|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:11 pm
 |
|
|
 |
The Lady Who Knows I also REALLY like how NO ONE disputes why children who are products of incest are an allowed restriction.
I had not brought up the issue of incest because I support abortion being available for any reason. There is no (religious) justification to allow abortion in the case or rape (or incest) but not in other cases. Either abortion is a sin regardless, or abortion is not a sin. It is absurd to try to have it both ways.
That said, the risks of incest are greatly exaggerated.
The Lady Who Knows I can say that if someone can't afford their child, then they should go through with adoption, not have an abortion to "get rid of the expense".
An abortion is far cheaper than going through with the pregnancy, only to give the baby up for adoption. Not only is it cheaper for medical costs, it is also cheaper in that a pregnant woman can lose out on financial opportunities (through not working, or the like). If a family is bordering on poverty, the costs of the pregnancy could be devastating for their family.
The Lady Who Knows Obviously though, God wanted this child to be born, along with every other child.
There is nothing obvious about this at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:29 pm
|
|
|
|
The Lady Who Knows I also REALLY like how NO ONE disputes why children who are products of incest are an allowed restriction.
Honestly, I think that if someone is silly enough to sleep with a relative and not take precautions, that's their own fault.
Although... murder is a sin... except in self-defense. Theft is a sin... but what if you and your family are starving? There are times in this world where what's sinful crosses the line of what's the right thing to do.
zz1000zz An abortion is far cheaper than going through with the pregnancy, only to give the baby up for adoption. Not only is it cheaper for medical costs, it is also cheaper in that a pregnant woman can lose out on financial opportunities (through not working, or the like). If a family is bordering on poverty, the costs of the pregnancy could be devastating for their family.
Except that welfare is in love with pregnant mothers, and there are so many programs out there to help with medical costs, baby food, diapers and things that it's no wonder so many women choose to keep having MORE children so they don't have to work. Maybe everyone who doesn't want their child should just give it over to the welfare moms. *seethes* Sorry, those people make me so angry.
And just because an abortion is cheaper financially, what about the burden on the woman, or even the father, who has just killed a baby. I'd rather be out some money than have that psychological scar.
zz1000zz The Lady Who Knows Obviously though, God wanted this child to be born, along with every other child. There is nothing obvious about this at all.
I believe she's saying that if God hadn't wanted the couple in your example to have another child, it wouldn't have happened. That "you will be given no more than you can bear" and God ALLOWED the pregnancy to happen rather than it be an accident. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:05 pm
|
|
|
|
Xandris zz1000zz An abortion is far cheaper than going through with the pregnancy, only to give the baby up for adoption. Not only is it cheaper for medical costs, it is also cheaper in that a pregnant woman can lose out on financial opportunities (through not working, or the like). If a family is bordering on poverty, the costs of the pregnancy could be devastating for their family. Except that welfare is in love with pregnant mothers, and there are so many programs out there to help with medical costs, baby food, diapers and things that it's no wonder so many women choose to keep having MORE children so they don't have to work. Maybe everyone who doesn't want their child should just give it over to the welfare moms. *seethes* Sorry, those people make me so angry. And just because an abortion is cheaper financially, what about the burden on the woman, or even the father, who has just killed a baby. I'd rather be out some money than have that psychological scar.
In some cases what you discussed is true, but in other cases it is not. It is not a situation which can be summarized easily. As for the consequences of the abortion, those are legitimate concerns for the parents involved.
Xandris I believe she's saying that if God hadn't wanted the couple in your example to have another child, it wouldn't have happened. That "you will be given no more than you can bear" and God ALLOWED the pregnancy to happen rather than it be an accident.
I would assume she meant that, but it makes no sense. The same logic could be used to say cancer should not be treated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:46 pm
|
|
|
|
Except that babies aren't cancer (regardless of the fact that early pregnancy abortions are treated as such- that RU whatever pill stops cell division and is often given to cancer patients). If you treat cancer, you're treating a deadly disease that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, and will never be anything more than that. If you "treat" a baby (or fetus, whatever you want to call it), then you're destroying something that holds all the coding to become a human being, and generally isn't deadly, at least not in most First World countries.
