Abortion - Should There Ever Be Exceptions?

Post by **_AARONDISNEY** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:40 am

I have often stated that I do not believe in abortion at all. Doesn't matter what. That's when people say "Well, what if the mother was raped and the child is the baby of a rapist and the mother will have to live with this constant reminder of such a horrible event?"
That is truly a troubling thing to even have to think about. It would be absolute misery to have to go through that and be reminded of it by a growing belly. And I could even understand the affection that should be due to the baby not being there.

But I would still advocate seeing it through and at least putting the baby up for adoption. This would also be the painful choice I would want to make if my wife were to have to go through that. It isn't an easy choice. But to punish a child for the act of an idiot he had nothing to do with is not logical.

THere are also arguement for the life of the mother which is even trickier.

What are some other thoughts on this?

Post by **_Paidion** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:49 pm

I see only one exception ---- that's when the mother's life is in serious danger. However, with today's medical expertise, that is seldom the case.

Post by **_Allyn** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:43 pm

I agree with both of you. I am in a unique position to talk about such things. Before I ever met my wife and before she got saved, my wife had two abortions, something she has to live with in rememberence for the rest of her life. On the other hand, we have two adopted children and one naturally through our marriage. Having the adopted children was as much a test of affection (family connection) as I would think anything could be. Its not a question of love because I love both kids as much as I love my natural born child but there still is in fact a difference. They don't look like me, they don't have those small attributes passed down through genes, and so on; but what they do have is my love and my wifes. We chose them and they are a part of our family as much as any of us are. It is because we chose to make this work.

Now I know this illustration is a far cry from a baby born out of rape but the choice to go through with a pregnancy and then keep the child is no more a step of faith then there is in raising adopted children. I totally believe that God blesses such parents and that in itself is a worthwhile outcome.

Post by **_Derek** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:35 pm

Paidion wrote:I see only one exception ---- that's when the mother's life is in serious danger. However, with today's medical expertise, that is seldom the case.

Hey Paidion,
Even if the wife's life is in danger, wouldn't this be a selfish act? It would seem that the more Christlike thing would be to give her life so that the baby could live. Are you deriving your opinion on this topic from scripture?

Of course this is easy for me to say, because I am not in the shoes of the dying mother, but in my opinion it would seem selfish to kill the child to save her own life. I suppose if the child was 2 and it was a matter of her living or the child living, she would die so the child could live. At least to me that seems to be what most parents would do. What is the difference?
God bless,
Derek

Post by **_Anonymous** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:40 pm

Well thanks, AARONDISNEY, for making me think about abortion all day. It's not something I like to think about often.

I don't think abortion is justified in cases of rape. I had an argument all ready to post on here with what non-christian pro-lifers thought...but then I realized I don't know what they think. So I went on a google search to find out. I was wrong.

Anyway, I think that if it was me that was raped and became pregnant, I would keep and raise the baby. Frankly I've given everything to Christ, including my body, so if he wanted me to have a baby conceived in such a disgusting way, so be it. This I say having never been raped and far enough along in years not to have to worry about pregnancy. I think that's what I would have thought a few years ago, too.

I found something interesting when I was searching. I found a study, done over 25 years ago, which claims to be the only major study ever done on victims of rape who become pregnant. They found that 75 -85 percent of the women would NOT choose abortion. Here are the 4 reasons they believe this was true:

First, most women do not want to have abortions anyway. According to the article I read, 70% of all women believe abortion is immoral. These women believed that abortion would be yet another act of violence against their bodies and their children.

Second, some believed that the child they were carrying had intrinsic value which they had yet to understand. It's the belief that God can take what was meant for evil and make it good.

Third, was that after a traumatic experience such as rape, a victim often feels more attracted to life. The idea of turning on and destroying an innocent, such as their yet to be born child, is repugnant.

Finally some of the women believed that if they could get through the pregnancy and birth, they were "conquering" the rape. Giving birth is impowering and some of the women were looking for that impowerment.

Being raped must be a hard thing to get over. Abortion is a hard thing to live with. I don't think they cancel each other out; they magnify and add sorrow to pain.

Edited to add: I was only kidding at the beginning of this post, AARONDISNEY. It was interesting looking into this. Well, except for the gross descriptions of abortions I kept finding.

Post by **_Anonymous** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:43 pm

Derek wrote:
Paidion wrote:I see only one exception ---- that's when the mother's life is in serious danger. However, with today's medical expertise, that is seldom the case.
Hey Paidion,
Even if the wife's life is in danger, wouldn't this be a selfish act? It would seem that the more Christlike thing would be to give her life so that the baby could live. Are you deriving your opinion on this topic from scripture?

Of course this is easy for me to say, because I am not in the shoes of the dying mother, but in my opinion it would seem selfish to kill the child to save her own life. I suppose if the child was 2 and it was a matter of her living or the child living, she would die so the child could live. At least to me that seems to be what most parents would do. What is the difference?
God bless,
Derek

Hi Derek,
I guess you got this in there while I was typing my reply. Speaking as a mother whose children are adults, I would still give up my life for theirs if I could.

Post by **_Steve** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:36 am

The only case I can imagine in which I would see abortion as an option would be in that of a tubal pregnancy. Abortion indeed kills an innocent baby in this case as in others, but there is no option of saving the baby by the sacrifice of the mother's life. Without the abortion, mother and baby will both die. With it, the mother alone lives.

Some might reasonably feel, as Christians, that they should leave the whole matter, in such a case, in God's hands. Rather than kill a baby to save a mother's life, they would say, both lives must be left to the disposition of the providence of God.

I would understand the reasoning of the Christian woman who made this decision, but I might be more inclined, in such a case, to say, "God has already decided the child will die, since it cannot survive this kind of pregnancy. The choice of abortion is not man's decision to end the life of a child (which God's providence has already decided), but it is a decision to save the life of the mother (which God's providence has apparently made available as an option)."

There may be a side of this that I am not seeing. I have always considered this particular case to be challenging.

Post by **_Paidion** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:14 pm

Derek
I suppose if the child was 2 and it was a matter of her living or the child living, she would die so the child could live. At least to me that seems to be what most parents would do. What is the difference?

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. 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? 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?

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?

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?

Do we really regard it the same? If your wife lost a zygote, would you mourn it, and have a funeral for it? How about a month-old foetus?

As I see it, it's a spectrum. The further along the foetus, the worse it is to abort it. This is obvious with the worst form of "abortion" that is practised today, the so-called "partial-birth abortion." This is not really an "abortion" at all; it is infanticide. Shortly before the child is due to be born, it is turned in the womb, and the body is brought out except for the head. If I remember right, the head is torn off and/or vacuumed out at that point. Even persons who normally approve of abortions are repulsed by, and horrified with, this "medical" procedure.

I have strayed from your original question. When it comes to choosing between saving a mother's life and that of her unborn infant, I think the moral choice is to save the mother. We may not want to admit that the mother's life is "more valuable", but it is. She is the significant person in her husband's life, and her other children's lives (if she has other children). The unborn baby is not as significant for what it is, but is significant for what it shall be.

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".

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?

Post by **_Anonymous** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:51 pm

Aacckk! My eyes! Why, WHY, WHY does there always have to be a description?

Post by **_Homer** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:55 pm

If the parent should die for the unborn, or as we would all probably agree, die for a two-year old, how is it that all Christians aren't pacificist? How can we support our teenagers giving their lives for us? When our grandaughter was critically ill and almost died at 14, I would have gladly taken her place. I can't imagine her dying for me.

But I do agree with Paidion"s sentiments regarding the life of the mother. Ironic.