardy. As the old adage goes: "You can't have your cake and eat it, too." You can't condemn something for one reason, but then support it for another.

Oh let's see if that's true or you are just horrendously illogical.

I believe in war. Hmm. I don't believe in shooting up the high school. Care to tell me how I can support killing people in one context and not another? The Bible does this - but I guess you know better than God. You seem to forget that God is a God of truth.

Let's do this again. I believe that parents hitting their kids to abuse them is wrong. I believe corporal punishment is right.

I believe just walking up to you and slapping you in the face is wrong. However, if a bee just landed on your cheek, I would not hesitate to kill it though it meant you would be hit.

See how this works? Please at least try to do some reasoning.

Otherwise, you don't really stand for anything and you become a walking contradiction. You can't have it both ways.

See above.

You take a great deal away from your argument by comparing a helpless, defenseless and innocent child to a blood-thirsty, racist Nazi.

Oh so you are in favour of killing Nazis? Hypocrite.

The reason I believe the child is innocent is because he has done nothing to deserve what's about to happen to him. It's not as though he thought to himself, "Well, I think it's time for me to be born. I'm going to do as much damage as possible and see if my mom makes it." The only thing he's "guilty" of is doing the exact same thing we're all trying to do: trying to survive.

As is the mother. Equally innocent.

For that, he's going to be destroyed in an extremely brutal, disgusting and (I believe) painful way?

As would the mother. You think dying in childbirth is a walk in the park?

People treat their pets better than this!

Yes they sure do. When a vet tells them that their dog is carrying a litter that will kill her they save the momma dog.

And yet, because he's still locked away within the womb and he can't speak for himself, and because his mother may or may not die while giving birth to him, he's going to suffer from a horrible and barbaric death?

Good thing no one advanced that argument. Care for a little fire, strawman?

There is no comparison, DeeDee. A person who goes in for reconstructive surgery, or for a dental procedure, or who goes to the bathroom, or who takes penicillin is not faced with the decision to end another person's life in order to save their own.

Do you even follow your own argument? You were claiming that abortion could kill the mother. And I responded nearly everything in life has risks. Please do try to keep up.

You're basically comparing apples to motor oil, in my book. They're completely different scenarios.

Only because you don't like the conclusions. It is your argument which is faulty.


Did you read what the Wikipedia articles have to say? Because if you take issue with what the articles say, then please! By all means, post information that counters the statements made in the articles.

Who disagreed? I was just pointing out that you were claiming you had all this knowledge that we poor souls didn't have, and it was a way of pointing out that a monkey can search wikipedia.


But if all you're going to do is offer sarcastic one-liners, then don't waste your time or anybody else's.

Here comes the school marm again!!! :mossrose:

Finally, I'll tell you this: the fact that your hackles went up and you avoided offering informative, well thought out responses tells me something - either your conscience was rubbed the wrong way, or you don't have much faith in your position.

Did you get your psychology degree from Wikipedia? And you claiming that I didn't offer a response is like Ty Rockwell arguing about the Greek. Even joel noticed that you didn't respond to any substantive point I made.

Because I have a great deal of faith in my position, and I'm not the least bit threatened by your opinions or anyone else's on this board. I'm confident in my belief that abortion is evil and that it is murder - no matter what the reason. I'm not rattled. Therefore, I'm not compelled to offer up a bitter diatribe and fly off the deep end, simply because you don't believe the same things I do.

But you are compelled to flounce around showing off your piety and talking down to others.

My pastor said something that rings so true, especially in this situation: to paraphrase, "Those who quarrel, rather than argue their points logically and as respectfully as possible, testify to the fact that they have no authority."

My pastor once said that people who like to compare themselves to other to prove how much holier they are testify to the fact they are insecure or proud.



Look at Jesus, for example.

Oh yes, let's!

