Abortion - Should There Ever Be Exceptions?

Post by **_Derek** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:28 pm

Paidion wrote: Derek, the difference is that in the first case, the child is 2 years old, and has become very aware of the world, and is very significant to its parents and siblings. In the second, the child has not yet experienced life. The parents and siblings do not know the child, and thus it is not as significant.

Paidion,
We are significant to God. Whether or not the child is significant to its parents has nothing to do with my position. I am interested in what God thinks. He cares about us "when our substance is yet unperfect" (Psalm 139:13-16,), before we are even formed in the womb.

Certainly, a mother might choose death rather than the abortion of her child. But should she be considered immoral or a "bad Christian" if she doesn't so choose?

I would leave that up to God to decide. I said the more Christ like thing would be to give her life. And, undeniably that is true, because, that is exactly what the Lord did. He died, (before any of us today were ever created, by the way, not after), so that we could live.

Would you be willing and even happy to let your wife die, so that he unborn child could live? Would you be happy that she had made the "moral" choice?

Of course I wouldn't be happy to lose my wife. But I would still think that the more moral choice would be to give her life for the child. I would think her virtuous for doing it too.

Some people consider human life to be of equal value, no matter what the age. But is that realistic?A zygote, that is, a human sperm and human egg which have just united, is a human being ---- for it is human, and it is a being. But tell, me, do you believe that it would be just as wrong to destroy this zygote, as it would be to destroy an eighth-month old foetus? Or a two-year old baby for that matter?

I can't help but think of John the Baptist, who was very obviously important before he was born. He was important and very valuable to God 700+ yrs before he was born. Before his parents were born for that matter. He was to prepare the way for the Messiah, even then.

As for how I would feel, personally, I think that I would be less upset about the loss of a zygote, which I suppose people lose without even knowing it, than an eighteen month old, but that is because I am looking at things purely from my perspective. As a Christian, however, I have look to at this, as with many other things in life, from God's perspective, which, to me, seems to be that He cares about us even before we are formed in the womb.

Human foetuses at the later stages, presumably are more conscious than at the early stages. They appear to be experiencing pain when they are aborted. Well, that appears to be the case in earlier stages too. But the zygote?

How much pain it suffers is irrelevant to whether or not it is right to take its life. This is why stem cell research is wrong.

You may argue that all human life is equally valuable in the sight of God. But I'm not even sure that that is true. It is written, for example, that God hates evil doers. Are the hated ones as valuable as the loved ones? A difficult question. The answer may potentially be "yes". But at the moment, it seems to be "no".

I do not take the position that God hates anyone. I see the scriptures that say this to use "hate" as a way of showing preference, and I think this can be shown from the scriptures to be the case. We are all evildoers in God's site by the way, and He loved us enough to send His Son to die for us.

Today, we are taught that God loves everyone the same. But in the days of ancient Israel, God seemed to wipe out large numbers of evil people, while preserving the righteous. Would that not indicate that He considered the evil ones to have less value? Or no value at all?

The key word here is "evil". I don't think that God sees unborn babies as being evil. I know that some people think this is possible, but I think the bible teaches that there is an age of accountability.

I would like to add, that I feel that in cases where both the mother and child are going to die, it would be permissible to abort the child. I am not sure why they would both have to die. Or at least, it would be up to the concience of the mother.
God bless ,
Derek

Post by **_Homer** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:26 pm

I believe in an ectopic pregnancy, without an abortion, both will die. In the removal of the fallopian tube the intention is to save the mother's life, not to kill the baby, but that is the unavoidable consequence.

Post by **_Paidion** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:25 pm

Today, we are taught that God loves everyone the same. But in the days of ancient Israel, God seemed to wipe out large numbers of evil people, while preserving the righteous. Would that not indicate that He considered the evil ones to have less value? Or no value at all?

The key word here is "evil". I don't think that God sees unborn babies as being evil. I know that some people think this is possible, but I think the bible teaches that there is an age of accountability.

The purpose of my writing about God wiping out large numbers of evil people, was not in any way to suggest He doesn't care about unborn babies ---- or that unborn babies are "evil".

For clarification purposes, I declare that I am pro-life, and have taken part in pro-life marches.

