Log In Sign Up

"Playing God"


Abortion Debate

This forum is for Abortion debate only. If you are highly sensitive about this topic, read at your own discretion.

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Abortion Debate LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #1  
June 29th, 2007, 12:24 AM
Liz Liz is offline
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,381
In these debates I've often seen the term "people shouldn't play God" when speaking of abortion. "God should be the only one to take life."

Over the months, I've reflected much on this statement. If humans are not to use medical science to end a pregnancy because it is playing God and He is the only one that can make such decisions - where should this line be drawn.

By using this theory, IVF and fertility treatments are also, "playing God" as, if He is the only one to take life, He would be the only one to give life. In essence, IVF would be to an abortion as ru-486 would be to fertility drugs (clomid, etc.).

So, one could draw the conclusion - that it would be hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-fertility treatments as both are "playing God" but on different sides of the field.

If medical science is not for use of ending a pregnancy - equally it should not be for the use of creating it either?

One last point to ponder - in theory, if a woman's choice were to be outlawed and she no longer had the right to end a pregnancy with medical assistance, one could conclude that it would be against the law to receive medical assistance in creating a pregnancy.

Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
June 29th, 2007, 05:25 AM
*Aspen*
Guest
Posts: n/a
I know where your question is stemming from. I'm also curious from the other side where ppl are against IVF etc because its not what nature intended, but are for abortion (which is man made) as well. I think if you are for one and not the other you can't use the "God" or "Nature" statement because it contradicts your other beliefs. But I can agree with people saying that they believe one medical procedure over this medical procedure is better.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
June 29th, 2007, 06:01 AM
donomama
Guest
Posts: n/a
That's a very interesting question, although I disagree with your reasoning. I DO think abortion is "playing God." I don't think it should be up to anyone EXCEPT God to end a life, under any circumstances. However, I think God has given us medical knowledge to extend our lives. I believe this is a gift from God. I think that even when medical interventions are used, unless it is God's will, the life won't be spared. Same with fertility interventions. Thousands of people have used them without it resulting in pregnancy. Maybe the IS God's will, and that is their trial in life. I don't think using medical technology to save your life is playing God at all. How about if you're standing in the street and a truck comes barrelling around the corner. Is it "playing God" to jump out of the way, or should you just stand there and think that if it is God's will that you be saved, the truck will swerve?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
June 29th, 2007, 06:10 AM
*Aspen*
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
However, I think God has given us medical knowledge to extend our lives.[/b]
Has God not given us the medical knowledge to end life as well? Is it because it's something that you don't agree with that you don't think it could be from God? As long as it meshes with your beliefs of what is right and wrong then it's of God, but if it doesn't follow your personal beliefs it's not God? I think God (well, if I were Christian, but you kwim) has given us the medical knowledge to end life when it's in the best interest of everyone.




God ends life as well as gives it.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
June 29th, 2007, 06:13 AM
donomama
Guest
Posts: n/a
I see this as different, and not just because it "meshes with my beliefs." When you are trying to save a life, it is still up to God whether that life is saved or not. If someone has cancer and they receive Chemo, they still may or may not die. It is still dependent upon God (or nature, however you look at it). There is no guarantee. However, when someone is put to death, whether it be through abortion, execution or assisted suicide, it is pretty much guaranteed that they WILL die. In these cases, we are taking it out of God's hands and putting it entirely in our own.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
June 29th, 2007, 06:21 AM
donomama
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Quote:
I think God (well, if I were Christian, but you kwim) has given us the medical knowledge to end life when it's in the best interest of everyone.[/b]
I agree with this. By using the phrase "playing God" when talking about abortion, what about in the case of the mother's life? Are we "playing God" by aborting the fetus but not "playing God" when saving the mother's life? It's a little contradictory, KWIM?

Quote:
I don't think it should be up to anyone EXCEPT God to end a life, under any circumstances. However, I think God has given us medical knowledge to extend our lives. I believe this is a gift from God.[/b]
Do you also believe that people who are brain dead and on life support are using this "gift from God" to extend their lives? Is this not "playing God" by keeping this person alive?
[/b]

I have neve said that I am against abortion when the mother's life is in danger.