The only reason I don't mention incest as an exception is because, like zz said, the effects of incest are exaggerated, and it's not really traumatizing to anyone besides, maybe, the family members of the couple, and their friends. confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:54 pm
|
|
|
|
Fushigi na Butterfly Except that babies aren't cancer (regardless of the fact that early pregnancy abortions are treated as such- that RU whatever pill stops cell division and is often given to cancer patients). If you treat cancer, you're treating a deadly disease that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, and will never be anything more than that. If you "treat" a baby (or fetus, whatever you want to call it), then you're destroying something that holds all the coding to become a human being, and generally isn't deadly, at least not in most First World countries.
Why should it be different though? If you decide killing a fetus is wrong because "God wanted it there," how is it different to kill cancer cells? If God wanted the baby there, how do you say he did not want the cancer there? How do you justify using antibiotics, since didn't God want the infection to be there?
Naturally I do not believe in any of that. I was just attempting to show how ridiculous the position offered by The Lady Who Knows is. Perhaps you can make an argument to suggest God is opposed to abortions (though I do not know how you would), but saying "God let the conception happen so obviously he wants the baby born" is absurd. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:20 pm
|
|
|
|
zz1000zz Fushigi na Butterfly Except that babies aren't cancer (regardless of the fact that early pregnancy abortions are treated as such- that RU whatever pill stops cell division and is often given to cancer patients). If you treat cancer, you're treating a deadly disease that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, and will never be anything more than that. If you "treat" a baby (or fetus, whatever you want to call it), then you're destroying something that holds all the coding to become a human being, and generally isn't deadly, at least not in most First World countries. Why should it be different though? If you decide killing a fetus is wrong because "God wanted it there," how is it different to kill cancer cells? If God wanted the baby there, how do you say he did not want the cancer there? How do you justify using antibiotics, since didn't God want the infection to be there? Naturally I do not believe in any of that. I was just attempting to show how ridiculous the position offered by The Lady Who Knows is. Perhaps you can make an argument to suggest God is opposed to abortions (though I do not know how you would), but saying "God let the conception happen so obviously he wants the baby born" is absurd.
All God wants is for us to see Him in all of our situations, whether they be good or bad. Whether He wanted the baby (or cancer) there is not up for debate- if it was against His will, it wouldn't have happened (though wanting something to happen and allowing it to happen are easily two separate things, so my point may be a little moot here). However, to judge why He wanted it there is another matter entirely. We do know this, however: that in all things, God works for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28 ). If God allowed a couple to get pregnant in spite of their efforts not to, there is likely a plan, some point God is trying to make. Probably that He is sovereign above all things, and that, as hard as we try, we can't always control every aspect of our lives. However, life is still life, and we know God has a purpose. To destroy a person before they are even a person, before they have had a chance to fulfill that purpose, seems to me to be taking God out of the picture- destroying His plan (though we know that couldn't happen- it's the principle of the thing). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:49 am
|
|
|
|
zz1000zz If a couple is desperately trying to have children, but they cannot, do we say it is because God planned for them not to?
Yes. Yes we do. Or, at least I do. xd
Anyhow. My point through this whole thread has been I don't think God approves of abortion. He knew us before we were created, and we're all created for a reason, even knowing that some of his beloved little children would never get to see life. Perhaps abortion isn't technically a sin, but it's the wrong thing to do most of the time. Like every other moral choice, there comes a time when the area all around you is gray, and either choice you can make has long-lasting consequences. Life isn't black and white, and application of the rules can't be either. It's absurd to say that abortion is either a sin or it's not and that's the end of it, period. We bend the definition of commandments written in stone, and yet feel like this issue, something we're not even clear on, must be an absolute. God knows all about the gray areas, foresaw them coming, and I think understands, if not approve, of our decisions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:10 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:58 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:08 pm
|
|
|
|
Xandris zz1000zz This is why you and I will not be able to agree then. "Never compromise." Then I absolutely, wholeheartedly hope that you learn to bend before you break.
People only say, "Learn to bend before you break" because they are too much of pansies to actually hold a belief.
Right is right. Wrong is wrong. This p***y-footing about is what disgusts me the most about the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:40 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:46 pm
|
|
|
|
Ixor-san There was no threat. It was friendly advice.
The nature of any ultimatum is to carry a threat. By saying, "Learn to bend before you break," you carry the message, "If you do not bend, you will break, " which is just the ultimatum, "Bend or break."
It may not have been your intention, but it is what you conveyed.
Ixor-san But, no one knows better than you, so, we beg your pardon.
I do not know what you mean by this. It sounds like sarcasm, but I am not going to assume anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