By the way, the bible nowhere teaches about an "age of accountability".
The "age of accountability" concept has been invented in modern times in attempt to justify God in permitting the death of billions of children and pre-born children, who have never had an opportunity of hearing or accepting the gospel.

I wrote that paragraph which Derek quoted above, to suggest that even God may value some people more than others.

In reality, I think the fact that God thought nothing of wiping out large numbers of people does not indicate that He doesn't value them.
I probably would think that if I believed in the annihilation of the wicked, or the eternal torture of the wicked.

However, I believe in the ultimate reconcilation of all rational beings to God --- that every one of them will sooner or later repent and come under the authority of Christ.

Many or most people value life above all else, and consider that a life lost is gone forever. But God knows that He is going to raise everyone from the dead, and that all of His judgments are remedial. So, though He cared about the wicked and valued them, He was able to wipe them out on various occasions for the sake of the righteous, knowing that He would deal with those wicked ones later.

As for God hating the wicked, I think we will have to admit that He does. Look at the following scriptures with an open mind, and see whether you can justifibly hold the position that the word "hate" in these scriptures is used "as a way of showing preference".

The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity. You destroy those who speak falsehood; the Lord abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit (Ps. 5:5-6).

The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates (Ps. 11:5).

I have forsaken My house, I have abandoned My inheritance; I have given the beloved of My soul [God’s people Israel] into the hand of her enemies. My inheritance has become to Me like a lion in the forest; she has roared against Me; therefore I have come to hate her (Jer. 12:7-8).

All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; all their princes are rebels (Hos. 9:15).

We can readily observe that the word "abhors" is used right along with the word "hate". Also in the last passage the words are "I will love them no more."

Having said that, I agree that in the New Testament, the word translated as "hate" can mean "despise", that is "disregard".

For example, Jesus taught:

Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not disregard his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

Post by **_Allyn** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:11 pm

I don't think there is any question that God is capable and has prescribed to the annihilation of the wicked. After all wasn't that what the Flood was all about?

However today, and this is just my opinion as I see the NT teaching it, Christ now is the propitiation (the holding back of wrath) upon the world. God, in essence sees the world through the eyes of Christ. That's not to say we are universally saved from our sins but that in this time of grace God is patiently waiting for all who will come to come. Someday, yes, His wrath will come and it will be swift, but it will be for the sake of justice as I believe it has always been for.

Post by **_Derek** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:50 am

The purpose of my writing about God wiping out large numbers of evil people, was not in any way to suggest He doesn't care about unborn babies ---- or that unborn babies are "evil".

Paidion,
I didn't mean to imply that you thought that. I apologize for my lack of clarity.

I was just saying that it is the opinion of some, with more Calvinistic beliefs, that since God chooses some to go to Heaven and some to hell outside the womb He does the same with those that are unborn.

By the way, the bible nowhere teaches about an "age of accountability".

I disagree. In Isaiah 7:16 there is a time "before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good" spoken of.

Also there's Deut. 1:39: "Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it." The children of "that wicked generation, were allowed to go into the promised land because they didn't know better. I would think the same is true of heaven.

To me these verses teach that there is a time when children don't know better and therefore can't be held accountable for their actions. Of course, there is not a specific "age" mentioned, but that is not what I meant.

As for God hating the wicked, I think we will have to admit that He does. Look at the following scriptures with an open mind, and see whether you can justifibly hold the position that the word "hate" in these scriptures is used "as a way of showing preference".

Perhaps I should have used stronger language than "showing preference". My point is that when God is said to "hate" someone, it must refer to something other than what we consider hate. (I'm not saying I have it figured out by the way, but something's up.)

I say this because He sent His Son to die for "those that do iniquity" like all of us here at the forum. Of course we don't anymore, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." This verse basically says He loved us while we were still in the catagory of "those that do iniquity".

Jesus even prayed for those that put Him on the cross. If they weren't men of "bloodshed and deciet" I don't know who is. It would seem, in my opinion, to be contradictory to God's nature to "hate" people in the sense that we think of the word.

I apologize for straying from the subject here. What I am saying, is that I think all human life is of equal value to the Lord. To execute justice upon the wicked, (such as wiping out large numbers of evil people" in the OT) is not to say that they are of lesser value. Our government may execute a murderer, but He is of no lesser value, than the pious little old lady. He is less valuable in the utilitarian sense, but equal in that he is made in God's image and Christ died for him just as much as the little old lady.