As for the second part, pulling the plug, I am not sure where I stand on that, and hope I never have to find out.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
June 29th, 2007, 06:38 AM
*Aspen*
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
I see this as different, and not just because it "meshes with my beliefs." When you are trying to save a life, it is still up to God whether that life is saved or not. If someone has cancer and they receive Chemo, they still may or may not die. It is still dependent upon God (or nature, however you look at it). There is no guarantee. However, when someone is put to death, whether it be through abortion, execution or assisted suicide, it is pretty much guaranteed that they WILL die. In these cases, we are taking it out of God's hands and putting it entirely in our own.[/b]
No need for eye rolling. I wasn't being snarky or rude in any way, I was simply thinking out loud and asking questions. That is the way I percieved it, but you are more than welcome to correct me on why you think it is or is not that way. (Which you have) but the eye rolling wasn't necessary.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think God (well, if I were Christian, but you kwim) has given us the medical knowledge to end life when it's in the best interest of everyone.[/b]
I agree with this. By using the phrase "playing God" when talking about abortion, what about in the case of the mother's life? Are we "playing God" by aborting the fetus but not "playing God" when saving the mother's life? It's a little contradictory, KWIM? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
<div class='quotemain'>I don't think it should be up to anyone EXCEPT God to end a life, under any circumstances. However, I think God has given us medical knowledge to extend our lives. I believe this is a gift from God.[/b]
Do you also believe that people who are brain dead and on life support are using this "gift from God" to extend their lives? Is this not "playing God" by keeping this person alive?[/b][/quote]I have neve said that I am against abortion when the mother's life is in danger. As for the second part, pulling the plug, I am not sure where I stand on that, and hope I never have to find out.[/b][/quote]This is what I was saying by the opinion/belief part. You don't make assumptions here if it is God or not because you don't have an opinion on this part....but you can tell us if it's right or wrong in other areas because you already have your beliefs set in those.Besides, didn't you just say that if a person is going to die then it will be Gods will...whether they have medical interventions or not? Because now you are saying you aren't sure... I can understand your argument, it's just this sentence seems contradictory to what you just said. I'm just wanting clarification, perhaps I'm getting things muddled up.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
June 29th, 2007, 06:49 AM
Ms.Michelle
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
In these debates I've often seen the term "people shouldn't play God" when speaking of abortion. "God should be the only one to take life."

Over the months, I've reflected much on this statement. If humans are not to use medical science to end a pregnancy because it is playing God and He is the only one that can make such decisions - where should this line be drawn.

By using this theory, IVF and fertility treatments are also, "playing God" as, if He is the only one to take life, He would be the only one to give life. In essence, IVF would be to an abortion as ru-486 would be to fertility drugs (clomid, etc.).

So, one could draw the conclusion - that it would be hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-fertility treatments as both are "playing God" but on different sides of the field.

If medical science is not for use of ending a pregnancy - equally it should not be for the use of creating it either?

One last point to ponder - in theory, if a woman's choice were to be outlawed and she no longer had the right to end a pregnancy with medical assistance, one could conclude that it would be against the law to receive medical assistance in creating a pregnancy.

Thoughts?[/b]
Liz, I've been dying to chat with someone about this! Thank you for starting this topic.

Because I'm at the point in my life where I'm going to birth a child, and I see all the women in my DDC who are being induced or having c-sections.. I've been wondering how these people can be so against abortion yet support that type of medical intervention? To me, medical procedures are medical procedures. To me, abortion, IVF, c-section, and induction are all medical procedures. It seems silly to me that people can believe in some medical procedures but not all.

All of those examples are about a woman reproductive rights. No one should have the ability to legally take away any of her options as it's her medical right to have choice over her body. Could you imagine if we had very strict procedures on males and their options? Where they couldn't have the right to option one but did option two? It's not logical. Women should be able to have control over her choices without judgement because health care over oneself is a basic human right. The parallells are striking as well. When women are pregnant, they are at the mercy of their OB/GYN's opinion. When a specialist recommends any of these procedures, we are trained to listen to them and most of us don't really understand our own reproductive choices and rights. It's no wonder women who have had any of these procedures have guilt, shame and so many other negative emotions attached to that experience.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
June 29th, 2007, 07:44 AM
Liz Liz is offline
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,381
Quote:
Liz, I've been dying to chat with someone about this! Thank you for starting this topic.

