Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

Yeah your right a lot of people can be atheists but I know some people who were atheists become Jehovah Witness. Jehovah's Witnesses are different from catholics they are not the same.

 

Yes or No doesn't answer the deep truth it only leads to another question after another.

We're talking about the ones who I'm pretty sure aren't. So it's offending.

 

 

Actually it's not a hard question at all. One isn't even conscious.

 

My belief:

The REAL Bible says life begins at birth. Gnesis 2:7 says God formed the body complete and THEN brreathed the breath of life into the formed nostril, and man became a living soul. Jeremiah 1:5 says God knows us before we are formed...meaning he has our soul in his kingdom before a sperm meets an egg. Exodus 21 22-25 explains that a fetus is treated like property and has a like value. People often mistake this passage because they think in modern terms.

Jeremiah 1:5 says god knows us before we are formed....not born. Before conception, God knows our soul, because he created all souls when he created the first, and we all reside in heaven with him until our body is ready for us. Then we descend to the body in the form of a spiritual soul. If we do a good job in life and live as he wants us to live, we have the opportunity to rerturn to his kingdom.

Edited by GhostChilli

Share this post


Link to post

I won't quote the scrpis but here's my basic understanding and most is from history as well as the bible, mostly from the bible any bible will tell you this.

 

Is there any hope of a resurrection for a baby that dies in its mother’s womb?

For those who have never suffered the loss of an unborn baby in this way, it may be difficult to imagine the feelings of those who have. Some parents grieve such losses intensely. One mother lost five children before they were born. In time, she felt blessed to raise two healthy sons. Yet, she remembered each loss. To the end of her days, she knew just how old her stillborn and miscarried babies would have been had they survived. Do such Christians have a basis for hoping in a resurrection to restore what they have lost?

 

The simple answer to the question is that we do not know. The Bible never directly addresses the matter of a resurrection for babies who were stillborn or lost through a miscarriage. Nonetheless, God’s Word does contain principles that bear on the question and that may offer a measure of comfort.

 

Let us consider two related questions. First, from Jehovah’s viewpoint, when does the life of a human begin—at conception or at birth? Second, how does Jehovah view the unborn—as unique individuals or as mere collections of cells and tissue in a woman’s womb? Bible principles give clear answers to both questions.

 

The Mosaic Law clearly revealed that life begins, not at birth, but much earlier. How so? It showed that killing a fetus could incur the death penalty. Note this law: “You must give soul for soul.” (Ex. 21:22, 23) Thus, the unborn child in the womb is alive and is a living soul. Understanding that timeless truth has helped millions of Christians to repudiate the practice of abortion, seeing it as a serious sin against God.

 

Granted, the unborn child is alive, but what value does Jehovah place on that life? The law cited above demanded that an adult be put to death for causing the death of an unborn child. Clearly, then, the life of an unborn child has great value in God’s eyes. Further, numerous passages in the Scriptures reveal that Jehovah sees the unborn as distinct individuals. For example, King David was inspired to say of Jehovah: “You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. . . . Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed.”—Ps. 139:13-16; Job 31:14, 15.

 

Jehovah also sees that the unborn have distinct traits and may have great potential for the future. While Isaac’s wife Rebekah was pregnant with twins, Jehovah uttered a prophecy about the two boys struggling in her womb, suggesting that he already saw traits in them that would have far-reaching effects.—Gen. 25:22, 23; Rom. 9:10-13.

 

The case of John the Baptist is an interesting one as well. The Gospel account says: “As Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the infant in her womb leaped; and Elizabeth was filled with holy spirit.” (Luke 1:41) In describing this incident, the physician Luke used a Greek word that could refer either to a fetus or to a baby after its birth. He used the same word in referring to the baby Jesus lying in the manger.—Luke 2:12, 16; 18:15.

 

On the whole, does the Bible give us a basis for drawing a big distinction between a baby in the womb and one that has drawn its first breath? It does not seem so. And that accords with the findings of modern science. For example, researchers have learned that a baby in the womb is able to sense and respond to external stimuli. Thus, it is not surprising that an expectant mother develops such a close bond with the child growing within her.

 

When the baby finally arrives, the timing of birth can seem quite arbitrary. Consider this example: One mother gives birth prematurely to a living baby, who dies after a few days. Another mother carries her baby to full term, but the child dies just before birth. Is the first mother blessed with the hope that her child will be resurrected simply because of the happenstance of a premature birth, whereas the second mother has no such hope?