I would think that the same would apply to the zygote and the mother. They are of equal value in God's site because they are made in His image and Christ died for them. So, in my opinion, we really can't say that she is more or less valuable.

Post by **_loaves** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:19 am

I agree with Derek.

We are misled by our Public Schools and our country to think that a fetus is not human until it's born. In fact, in Ireland, I think, you can abort a child right up until birth because they say it is not a human until it's born.

The Holy Spirit breathes life into the fetus at the moment of conception. From then on, that child has a soul, a spirit, and a body. Most people don't know that a fetus is fully-formed 9 weeks after conception.

And so I think the fetus, the 2-year-old baby, and the 100-year-old man to be completely equal with God. "There is neither Jew nor Greek..." (Galatian 3) They are all made in His image and Christ died for them, though, of course, the fetus is not at the age of accountability, and it is innocent before God.

And with this being said, I would probably give no exceptions for abortion. Abortion is taking innocent human life. And to imperil the mother's life to avoid taking life, is one of the most noble, selfless, and altruistic acts a woman and her husband can do. "let each esteem other better than themselves" (Phil. 2:3). Because if we just take life capriciously, it requires no faith in God. "ye are of more value than many sparrows" (Matt. 10:31) And there is no guarantee that the mother will die anyhow.

Post by **_Homer** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:19 am

This is not as easy as we make it sound. If there is a high degree of probability that the mother will die, what would the "law of love" recommend in a situation where there are small children in the family? And how do you think the children would feel if they knew their mother was going to die? What about them?

If, as has been said, the life of the unborn child and the mother are equal in value then the decision is a most difficult one morally; I could not condemn the mother for her decision in a case like this.

Post by **_loaves** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:34 pm

Yeah, I know it is a tough decision to make.

But abortion is a deliberate killing of life. Continuing with the woman's pregnancy may kill her, but there is no certainty. It is not unambiguous. And it wouldn't be a premeditated, purposeful killing of her as it would the fetus. She may pull through. In situations like that I would get down on my knees and pray for her deliverance rather than take matters into my own hands. I would have faith in God. "Have faith in God" (Mark 11:22) "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss" (James 4:3)

They are equal in God's eyes, as most of us affirm. Killing either one would be equally wrong. But abortion is premeditated killing. Letting the mother continue with the pregnancy is not.

What to do? ... What to do?

Any other comments?

Post by **_Derek** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:55 pm

Homer wrote:This is not as easy as we make it sound. If there is a high degree of probability that the mother will die, what would the "law of love" recommend in a situation where there are small children in the family? And how do you think the children would feel if they knew their mother was going to die? What about them?

If, as has been said, the life of the unborn child and the mother are equal in value then the decision is a most difficult one morally; I could not condemn the mother for her decision in a case like this.

I agree that it would be a most difficult decision. I would never condemn the mother for this action. Especially if she has other children and is taking them into consideration. It just seems that God would work out the situation. He would either provide for the children's needs, or save the mother. If the mother is being obedient to God, and not taking a life, it would seem that God would honor that.

If it is God who opens the womb, then He knows exactly what is going on. He has promised that all things work to the good of those that love Him. He knew before He opened it what would happen.

I do think however, that the situation is drastically changed if the mother has no other children to provide for. It becomes a lot more obvious, at least to me, what should be done.
God bless,
Derek

Post by **_Paidion** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:15 pm

Continuing with the woman's pregnancy may kill her, but there is no certainty. It is not unambiguous. And it wouldn't be a premeditated, purposeful killing of her as it would the fetus. She may pull through. In situations like that I would get down on my knees and pray for her deliverance rather than take matters into my own hands.

If it were fairly obvious that she would die, then if we do nothing, it is equivalent to favouring her death over that of the child. To do so is not necessarily "taking matters into my own hands". God may be directing me to do this.

Was Terri Shiavo "purposely killed" when she was deprived of all food and water until she died? Did the prayers of thousands of people prevent her death?

If we refuse to work, but instead pray and trust God to provide, we are likely to suffer for lack of basic necessities.

I have no doubt that God sometimes performs miracles of intervention. But it is not often. He expects us to use the brains He has given us.