Because I'm at the point in my life where I'm going to birth a child, and I see all the women in my DDC who are being induced or having c-sections.. I've been wondering how these people can be so against abortion yet support that type of medical intervention? To me, medical procedures are medical procedures. To me, abortion, IVF, c-section, and induction are all medical procedures. It seems silly to me that people can believe in some medical procedures but not all.[/b]
Yes! Exactly! I think it is good to mention procedures like c-section or induction - as in this line of thinking, one is playing God when deciding the day in which the child will be born. What if God had planned the child to come on another day? Is changing God's will at any time an offense or only when it makes one feel icky inside? Is it ok when it's sunshine and butterflies but not ok when it's rain and mosquitos? No one said choices will all be happy or choices will all be fun - sometimes we are forced to make decisions that make us feel bad inside. Those choices are no less important or no less needed because they are difficult, in fact, I dare say those choices are some of the most important decisions ever made in one's life.

In fact, one could take this to an even more extreme and say couples should not be attempting to have children or attempting to prevent children - as either are acts against God. One could say that we shouldn't be choosing either way and should only have happen what happens - from God. In fact, this does come fairly close to the Catholic church's teaching about marriage. I was once told by a priest that it was a sin to not only use hormonal birth control but also any type of barrier method - including pull and pray. I was told that a wife should be open with her husband and accept ALL of him, especially during the act of intercourse - otherwise you are rejecting a portion of him which will cause a wedge in the marriage. At first, I thought this priest must be an exception, surely he had it incorrect and this was not the teaching of the Church. Then I was given educational tapes (pre-cana) and indeed this same teaching was on the tape - basically saying it was wrong for a couple to have intercourse, but not "finish" inside.

I assure you, I will pull this all together - stay with me.

So, the question then becomes, how do we really know "God's will" when being merely humans? How do we know, for sure, God is upset with my husband and I if we practice pull and pray? And, even moreso, what is the motive behind those that are teaching such absolutes in God's will?

It stands to reason that on a macro-level the more supporters born into a Church creates the likelihood of further growth of the church and secures its future in the world which translates to power in the world. On a micro-level it stands to reason that if you wish to have a parish survive, you will need to continue the growth of a parish and secure future generations of monetary contributions. The more children each family has, the better chance of survival. Much like the human race; only with a few additional motives in place.

Perhaps this is why things like IVF and fertility drugs aren't against the "rules" but abortion is? Perhaps it truly never did have anything to do with the morality of "taking a life" (when there is no well accepted fact of when life begins) because only God has the power to take a life - which does mean only God would have the power to give a life . . .

Quite honestly, in a belief system that is so black and white - one would think there would be no room for a shade of grey; which currently is where IVF and fertility treatments reside.

Ok, I have much more to say about this topic; but I will close this for now. I know if I make this too long many will stop half-way through.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
June 29th, 2007, 07:54 AM
Ms.Michelle
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
So, the question then becomes, how do we really know "God's will" when being merely humans? How do we know, for sure, God is upset with my husband and I if we practice pull and pray? And, even moreso, what is the motive behind those that are teaching such absolutes in God's will?[/b]
Oh.. and speaking of c-sections/inductions and playing God..

The c-sections and inductions are done and in some cases are the root of major issues with the child. However there are cases where those fetuses would have died had there not been intervention. With your thoughts of grey area, why is it ok to prematurely take a child from the womb? Isn't it God's will for that child to be developing? If the child has a severe handicap and was supposed to die in the womb, why is ok for us take out the child to prevent that?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
June 29th, 2007, 08:01 AM
donomama
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Quote:
I see this as different, and not just because it "meshes with my beliefs." When you are trying to save a life, it is still up to God whether that life is saved or not. If someone has cancer and they receive Chemo, they still may or may not die. It is still dependent upon God (or nature, however you look at it). There is no guarantee. However, when someone is put to death, whether it be through abortion, execution or assisted suicide, it is pretty much guaranteed that they WILL die. In these cases, we are taking it out of God's hands and putting it entirely in our own.[/b]
No need for eye rolling. I wasn't being snarky or rude in any way, I was simply thinking out loud and asking questions. That is the way I percieved it, but you are more than welcome to correct me on why you think it is or is not that way. (Which you have) but the eye rolling wasn't necessary.
[/b]
You're right, and I'm sorry about the eye rolling. I'll be back to debate this when I'm not in the foul mood that I am right now.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
June 29th, 2007, 08:04 AM
*Aspen*
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I see this as different, and not just because it "meshes with my beliefs." When you are trying to save a life, it is still up to God whether that life is saved or not. If someone has cancer and they receive Chemo, they still may or may not die. It is still dependent upon God (or nature, however you look at it). There is no guarantee. However, when someone is put to death, whether it be through abortion, execution or assisted suicide, it is pretty much guaranteed that they WILL die. In these cases, we are taking it out of God's hands and putting it entirely in our own.[/b]
No need for eye rolling. I wasn't being snarky or rude in any way, I was simply thinking out loud and asking questions. That is the way I percieved it, but you are more than welcome to correct me on why you think it is or is not that way. (Which you have) but the eye rolling wasn't necessary.
[/b]
You're right, and I'm sorry about the eye rolling. I'll be back to debate this when I'm not in the foul mood that I am right now.
[/b]
Reply With Quote
  #15  
July 1st, 2007, 06:40 PM
Mom2DavidandAaron's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,227
Quote:
In these debates I've often seen the term "people shouldn't play God" when speaking of abortion. "God should be the only one to take life."