 

To summarize, then, the Bible clearly teaches that life begins at conception and that Jehovah sees the unborn child as a unique and valued individual. In the light of those Scriptural truths, some might see it as inconsistent to argue that there is no hope for a resurrection of an unborn child that dies. Indeed, they might feel that such an argument undermines our Scriptural stand against abortion, which is largely based on those very truths.

 

In the past, this journal has raised some practical questions that seem to cast doubt on the possibility of a resurrection for children who died before birth. For example, would God implant even a partially developed embryo in the womb of a woman in Paradise? However, further study and prayerful meditation has led the Governing Body to conclude that such considerations do not really have a bearing on the resurrection hope. Jesus said: “All things are possible with God.” (Mark 10:27) Jesus’ own experience demonstrated the truth of that statement; his life was transferred from heaven to the womb of a young virgin—surely an utter impossibility from a human standpoint.

 

Does all of this mean, then, that the Bible teaches that children who perish before birth will be resurrected? We must emphasize that the Bible does not directly answer that question, so there is no basis for humans to be dogmatic on the matter. This subject may give rise to an almost endless variety of questions. Really, though, it seems best to avoid speculation. What we know is this: The matter rests with Jehovah God, who is abundant in loving-kindness and mercy. (Ps. 86:15) Unquestionably, it is his heartfelt desire to undo death by means of the resurrection. (Job 14:14, 15) We can be confident that he always does what is right. He will provide healing for the many wounds inflicted upon us by life in this wicked system of things as he lovingly directs his Son to “break up the works of the Devil.”—1 John 3:8

 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't agree with anything that comes from the new testament. Too many tampering with so I doubt any of that was actually in the old one.

 

With that said, abortion is merely just getting rid of a body without a life breathed into it yet. So what's the problem

Share this post


Link to post

Granted, the unborn child is alive, but what value does Jehovah place on that life? The law cited above demanded that an adult be put to death for causing the death of an unborn child. Clearly, then, the life of an unborn child has great value in God’s eyes. Further, numerous passages in the Scriptures reveal that Jehovah sees the unborn as distinct individuals.

 

Theres the answer and another

 

It showed that killing a fetus could incur the death penalty. Note this law: “You must give soul for soul.” (Ex. 21:22, 23) Thus, the unborn child in the womb is alive and is a living soul.

Share this post


Link to post
I won't quote the scrpis but here's my basic understanding and most is from history as well as the bible, mostly from the bible any bible will tell you this.

 

Is there any hope of a resurrection for a baby that dies in its mother’s womb?

Wait, ressurection? What the heck? You can't ressurect the dead, no matter WHEN they died. :/

 

For those who have never suffered the loss of an unborn baby in this way, it may be difficult to imagine the feelings of those who have. Some parents grieve such losses intensely. One mother lost five children before they were born. In time, she felt blessed to raise two healthy sons. Yet, she remembered each loss. To the end of her days, she knew just how old her stillborn and miscarried babies would have been had they survived.

 

What's the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion? The terms they're identified with? Both are exactly the same thing in terms of what happens. The only difference is is abortion is a conscious choice whereas miscarriage is an accident.

Share this post


Link to post

Theres the answer and another

 

Again from the new one. I never agree with.

 

death of a fetus, on purpose or otherwise, is not murder, and that only if the mother dies as well is even purposeful harm considered murderExodus 21:22-23A fetus is not ensouled like a person, it remains potentially so (lav nefesh hu) instead of having a soul (nefesh adam) as one must have for it to be considered murder (Lev. 24:17)In fact, Mishna states that if it's a chooice between mother or baby, one

must choose the mother.

Share this post


Link to post

Well misscarriage the baby dies on its own where as abortion it is purposfully killed with out a second thought that is the difference they are not the same at all, a miscarraige could happen when the child is developing, abortion is killing it before it has the chance to develop that the difference that shows they aren't same, in a miscarraige the baby is wanted not unwanted.

Edited by Silverwingwyvren

Share this post


Link to post
Well misscarriage the baby dies on its own where as abortion it is purposfully killed with out a second thought that is the difference they are not the same at all, a miscarraige could happen when the child is developing abortion is killing it before it develops that the difference that shows they aren't same, in a miscarraige they be is wanted not unwanted.

