Posted on 03/29/2006 10:31:42 AM PST by ladyshealth
Whether she has committed murder is between her and God, I do not think that society could reasonably make this judgement or intervene, as there is no way to know someone's motives for what they do.
But if you want a line, I would certainly draw it where a health professional assists in the process- then clear intent is established on both sides (the woman and the health care provider)
I will be perfect in heaven and perfectly developed. If God can do this for me, why not a fertilized embryo?
Not every time, they don't. Are you saying that the manipulation of hormone levels inherent in taking the Pill does not have an adverse effect on the ability to sustain an accidental pregnancy?
Good.
it would bother me if God chose to have the majority of those he created in his image never come close to achieving that image or developing the ability to have even the tiniest understanding of his blessing to us all.
You think we need to walk around on earth for some minimum number of days in order for God to be able to communicate to us His blessing?
Do you think, perhaps, that they remain forever as a few-celled organism in Heaven? It would make more sense that they would attain whatever glorified human body the rest of those who attain Heaven obtain.
Certainly I can understand your apprehension if you think they will be forever a clump of cells.
And I've never seen anything indicating that this is his plan, in the text of the Bible or in the various interpretations of it.
We're allowed to learn of God from His design of nature.
If you are unsure when new lives are ensouled, wouldn't it be prudent to assume they are at the earliest point, lacking any special revelation to the contrary?
SD
And to think, the reason for the debate in the first place, this new form of abortion was created for the most part so that people can have the freedom to make immoral choices without ties or consequences. It's all about me, me, me, me...Unfortunately, I think most will wake up one day with one question on their mind: "what have I done?" So sad.
They possibly could, but I know plenty of babies who were conceived on the pill that are alive and well, so it is not the primary effect of the medication, nor the intent of its use.
Intent is an element of every murder case, and is a judgment made by society day in and day out.
But, if I understand what you are saying, if a woman goes on the internet and finds a natural abortofacient and takes it, preventing or ending her pregnancy, that is somehow better than if she involves a doctor in the process?
I don't know why I ever expect to see consistency in these discussions.
For some individuals that could be the case to the point they are barren or are barren for other reasons.
If you study history and certain family lines, it almost appears as if children appeared right on schedule every two years or less. That would indicate that very few fertilized eggs don't implant, at least with some. The "gaps" are usually for babies who were born near or at full term but didn't survive because infant mortality was so much higher. Some people get pregnant extremely easily.
I'm trying to figure out why such a high percentage of women have trouble conceiving and carrying to full term. By no means am I implying that it is in any way the fault of the mother. Is it something peculiar to our times or has it always been this way?
I don't see "viability of future life" as being a determinant of life. Someone is either alive or not.
Aren't cells dividing? Can't a person come out of a coma?
"Statistics" and "potential" cannot ever be a determinant of what is life.
Not at all, she is knowingly and actively doing something to prevent life
I think where you see inconsistency is between the legal and moral choice. I think a woman who drinks with intent of ending a pregnancy is guilty, I just don't see a practical way of legislating a legal solution, as I certainly don't have insights into another's motives. I merely meant in that situation a just God will have the final say. (as in all situations)
I think it has always been this way, Rachel was barren for many years before God had mercy on her and opened her womb. There are some answers we will not have until we see Christ face to face and no longer see through a glass darkly.
I am content to trust God and hold my questions for Him, trusting in his perfect holiness, mercy and grace.
However, the Bible is consistent on not having sex outside of marriage.
If allowance for "a fallen world" is given for condoms and birth control pills, why only stop there? This, at least, is where the Catholic church is consistent (but I don't agree with the position against birth control).
>>Yes, I prescribe birth control pills. They prevent ovulation and hence prevent conception. There is no destruction of life already conceived.
You should check what you prescribe.. Many pills work in the same manner as emergency contraception -- they try to prevent ovulation, and fertilization has occurred, they attempt to prevent implantation.
There is no clear direction in the Bible about birth control
I choose to draw the line between the act of preventing a pregnancy and the act of intentionally destroying a fertilized embryo.
Where the Bible is silent, everyone must follow their conscience. I do not condemn the Catholic church for their position, but it is not mine.
Where the Bible is clear, anyone who is a Christian is mandated to follow Gods word. Where it is not, disagreement legitimely occurs.
When taken according to directions, the understood mechanism and the primary mechanism of preventing pregnancy is the prevention of ovulation.
My best friend's grandson is a pill baby, and suffered no harm from his mom taking the pill during his early stages.
(But I will continue to follow and evaluate as the literature becomes available, we are always learning more and I am not opposed to re-evaluating medications/therapies based on new understandings)
Of course, none of us knows for sure, but it is interesting. Something happened in my family with my three children that indicates they may survive and grow to maturity in another world.
It probably sounds crazy, but I will share it anyway in as brief a manner as possible. My girlfriend told me that if you got pregnant, violent exercise would cause a miscarriage (not always so). I believe I got pregnant in college, was late and did violent exercise and had a very hard menses a week or two late (I was always right on schedule). It was most painful but I shrugged it off and forgot about it, never thought I might be actually having a miscarriage at the time. Later I married the man.
Many, many years later after I was divorced, I had three children by the same father, and always had wanted four. First I had a strange dream and didn't share it with anyone about someone "missing" from my immediate family coming to our family home at the time. Then my oldest had a dream where she had an older brother and told me about it. I didn't tell the other two. Then the middle child dreamed about her "brother" and described him as having dark hair (like her). I didn't tell my son. Then he had a dream of his "brother" standing in our dining room with a neighbor boy who had been killed in an accident not too long before.
It was eerie the way it unfolded. I am mostly at peace about it now, but think I carried hidden guilt of my intent for years, whether it was actually factual or not. I wouldn't have actively sought out an abortion because it just wansn't done then, would have fessed up to my parents and may or not have gotten married quickly as most did then.
I do remember reading a book called "Healing the Family Tree" and thinking about it a lot (can't remember the author without googling it, a minister of some kind in England), didn't necessarily buy into all the theology but it made me think. The thesis was children who were born after an abortion that was not repented or born after a miscarriage somehow "knew" about the missing sibling and many developed behaviorial problems. It's just a thesis, but worth thinking about.
How do you know you didn't? I mean, if we really looked into it, maybe we would. Take yourself out of it. Let's say a woman has a miscarriage while playing rugby, or bowling, or swimming. Why shouldn't she be held resonsible? Going by the logic of the pro-lifers, it only makes sense. I'm sorry for your loss, but the original poster is just asking for consistency on the part of pro-lifers.
there is a huge difference between someone dying versus someone growing who, without intervention, would develop just fine.
in one case you have to intervene to keep them alive, in the other you have to intervene to keep them from living.
there is no relationship between the two other than a very awkward attempt at a strange justification for allowing abortions up to some arbitrary and abstractly defined date.
Maybe some of the answers are out there but we don't see them. In any case, unless it is unrepented sin, I agree with you wholeheartedly and didn't like that other poster jumping on you.
I'm glad I don't have to make the call about prescribing birth control. I have come to believe that it, too, acts as an abortifacient sometimes. This is coming from one who took the pill for a short time (never felt right about it but mostly for health reasons as the dosage was different then and had an IUD for a few years).
It's a difficult issue for me on many levels, and I'm not jumping on you for it.
Thank you for sharing your story. My wife has had dreams where the baby girl we lost at 12 weeks appeared.
SD
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.