Over the months, I've reflected much on this statement. If humans are not to use medical science to end a pregnancy because it is playing God and He is the only one that can make such decisions - where should this line be drawn.

By using this theory, IVF and fertility treatments are also, "playing God" as, if He is the only one to take life, He would be the only one to give life. In essence, IVF would be to an abortion as ru-486 would be to fertility drugs (clomid, etc.).

So, one could draw the conclusion - that it would be hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-fertility treatments as both are "playing God" but on different sides of the field.

If medical science is not for use of ending a pregnancy - equally it should not be for the use of creating it either?

One last point to ponder - in theory, if a woman's choice were to be outlawed and she no longer had the right to end a pregnancy with medical assistance, one could conclude that it would be against the law to receive medical assistance in creating a pregnancy.

Thoughts?[/b]
In my religion, the rules are very clear. When you follow them, you're not "playing G-d" because you're acting according that what G-d told you to do under such circumstances.
Abortion for the inconvinience would be playing G-d because it breaks Jewish Law. G-d has a plan for that life and if we end it before it had a chance, we took away it's opportunity of growing, creating and achieving its goal. However, it is very clearly stated that when the life of the mother is in danger, an abortion is justifiable. In these cases, it's not playing G-d because we're following His rule that this baby was not intended to live in the first place.
I dont' know if I'm making myself clear here. I had like 18 people for lunch today and I'm not thinking that clearly

Sharon
Reply With Quote
  #16  
July 14th, 2007, 09:50 AM
Just Nana's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: keenesburg colo
Posts: 15,461
I feel that God in his wisdon has given us the medical field for a reason we as humans have messed around with it to serve our own purposes. I believe a baby is a baby from timeof conception. Abortion not an option. I have had one miscarrage my 16 year old son was in an accident that left him brain dead. We made the difficult choice to remove him from life support systems and give him to God. He lived for an additiona 2 mo with out life support only a g-tube for food I was not going to starve him before he passed away. I do not believe we played God when we pulled off life support we just gave him back to God for him to do what his will was. Abortion to save the mom not sure about that one. Thank God I have never been put in the situation to have to make that choice.
__________________




Reply With Quote
  #17  
July 14th, 2007, 11:19 AM
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 161
Send a message via AIM to JustWaiting Send a message via MSN to JustWaiting
Quote:
Quote:
In these debates I've often seen the term "people shouldn't play God" when speaking of abortion. "God should be the only one to take life."

Over the months, I've reflected much on this statement. If humans are not to use medical science to end a pregnancy because it is playing God and He is the only one that can make such decisions - where should this line be drawn.

By using this theory, IVF and fertility treatments are also, "playing God" as, if He is the only one to take life, He would be the only one to give life. In essence, IVF would be to an abortion as ru-486 would be to fertility drugs (clomid, etc.).

So, one could draw the conclusion - that it would be hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-fertility treatments as both are "playing God" but on different sides of the field.

If medical science is not for use of ending a pregnancy - equally it should not be for the use of creating it either?

One last point to ponder - in theory, if a woman's choice were to be outlawed and she no longer had the right to end a pregnancy with medical assistance, one could conclude that it would be against the law to receive medical assistance in creating a pregnancy.