What are you saying? A miscarriage can happen whether the mother wants it or not. And sometimes it doesn't die on it's own. Sometimes the body kills it itself. Before reaching the uterus, blood cells can attack and kill it. The woman's cells, from HER body.

Share this post


Link to post

What's the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion? The terms they're identified with? Both are exactly the same thing in terms of what happens. The only difference is is abortion is a conscious choice whereas miscarriage is an accident.

 

'Without a second thought?' :/ That's a bit of a generalisation isn't it?

 

Also, wouldn't it be more merciful to the fetus to kill it before it has developed rather than wait?

 

And I know a lady who miscarried and she very much was hoping to, since she doesn't believe in abortion (I found that ironic).

Share this post


Link to post

If it kills it before reaching the uterus she can't be considered pregnant because it never made it there.

 

Yeah pretty much I mean a mother takes caution to prevent that but some times things happen and miscarraiges happen.

Share this post


Link to post
If it kills it before reaching the uterus she can't be considered pregnant because it never made it there.

 

Yeah pretty much I mean a mother takes caution to prevent that but some times things happen and miscarraiges happen.

What happened to you believing life starting at conception? The fertilized egg is what I meant. The cells will kill if they get to it. It doesn't have to be in the uterus to indicate pregnancy. Rare cases, the fetus formed in the tubes, which is fatal for the mother if she doesn't have it removed, because the tubes will break and cause fatal bleeding.

Share this post


Link to post

It starts at conception is the push off and it continues at the uterus where is develops and grows if given the chance, again this is do to the defect in hmans as a whole that the egg grews in the tube the mother can not control where it stops and where it grows its all a created set cycle.

Share this post


Link to post

It starts at conception is the push off and it continues at the uterus where is develops and grows if given the chance, again this is do to the defect in hmans as a whole that the egg grews in the tube the mother can not control where it stops and where it grows its all a created set cycle.

Then would you blame her and try putting on guilt if doctors had to remove it if she was about to bleed to death? In which case neither would live.

 

Forcing one into life is just as bad as taking life away from one. Just ask the children ShinyTomato fosters and works with. Weekly she works with papers and funerals of kids as young as 9 who commit suicide when they know their parents were forced to give birth to them.

Edited by GhostChilli

Share this post


Link to post
Wish they knew how to move it down instead of taking it completely out.

But would you blame her? Even if she wanted to keep it.

Share this post


Link to post

Is that because I said even if she wanted it? Would it make a difference if she didn't?

Share this post


Link to post

I rarely chime in on topics like abortion, but this time around I think I’d like to give my two cents… for what it’s worth.

 

**Warning: Massive Text Wall Ahead!**

 

Most optional abortions are performed on women no older than 25 years of age. A majority of women who undergo an abortion do so one of three reasons. The most common reason is that they can’t afford the child, second is that the child would interfere with their work or personal life, and third is that they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their child’s father. The highest ratio of abortions to live births is among girls under the age of 15: for every 1,000 babies born to girls 15 and younger, 768 babies are aborted from that same age group.

 

Medically necessary abortions are rare, accounting for only 17% of all abortions, and are usually far more devastating. Women who undergo this type of abortions often have a pre-existing condition that they were not aware of, and when they become pregnant these conditions become life-threatening. For example; one woman who underwent a medically necessary abortion had enlarged arteries around her heart and had a heart attack in the middle of her second trimester. Though she wanted to have her baby, doing so put her in serious and immediate risk of another heart attack. I even found a story about a woman who had to have an emergency abortion due to internal bleeding. When she arrived at the hospital, she had to undergo this abortion without anesthesia because no anesthesiologist at the hospital would provide this service for her due to their personal beliefs about abortion.

 

Personally, I am pro-life. If I were ever to conceive a child through consensual sex, I would deliver it and do my best to give it a good life. The only exception to this is if carrying the child to term would place my own life in serious danger. That, however, is my personal choice. There are probably some women out there who agree with me wholeheartedly. And there are a lot of women who don’t. When I vote, however, I support candidates who are pro-choice. My choice is to never have an abortion unless my life is endangered by a pregnancy. I don’t expect my choice and my personal beliefs to be imposed on another person against their will. Ever.

