Why did you take it personally? Perhaps because you promote the words of doctors instead of God's Word? Big Pharma is as corrupt as Politics! This is supposed to be a Christian forum. You should be promoting God's Word, the Bible.
The right to abort. The right to ask for the aborted to be adopted instead. These are the same thing!
- Thread starter Gottservant
- 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!
Last post because I can see you are desperate to prove me wrong.
I didn't take it personally. I literally pointed out what you have done wrong. I could care less what some random guy named Jack on a forum says about me. He, meaning you, is not God. God's opinion of me is what matters to me and God's opinion of me is just fine.
I'm trying to give women true help, God's Word, not the words of doctors who get rich from abortions, even if the patient dies.
Last edited:
Okay. This is the last post. I promise.
The video is of a healthy fetus. One that will be brought to term. Which happens the majority of the time. I should know, I have seven children.
However, sometimes, the fetus isn't healthy and can result in killing the mother if surgical intervention isn't performed. These are the abortions that I support. These are the abortions where if one isn't performed, both the child inside which will die anyway and the mother will die. Both of them do not need to die. I am for saving the life of the mother when the fetus will die anyway. There don't need to be two deaths.
I have seen these instances as I have spent almost 20 years in an ambulance as an EMT and having done time in an ER for clinicals. I have transported those mothers who needed surgical intervention in the form of an abortion because their pregnancy was killing them. It is heart-wrenching. Not just for the mother and her family, but also for us first responders, nurses, and doctors. We went everyone to live, but we do know that death is a part of life. So, not everyone lives. Surgical intervention can and does save the life of the mother. If the fetus is past the point of viability, then the fetus can be saved as well. If not, then the hospital will do what it can. They don't go into it thinking they are going to abort, but if that is the only option, they will suggest that. Again, I have been there. I have seen these situations play out.
I will always support abortions for medical reasons. I will not support abortions for birth control reasons.
I think I have made myself completely clear on my stance and my reasoning. There has been much prayer involved as well. When I receive the peace that surpasses all understanding when praying about medical abortions and my stance on them, I know that I am in the right because only God gives us that peace.
I spoke to this in the very post you quoted, TinMan. If the infant dies in utero, I would submit that that's not really an abortion, per se... or at the very least that the abortion would not kill the child because he/she is already dead. And, yes, that procedure may in fact, in that case, be medically necessary, but even if not, I would wholly support any decision for any reason to surgically remove a dead child from the woman's womb. That's a whole different discussion, one in which I think we would all be on the same page.
Grace and peace to you, TinMan.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Grace and peace? Is that what your writing "that's absurd and ridiculous. On the contrary, it is propaganda" implies?
"Medical science has progressed to the point where an abortion is never necessary to preserve the life or the health of the mother" is 100% untrue. Do a little research, for example, on ectopic pregnancies.
Claiming that "It might be surprising to many to learn the percentage of pregnant women who have miscarriages who then choose to go on with the pregnancy and actually give birth to a still-born child" clearly shows that you have no idea what you're writing about. A miscarriage is "the expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently, especially spontaneously or as the result of accident."
And a placenta is not a carcass! It is an organ in that nourishes the fetus through the umbilical cord.
If you want to discuss medical issues you should at least learn the fundamentals of the topic that you're discussing!
Your assertion (assertions) is what it is (are what they are). Plus, what you said regarding the assertions of me and others here in this thread ~ pretty much those exact words ~ actually applies to yours (and those of others). We will agree to disagree on that, I'm sure.
In... your opinion. Understood. But such has been stated, and not just by me here:
“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life.” (Alan Guttmacher. “Abortion Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.” The Case for Legalized Abortion Now (Berkeley, California: Diablo Books), 1967, page 3)
“The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.” (Everett Koop, M.D., former U.S. Surgeon General. “How Often is Abortion Necessary to ‘Save the Life of the Mother’?” October 19, 2012)
“The situation where the mother’s life is at stake were she to continue a pregnancy is no longer a clinical reality. Given the state of modern medicine, we can now manage any pregnant woman with any medical affliction successfully, to the natural conclusion of the pregnancy: The birth of a healthy child.” (Bernard Nathanson, M.D. Written statement to the Idaho House of Representatives’ State Affairs Committee, 16 February 1990. Also quoted in “Exceptions: Abandoning ‘The Least of These My Brethren.'” American Life League booklet, 1991, page 22)
On top of what I said, though, Jim, "medically necessary to preserve the life or the health of the mother" is very ambiguous and terribly subjective ~ to the point that it can mean just about anything, and intentionally so.