Thoughts?[/b]
In my religion, the rules are very clear. When you follow them, you're not "playing G-d" because you're acting according that what G-d told you to do under such circumstances.
Abortion for the inconvinience would be playing G-d because it breaks Jewish Law. G-d has a plan for that life and if we end it before it had a chance, we took away it's opportunity of growing, creating and achieving its goal. However, it is very clearly stated that when the life of the mother is in danger, an abortion is justifiable. In these cases, it's not playing G-d because we're following His rule that this baby was not intended to live in the first place.
I dont' know if I'm making myself clear here. I had like 18 people for lunch today and I'm not thinking that clearly

Sharon
[/b]
So God upgraded his previous stance on taking a child's life sometime this century (since abortion has been available), and has told people that it is acceptable to take the life of the fetus when the mothers is in danger, but under no other circumstances?

How is it following His rule to abort a fetus if without abortion it would kill the mother? If people were really following his rule, instead of bending the rules to fit their own moral beliefs, then both mother and child would be left to either die or be saved by a miracle of God.

If people would like to use God as an excuse to why abortion should be illegal/is wrong then those same people shouldn't say that abortion in one case is acceptable, but not in another.

__________________
<div align="center"></div>

<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
Reply With Quote
  #18  
July 14th, 2007, 12:41 PM
picklesmama's Avatar <;,><
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 22,604
Quote:
Quote:
Liz, I've been dying to chat with someone about this! Thank you for starting this topic.

Because I'm at the point in my life where I'm going to birth a child, and I see all the women in my DDC who are being induced or having c-sections.. I've been wondering how these people can be so against abortion yet support that type of medical intervention? To me, medical procedures are medical procedures. To me, abortion, IVF, c-section, and induction are all medical procedures. It seems silly to me that people can believe in some medical procedures but not all.[/b]
Yes! Exactly! I think it is good to mention procedures like c-section or induction - as in this line of thinking, one is playing God when deciding the day in which the child will be born. What if God had planned the child to come on another day? Is changing God's will at any time an offense or only when it makes one feel icky inside? Is it ok when it's sunshine and butterflies but not ok when it's rain and mosquitos? No one said choices will all be happy or choices will all be fun - sometimes we are forced to make decisions that make us feel bad inside. Those choices are no less important or no less needed because they are difficult, in fact, I dare say those choices are some of the most important decisions ever made in one's life.

In fact, one could take this to an even more extreme and say couples should not be attempting to have children or attempting to prevent children - as either are acts against God. One could say that we shouldn't be choosing either way and should only have happen what happens - from God. In fact, this does come fairly close to the Catholic church's teaching about marriage. I was once told by a priest that it was a sin to not only use hormonal birth control but also any type of barrier method - including pull and pray. I was told that a wife should be open with her husband and accept ALL of him, especially during the act of intercourse - otherwise you are rejecting a portion of him which will cause a wedge in the marriage. At first, I thought this priest must be an exception, surely he had it incorrect and this was not the teaching of the Church. Then I was given educational tapes (pre-cana) and indeed this same teaching was on the tape - basically saying it was wrong for a couple to have intercourse, but not "finish" inside.

I assure you, I will pull this all together - stay with me.

So, the question then becomes, how do we really know "God's will" when being merely humans? How do we know, for sure, God is upset with my husband and I if we practice pull and pray? And, even moreso, what is the motive behind those that are teaching such absolutes in God's will?

It stands to reason that on a macro-level the more supporters born into a Church creates the likelihood of further growth of the church and secures its future in the world which translates to power in the world. On a micro-level it stands to reason that if you wish to have a parish survive, you will need to continue the growth of a parish and secure future generations of monetary contributions. The more children each family has, the better chance of survival. Much like the human race; only with a few additional motives in place.

Perhaps this is why things like IVF and fertility drugs aren't against the "rules" but abortion is? Perhaps it truly never did have anything to do with the morality of "taking a life" (when there is no well accepted fact of when life begins) because only God has the power to take a life - which does mean only God would have the power to give a life . . .

Quite honestly, in a belief system that is so black and white - one would think there would be no room for a shade of grey; which currently is where IVF and fertility treatments reside.

Ok, I have much more to say about this topic; but I will close this for now. I know if I make this too long many will stop half-way through.
[/b]
I really enjoyed this post and it makes soooo much sense!
__________________

Crissy mama to Jack 7.16.01 ~ Mia Bella 10.29.02
Angus Pickle 2.24.04 ~ Sydney Bean 10.26.06 & Kater Tot 2.15.09

Looking for fun lunch ideas for kids? Check out my blog: BentOnBetterLunches!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
July 15th, 2007, 06:31 PM
Mom2DavidandAaron's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,227
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In these debates I've often seen the term "people shouldn't play God" when speaking of abortion. "God should be the only one to take life."