And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the
other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even
unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast,
saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Jesus testified to the fact that He was in possession of a tremendous amount of authority by avoiding quarreling, yelling, shouting, beating down and getting in people's faces. He had great confidence in His message and in the One who sent Him, and this was proven by how he reacted when people said things that He took issue with. Not only that, but He responded logically and as respectfully as possible.

O Rly?

Let's see about that:

You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

I dunno about you, but I really doubt the Pharisees felt fuzzy and warm over that respectful response.


Take Vigilante, for instance. I don't agree with what he says, but I appreciate the fact that he took the time to be respectful and to offer up some thought-provoking comments. That alone tells me that he has confidence in his position.

I guess you think Jesus didn't have confidence in His. Whoops.



If you're willing to argue your point logically and as respectfully as possible, I'm willing to continue this discussion with you. But if all you're going to do is offer one sarcastic, mean-spirited comment after another ... I'm going to walk away. Because I'm not interested in quarreling; I'm interested in thought-provoking debates.

Hint: I don't care if you continue it. And I don't agree to your "rules." You haven't responded to a single substantive point I made.

By the way: Enough with the, "See above. Wash, rinse, repeat," stuff. It's yet another thing that takes away from your argument.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

[dizzle]

Oh wow, what a horrible story. I'd hate to be that operator.

It isn't true. It is a parabolic story that is usually told with the kid in the story being the man's son to represent God sacrificing His son. It doesn't have to be true to prove the point. It could happen.

[joel]

There is nothing that you can say to me that will make me feel any differently.
...But please, I beg of you, stop attempting to change my opinion...
You may not respect my opinion, but please respect me.

I don't have a problem with you. And I do respect your concern for the pre-born. I have the same concern. Abortion is the worst injustice being perpetuated in the U.S. today.

But I don't think morality is a matter of opinion. Maybe I'm wrong regarding the topic we've been discussing. Maybe you're wrong. Maybe we're both wrong. But we can't both be right. It's not a matter of mere opinion, but a matter of fact, and we have to use reason, and rational discussion to sort it out, just as we would have to for any matter of fact, like whether the earth is flat.

Now, if, at this time, you can't or do not wish to further examine this question we've been discussing, and explore/explain why you believe what you do, and compare it to why others believe differently, then that's fine. That's up to you. I hope we can still become friends either way.

[Chocobear]

Now, if, at this time, you can't or do not wish to further examine this question we've been discussing, and explore/explain why you believe what you do, and compare it to why others believe differently, then that's fine. That's up to you. I hope we can still become friends either way.

You don't have to worry about that. Just because we disagree, there's no reason we can't be friends. Friends have differences all the time. It's those differences that make friendships interesting.

And thank you for not attacking me for my opinion. :smile:

And DeeDee? Like I said: if you can't offer up logical viewpoints and information that counters the information I supplied, and if all you're going to do is offer one attack after another, then don't respond to my messages. Because like I said, I'm not interested in quarreling with anyone. Please respect my wishes and stop attacking me. I am genuinely trying to avoid quarreling with people, and by attacking me you're not making it any easier. God's trying to do a work in my life, and I don't want it to be hindered. I want this part of me that quarrels so much to be defeated. And the more you push my buttons, the more likely I'm going to snap. I don't want to do that. So please, I'm begging you, stop.

[Vigilante]

It isn't true. It is a parabolic story that is usually told with the kid in the story being the man's son to represent God sacrificing His son. It doesn't have to be true to prove the point. It could happen.

Oh good. Never heard it before.

Also reminds me of a movie called, uh, don't know, "Sophie's Choice" or something, a WWII movie, the Nazis made her choose which of her 2 children would die, or else both would be killed. Now who would ever want to choose one of their kids to die? And yet, letting both die doesn't seem to be any more noble a choice.