Do you somehow think that a pregnancy in which the child (fetus) develops outside the uterus (in a fallopian tube) is a common occurrence or anywhere close to it? Only about 1-2% of pregnancies are ectopic, thankfully. Further, though, ectopic pregnancy is a very objective thing, and I would support removal of the embryo in that particular situation; we would agree on that, I think. But using that to expand to an all-encompassing degree ~ covering all pregnancy difficulties ~ is a problem. To that point, the recent Supreme Court decision, while generally speaking a good, even great, thing, is having unintended consequences, and this particular point is one of them.
I don't think you understand me correctly. Induced labor is a treatment option in many cases. Your next statement regarding miscarriage leads me into this; read on.
Well, really rejection, rather than a true expulsion; the mother's womb is no longer able to support the child. Certainly a tragedy, although thankfully rare. The only thing I ever meant to convey was the death of the child before birth, and thus, ultimately, a still-born child. And, one of the treatments in such a case is induced labor, as I said. If the baby dies at least 14 weeks into the pregnancy, while many women would not prefer this option, it is actually safer than an operation to remove the deceased child. Generally speaking, no surgery (not going under the knife, so to speak) is always safer than... surgery (going under the knife).
Sure. The placenta contains the child during pregnancy. I do not confuse or conflate the two.
LOL! I'll let this one go...
Grace and peace to you, Jim.
TinMan
Well-Known Member
The medical definition of an abortion is "the removal of pregnancy tissue, products of conception or the fetus and placenta (afterbirth) from the uterus."
Sadly local right to life groups were not on the same page at all and when it was learned she was being sent to the hospital for a late term abortion protestors gathered outside the hospital.
TinMan
Well-Known Member
Well, that's all well and good, but surely you understand my point above.
If that's the case, then yes, I agree. Perhaps it was not clear to them that the baby was already dead. Or, perhaps to them, that didn't matter and it had become a matter of principle, and I would take issue with that. In my opinion, at that point, there is nothing to argue or protest, because there is no life to protect, as I said.
Well that's only one of the three quotes I cited, but does time make a difference? What was true then is true now, especially more than 50 years later. With this, you're really making the opposite point you seem to be wanting to make, here, TinMan. Surely you're not suggesting that medical science has regressed, and that what was medically possible half a century ago is no longer medically possible. Right?
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
Medical reasons? You mean the word of doctors who get rich doing abortions. Why aren't you giving Biblical advice? Isn't this a Christian forum? Doctors are wrong many, many times! They are Big Pharma puppets. Aren't you? Abortion is GENOCIDE on my race! Population control. FYI I am not white.
"A recent Johns Hopkins study claims more than 250,000 people in the U.S. die every year from medical errors. Other reports claim the numbers to be as high as 440,000."
The third-leading cause of death in US most doctors don't want you to know about
More than 250,000 people in the US die every year because of medical mistakes, making it the third-leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer.
Last edited:
210 Democrats vote against bill requiring medical care for babies born alive after abortion attempt
Nearly every House Democrat on Wednesday voted against legislation to require medical care for infants who are born alive after an attempted abortion.Partial birth abortion coming soon folks, if the Dems have their ways!
mailmandan
Well-Known Member
FBI Agents Show Up at Childhood Home of Pro-Life Activist (VIDEO)
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...at-childhood-home-of-pro-life-activist-video/
Some people are beginning to refer to the FBI as the "Fascist Bureau of Intimidation."
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...at-childhood-home-of-pro-life-activist-video/
Some people are beginning to refer to the FBI as the "Fascist Bureau of Intimidation."
pleaseforgiveme
Member
Stan B
Well-Known Member
That is the Biblical perspective!! Not many people on this forum believe the Bible.
Last edited:
That is patently against the right, of anyone else to adopt.
pleaseforgiveme
Member
The Old Testament is a collection of books written by different people at different times. You can believe parts of it or all of it.
I personally believe there is something to learn from it and some things you wish you did not know.
Israel was a person, not a place.
-
Behold
Well-Known Member
Regarding single women, 13-46 ys old....... who love to fornicate.
Why should the baby have to die to give her that "right"?
Also, how many abortions , per her "right to abort" is too many?
Should her right to kill the baby in her womb be limited to no more than 20 times, or should it be less than 40 times? (up to 39 Babies).
At what point does the politically corrected sheep realize that the unmarried woman's "right to abort"...(habitually fornicate without consequence to herself) .= is using the "abortion industry'... as "Post SEX" contraception ?
Last edited:
Similar threads