Over the months, I've reflected much on this statement. If humans are not to use medical science to end a pregnancy because it is playing God and He is the only one that can make such decisions - where should this line be drawn.

By using this theory, IVF and fertility treatments are also, "playing God" as, if He is the only one to take life, He would be the only one to give life. In essence, IVF would be to an abortion as ru-486 would be to fertility drugs (clomid, etc.).

So, one could draw the conclusion - that it would be hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-fertility treatments as both are "playing God" but on different sides of the field.

If medical science is not for use of ending a pregnancy - equally it should not be for the use of creating it either?

One last point to ponder - in theory, if a woman's choice were to be outlawed and she no longer had the right to end a pregnancy with medical assistance, one could conclude that it would be against the law to receive medical assistance in creating a pregnancy.

Thoughts?[/b]
In my religion, the rules are very clear. When you follow them, you're not "playing G-d" because you're acting according that what G-d told you to do under such circumstances.
Abortion for the inconvinience would be playing G-d because it breaks Jewish Law. G-d has a plan for that life and if we end it before it had a chance, we took away it's opportunity of growing, creating and achieving its goal. However, it is very clearly stated that when the life of the mother is in danger, an abortion is justifiable. In these cases, it's not playing G-d because we're following His rule that this baby was not intended to live in the first place.
I dont' know if I'm making myself clear here. I had like 18 people for lunch today and I'm not thinking that clearly

Sharon
[/b]
So God upgraded his previous stance on taking a child's life sometime this century (since abortion has been available), and has told people that it is acceptable to take the life of the fetus when the mothers is in danger, but under no other circumstances?

How is it following His rule to abort a fetus if without abortion it would kill the mother? If people were really following his rule, instead of bending the rules to fit their own moral beliefs, then both mother and child would be left to either die or be saved by a miracle of God.

If people would like to use God as an excuse to why abortion should be illegal/is wrong then those same people shouldn't say that abortion in one case is acceptable, but not in another.
[/b]
I don't get it, why not Why should everything be black and whte when most issues aren't?
Now, I know this isn't the realigious debate board, but I want to make very clear that fro aperson that believes in the Old testament as the word of G-d (and I personally do) then it's not "bending His rules", it's abiding by them because he made it very clear. Abortion isn't permitted except when the mother's life is at stake. We Jews do believe in miracles, but we don't believe in sitting around for them and we admit that sometimes, we have to go through rough times. It's like waiting for a winning lottery ticket to fall down from the sky. It doesn't happen that way, the least I can do is by my ticket and G-d will decide if I should win it or not.
And you're wrong if you think abortion has been available for just 100 years. Maybe as a formal, surgical procedure it has, but before that, there were other ways to induce aborion.

But since you're talking of black and white, tell me, do you think it's the same to kill for profit or pleasure than t o kill in self-defense? If you don't, why? By your reasoning you should think that ALL killing is wrong and should be punished equally.

Sharon
Reply With Quote
  #20  
July 15th, 2007, 08:02 PM
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 161
Send a message via AIM to JustWaiting Send a message via MSN to JustWaiting
I would just like to know where, when, and to whom God said that it was acceptable to kill a fetus in lieu of it's mother.

If people can say that God thinks it's unacceptable to kill a fetus when the mother isn't in danger, then when did He say it is acceptable to kill a fetus if the mother is in danger?

I would be more willing to accept the religious aspects of someone that is pro-life if they were consistent. You made it very clear that the outcome for abortion is black and white. If you have an abortion because you're not ready to have a baby then it is taking an innocent life and disrespecting God's wishes - You're going to hell. If you have an abortion because if you didn't you'd die then you are using medical technology as a gift from God - You're saved.

I do not understand that. If you say that we should let God have his way, well if God's way was to take mother and child let him have his way...but no, now Gods way is that he gifted us with modern technology and we should use that to save the mother!

Was it Satan that gifted us with the medical technology to preform abortions that aren't on women whose life is in danger?

I can respect someone that is pro-life but I cannot believe someone who can twist the word of God to fit their moral beliefs.
__________________
<div align="center"></div>

<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:58 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0