Gladly, these choices are extremely rare. Sadly, they do happen. I think it does not behoove anybody to start condemning people for making a choice, EITHER WAY, injustice is done, somebody innocent dies. A mother did not deserve a life-threatening pregnancy any more than a child deserves only 8 months of life or whatever it may be. It doesn't matter if somebody is upset that a mother died, or upset that a child died, the situation is out of our control, and unfortunately, we may have to ask emotionless questions of practicality, "who has the greatest chance of surviving?" "How do we save the greatest number of people here?" And even "who has the most dependents?" Perhaps the woman has 4 kids and no husband, perhaps the doctors are making the choice? With 4 kids outside crying hysterically on uncle Jack's shoulder's, the choice seems obvious, the mother needs to live.
Talk about Jesus, is it more a sacrifice of the mother to save child, then a sacrifice of child to save mother? As a father, I would be sacrificing MY son to save my wife, not much different then sacrificing my wife to save son. Sure the woman can make that choice, or can she? What if she's out cold or high on drugs? She's in no better position than the child to choose to sacrifice themselves.

I am still dumbfounded as to why one is more immoral than the next, we do not save people based on "who is more innocent" or "who deserves life more". That is obviously not how God works. Sometimes, coldly enough, it's a practical issue. Nobody "deserves" to live or die any more or less in that situation, but some times one person or another has more reasons to. And on a very human level, that may be all we can use.

[dizzle]

Great post Vig. I also came up with another "it does happen" scenario.

Siamese twins. In some cases, the organs aren't sufficient to support both people - they will both die unless separated. They are infants. However, it is impossible to save them both. One of the twins has a vital organ all to themselves. Separating them will cause one twin to lack that organ and die. Not separating them will cause both of them to die.

Is it the moral thing to do to let both children die?

[Vigilante]

To be consistent with my previous post, I'd have to say the child with the organs in tact has to live. In other words, has more reasons to live, a cold practical issue.
A choice cannot be made on who is loved more. Who is more innocent. Who deserves life more or less. Who is the bigger sinner. Nature, or even God himself, handed favor to the one that is able to survive after separation. In fact, the choice of who lives seems cosmically already made up.

As hard as I try, I can't find sufficient reason to allow "we can't choose because it's to hard, so let both die" as an option.

[dizzle]

I agree.

[Soyeong]

Joel, I'm going to say this one more time. There is nothing that you can say to me that will make me feel any differently. You can throw out every situation in the book, and still I will believe that killing a child is wrong. That doesn't mean that I don't care about other people's lives or their suffering. It simply means that I cannot, with a clear conscience, advocate anything that would end the life of those who are far more defenseless and helpless than we are.
I think we can all agree that killing a child under any circumstances is wrong. The question is whether there are any circumstances where it is more wrong not to kill the child.

[dizzle]

Actually we can't all agree on that. Its the difference between the lesser evil and the greater good.

In the circumstance with the siamese twins, it is not just "less wrong" to have one die and the other live. It is the RIGHT thing to do.

[Soyeong]

I am sorry for presuming that you thought the same. I think the lesser evil is kind of relative because it becomes the greater good when it is the best moral option available. I think the greater good can make it the correct thing to do, but that does not necessarily make it right to do.

[Chocobear]

To be consistent with my previous post, I'd have to say the child with the organs in tact has to live. In other words, has more reasons to live, a cold practical issue.
A choice cannot be made on who is loved more. Who is more innocent. Who deserves life more or less. Who is the bigger sinner. Nature, or even God himself, handed favor to the one that is able to survive after separation. In fact, the choice of who lives seems cosmically already made up.

As hard as I try, I can't find sufficient reason to allow "we can't choose because it's to hard, so let both die" as an option.

This is one of the many, many, MANY reasons I will never become a doctor. (That, and the smell of anesthesia makes me sick.)

I would not want to be put in a position where I would have to make such a decision.

[jwarrend]

A website I stumbled across, abortionfacts.com, has a free online book to read called "Why Can't We Love Them Both" (http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both.asp).

I've started reading the book. It's interesting, and it makes a great point about the attitude women and their children need to see most in those around them. Thought I'd share it.

