Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pro-choice pastor: Churches must “lead charge” against abortion stigma
Jill Stanek ^ | Jill Stanek

Posted on 02/04/2013 5:17:46 PM PST by Morgana

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last
To: Morgana

Wolf, meet sheep suit.


21 posted on 02/05/2013 4:44:42 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: exDemMom
"I did not commit murder by using measures to avoid getting pregnant again. "

Depending on the type of contraception, maybe you didn't maybe you did.

While a lot of people apparently don't know the facts, the most commonly used contraceptives do regularly kill an already formed infant by keeping it from attaching and remaining in the womb. The failure to keep fertilization from happening in the first place is common enough that every year at least twice as many** infants die due to contraceptive caused miscarrage at a very early date as do from abortions.

Until the 1930s, every Christian church, not just Catholic Church, taught that contraception was a sin even if they did not fully agree with the same strict definitions and standards the Catholic Church has always taught. Now, the Catholic Church is almost alone in teaching against all forms of contraception although with Jerry Falwell leading the way, in the early eighties the SBC did make it clear that Southern Baptists should only rely on contraceptives that prevent fertilization, not those that prevent an already conceived infant from remaining in the womb

Catholic teach what they've taught for two thousand years, but non-Catholics Christians need to ask themself a couple of simple questions. First, was their church was being led by the Scripture and Holy Spirit for the hundreds of years between Luther and the 1930s, or are they being led by Scripture and the Holy Spirit now that they teach the exact opposite. Second, when contraception methods are avilable that are just as effective and not abortifacient, how can they justify using methods that actually do kill already cnceived infants.

** "If Christian couples in your church are using the following listed “birth control” chemicals or devices, you can be certain that conceived human beings – as precious in God’s eyes as you or I – are dying in your congregation. “The Pill,” Norplant, Depo-Provera, and the IUD are commonly used “birth control” methods by women in the world and the church alike. These chemicals are known to be abortifacient drugs. They allow for a phenomenon known “break through ovulation.” Instead of “preventing pregnancy,” these drugs often allow fertilization. At that moment, a human being is conceived. The drugs then make the woman’s womb hostile to that child. Instead of implanting and growing, the child is rejected and starved – she or he dies and is expelled.

By these methods, an estimated 10 million children die each year in the U.S.!"

From http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/000362.php

23 posted on 02/05/2013 8:25:19 AM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
Depending on the type of contraception, maybe you didn't maybe you did.

While a lot of people apparently don't know the facts, the most commonly used contraceptives do regularly kill an already formed infant by keeping it from attaching and remaining in the womb. The failure to keep fertilization from happening in the first place is common enough that every year at least twice as many** infants die due to contraceptive caused miscarrage at a very early date as do from abortions.

Let's look at some scientific facts here.

1) A fertilized ovum has a very small chance of surviving until implanting. It has, at most, a 25% chance of implanting. Even if it does implant, it still has about a 30% chance of dying. The woman will never know that an ovum was fertilized.

2) At the time of implantation, the fertilized ovum consists of fewer than 200 cells (actually, about 150). This is not enough cells to form any kind of structure. There are no organs, no nervous system, nothing to distinguish that clump of cells from any other clump of cells (and due to my background in medical research, I see a *lot* of clumps of cells). It does not have the physical capability of being aware of anything--it cannot know it's alive.

3) The nervous system begins to form at around 3 weeks post-fertilization. At that point, I'd say we have every obligation to protect that life, because it now has the physical ability to be aware and feel.

I won't conflate an embryo who has all of his/her organs and a functional nervous system with a fertilized egg. If that egg doesn't implant, pregnancy does not occur. I have no problem with that.

24 posted on 02/05/2013 5:59:10 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Thank you for a reasonable and plainly stated post.

I can see how you would distinguish between an abortifacient drug or device (e.g. one of the hormonal contraceptives) and one which is not abortifacient (such as a condom.) It is a real distinction.

However, from a Biblical point of view, it should be pondered that there is only once in Scripture where a person performs a contracepted sexual act (the sin of Onan) -- and it is clearly condemned ("And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of the LORD; and He slew him also." - Gen 38:10)

"The thing which he did" was a sexual act intentionally turned against procreation.

Moreover, all Christian churches understood it this way until 1930, when the Anglican Church became the first (and at that time, only) Christian church to OK contraception. At that point, you have to say either ALL the other Christians throught history were ALL wrong about how to interpret the Bible for 1900+ years, and only got it right in 1930; or you have to say, hmm, this is strong circumstantial evidence that the Anglicans were abandoning Biblical influences, and conforming to cultural ones.

I would give you a more detiled Biblical and Natural Law argument to ponder, but it's bedtime for me. Good night to you, Citizen, and God bless.

25 posted on 02/05/2013 7:09:09 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (C'est la vie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
You are quite right that non-abortive contraception is not murder. However, murder isn't the only sin; there are other things to consider. This may be of some interest to you: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2985328/posts?page=25#25

Thanks, good night.

26 posted on 02/05/2013 7:14:36 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (C'est la vie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson