Hospitals get paid to murder babies. Christian don't defend that.
You're defending the baby murdering industry. Let the babies live. Let the women repent.
Abortion
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I am a Christian and support abortions when the life of the mother is at risk.
I am defending medical abortions, not the abortion industry. There is a difference.
Still avoiding my questions.
Nope, if the pregnancy is killing the mother, they both die. Do you not understand that?
A Christian lady does not value her life over her baby's! Why are you??? Would you give your life for your baby?
It is not propaganda and does happen. Just because you don't think that it happens doesn't make it propaganda.
I gave you several reasons for medical abortions to save the life of the mother. It wasn't propaganda, but real-life conditions that can happen during pregnancies.
We all know that abortion is birth control and Planned Parenthood gets filthy rich! Christians don't MURDER babies to save their own lives! Would you kill your baby to save your life?
Not all abortions are birth control, and I have said repeatedly that I am against abortion for birth control purposes. Christian mothers would have an abortion to save their life when there is no viability for the fetus. Why should both die?
ButterflyJones
Well-Known Member
Abortion itself is in scripture. As is infanticide. By God's order, so the act of abortion,and infanticide, being scripture and by Gods order is able to be found in scripture. If that's your point.
If the fetus was killing me and it is a choice between me dying or both dying, if I was a woman I would have an abortion.
Why should both die when one can live?
So you would indeed murder your own baby to save your own neck! A Christian would not!
If the fetus was going to die anyway, why should both die? If the fetus is killing the mother and the mother dies, the fetus dies too. Why should both die, when the mother can live?
A Christian would make that choice, especially if that Christian is already a mother and has other children to care for.
You are again dangerously close to breaking the rule on implying or dying that someone is not a Christian.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
The principle of double effect solves the ectopic problem.
The principle of double effect applies:
(1) Your intention is to perform a good—to save the mother’s life by removing her cancerous uterus. The evil effect of causing the death of the baby is not desired. It is a very sad and unfortunate result of the good act.
(2) The evil effect does not cause the good result. You are removing a diseased organ that is killing the mother, not performing an abortion. The baby will die during or shortly after the operation, but the purpose of the operation is not to kill the child.
(3) Two very grave matters must be weighed against each other. Saving one person is better than allowing both to die through inaction, even though it means the death of one.
The Mother’s (Insert Here) Health
The criteria used to determine that this rare choice is morally acceptable are the same criteria that tell us that abortions for “the health of the mother” are immoral. If an abortion is performed to preserve a less-than-life-threatening aspect of the mother’s health, it is simply wrong, by all three criteria of the moral principle of double effect.Although the intention is ostensibly to preserve the health of the mother, all too often the mother’s mental or emotional health—even financial or social health—is invoked to justify the act. In some cases, the doctor may foresee problems arising in a pregnancy that would put the mother at risk.
But regardless of the reason cited, the action taken is the abortion of the child, and the direct intention of that act is death. When an abortion is performed to “preserve the health of the mother,” the abortion is the cause of any perceived benefit to the mother. In other words, an evil is being done to pursue a supposed good, and this is never morally licit. Finally, we must weigh the moral gravity: A grave evil is being done—the direct and intentional killing of an innocent person—to achieve a lesser good. Whether the intended benefit to the mother’s health is small or great, actual or contrived, “good health” can never equal life itself. Abortions performed “for the health of the mother” fail the test on all three counts.
Actual cases where a decision must be made between the mother’s life and the baby’s are rare, but they do occur, and there is always a moral response. Morally mature, ethical doctors are equipped to handle these difficult situations in the rare instances that they arise.
Legislation to regulate these rare occurrences has opened the door to abortion on demand. Statistics bear this out. The National Right to Life Committee reports that 93 percent of abortions are performed for “social reasons,” while the mother’s health is cited in only 3 percent of the cases. (In another 3 percent the baby’s health is cited, and 1 percent cites rape or incest.) “Saving the life of the mother” never came up in the report (www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html).
The principle is simple: The direct killing of an innocent life is a grave evil and is never allowed, but when the mother’s life is in danger, medical ethics have always recognized the principle of double effect. And so has the Catholic Church, which has long protected the life of the mother. In 1907, long before abortion on demand was legal through most of the Western world, the Catholic Encyclopedia included this statement in its article on abortion:
Similar threads