I haven't read the book yet, but from the excerpt you quoted, it seems to me that the author as least has his heart in the right place, and I agree with the overall spirit of the article. However, I think that the notion that we should present a pregnant mother with all options in a neutral fashion is severely misguided. The point is that all of the options are NOT equal, and giving the mother the impression that they are is close, in my view, to enabling her decision to abort. It's like advising a parent of a teenager to, when talking to them about drugs, make sure you present to the kids a compelling case for how great it feels to get buzzed, so they at least know what they're choosing between!

Having said that, I'm on record as disagreeing with the "abortion is murder - outlaw it now!" view, not necessarily because I think it's wrong but because I think it's extremely unlikely to yield any positive progress anytime soon. The day may come when America will outlaw abortion but that day is still quite a ways off.

In contrast, it's entirely possible to prevent abortions, simply by convincing mothers that they don't need to have them. And in pursuit of that end, the advice of the article comes very much into play. Getting in a mother's face and calling her a baby-killer probably ultimately doesn't accomplish much (though I'm willing to see evidence to the contrary), but showing sympathy and compassion can be very successful. The thing is, even if "convenience" or "selfishness" are the root cause of the decisions for many or most abortions, I think we are all familiar enough with temptation to sin to recognize that things are a bit more subtle than this.

We support a local crisis pregnancy center, and many of the guys and girls that come in are young, confused, and frightened. Presumably they know at some level that abortion is "wrong" but their moral compass as well as their perceptions of reality may be more different from ours than you might think. The center's goal is, first and foremost, to introduce the girls to Christ. Saving the baby is vitally important but the pregnancy is a symptom, not the root cause. They also seek to help meet the mother's physical, spiritual, and emotional needs -- providing counseling, parenting classes, diapers, etc -- and in this way, to remove a lot of the obstacles to choosing to carry the baby to term. Demonstrating Christ's love to the mothers and fathers goes a long way towards preventing abortions, but more importantly, it advances the kingdom of Christ, which is the more ultimate goal.

I would encourage people who feel strongly about this issue to identify and support your local Christian crisis pregnancy center. They need a ton of help -- prayer, money, supplies, volunteers -- and are making a direct and immediate impact.

-Jeff

[Vigilante]

This is one of the many, many, MANY reasons I will never become a doctor. (That, and the smell of anesthesia makes me sick.)

I would not want to be put in a position where I would have to make such a decision.

I can sympathize with that. But we also have to realize the doctor is saving lives, without whom the mother AND child die. Without whom, the twins BOTH die.

I guess it's one of the old "it's a hard job, but somebody has to do it" kind of things. I couldn't be a doctor cause I'm afraid of cutting people, slicing skin gives me the creeps.


Peace

[dizzle]

The smell of formaldehyde makes me sick.

[joel]

In contrast, it's entirely possible to prevent abortions, simply by convincing mothers that they don't need to have them.

I seem to remember seeing a thread somewhat recently where people were arguing that the pro-life goal is not merely to reduce the occurrence of abortion but to establish equal rights. If someone knows what thread I'm talking about, can you post (or send me) a link to it?

[Chocobear]

I guess it's one of the old "it's a hard job, but somebody has to do it" kind of things. I couldn't be a doctor cause I'm afraid of cutting people, slicing skin gives me the creeps.

Some people are meant to be doctors. Others are not. I fall into the second category. Come to think of it, I'm not meant to be in the medical profession - period. Nurse. Doctor. Whatever.

And I agree with you about the creepiness of slicing skin. I tend to be very squeamish. I'm a person who freaks out whenever a person is shown getting botox injections. It gives me the heebie-jeebies. And don't get me started on these medical programs that show the doctors cutting into people.

The smell of formaldehyde makes me sick.

I can't think of a single person who isn't affected that way by it. I remember back in high school, everyone in my Biology class had to clear out of the room when we were supposed to check out the insides of frogs.

I'll stick with pictures in science books, thank you very much.