 

The thing that bothers me most about abortion is that it shouldn’t be necessary at all, unless the mother’s life is in danger. I’m in my late twenties, and have been sexually active for at least a decade. In all that time I’ve never had to wonder if I was pregnant. I used at least one method of birth control at all times, and often two or more. With modern technology at our fingertips, it’s entirely possible to have all the sex you want and not conceive a child. In countries like Denmark, Norway and Sweden, contraceptives and education are readily available to teenagers and the poor alike. Their abortion rates are very low because they provide such tools to their citizens. With an oral or injected contraceptive, use of condoms, and the availability of Plan-B or The Morning After Pill, there shouldn’t be a reason for women to need abortions as a form of birth control!

 

I know that birth control can be expensive. So are abortions, at about $450 apiece. The cost of raising a child from birth to eighteen is over $150,000. In my eyes, the abortion debate shouldn’t be about whether or not they are ethical, or when life begins. The abortion debate should be about asking our government when they are going to open their eyes and start providing the least expensive option to their citizens. It should also be about personal accountability: if you don’t want a child and can’t afford even a pack of condoms, don’t have sex. I’m living proof that it’s possible to get horizontal and not get an unexpected bundle of joy in the process. Be responsible. Be careful. Simple as that.

 

Finally, I don’t think that children conceived as a consequence of rape should be included at all in the abortion debate. If the intercourse that created the child was non-consensual, there should be no reason why the child can’t be aborted. Women who are impregnated against their will simply can’t be included with women who conceived a child through their own actions and decisions. That’s not irresponsible, what was done to them is unethical in the extreme, and if you’d force a woman to have a child that she conceived after being raped… I don’t want to share my air with you.

 

Wow, that was really long. If you got through that wall of text, you deserve a cookie.

 

Share this post


Link to post

@ MindsEye --> a) I read the wall o' text. cool.gif I agree. Strongly. The only point I feel different on is the part about imposing my choice and personal will on others -- I *never* want to do that, but at the same time, I feel I can't support the idea of permitting pregnant women to impose *their* choice and personal will on another human life, that of their unborn child, which is why I find myself concerned with the idea of when a human life begins.

 

I'd also like to add a couple things on the topic of religion, as people keep quoting scripture here. The Old Testament has been "tampered with" just as much as the New, if not more so, as it's been around longer. The Judaic tradition was always based in redaction; that is, continual adaptation and re-interpretation of their religious scriptures. I would hesitate to call it "tampering" in either case. Generally, when a text has been altered or re-interpreted, it's because the people responsible for the alteration want to get as close to the truth (well, Truth, in a religious sense) as possible. If you don't spiritually *believe* a certain religious text, that's your personal choice, but I don't think that "tampered with" versus "untouched" is an accurate assessment of those texts.

 

Also, I don't see it as particularly "legitimate" to quote books like Exodus and Leviticus to support a biblical viewpoint. Many of those passages deal with the societal rules of the time. Yes, a fetus was perceived as property -- so was a woman. If we actually had to follow the laws of the old testament, we'd be punishing men who cut their hair, women who sat on public objects while they were menstruating, etc., plus wives would belong to their fathers and then to their husbands.

 

Legally speaking, I think that the U.S. government, for one, needs to go back to providing decent sex ed in public schools. It's been statistically proven beyond any doubt that "abstinence-only" education leads to much higher rates of teen pregnancy, as well as more sexual mishaps and injuries by people attempting things that they don't understand, or attempting to "preserve their virginity" by having a**l sex instead, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Well misscarriage the baby dies on its own where as abortion it is purposfully killed with out a second thought that is the difference they are not the same at all, a miscarraige could happen when the child is developing, abortion is killing it before it has the chance to develop that the difference that shows they aren't same, in a miscarraige the baby is wanted not unwanted.

(1) "Without a second thought?" In my experience, the decision to have an abortion usually involves a lot of soul-searching and careful consideration. I absolutely loathe the idea that women skip over to the doctor's and get an abortion because they want to fit into a little black cocktail dress or some such foolishness.

 

The notion that women have abortions as casually as they brush their teeth is just anti-choice propaganda IMO.

 

(2) Since many miscarriages occur before the woman even knows she's pregnant, I don't think you can say that a miscarried "baby" is always wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
(1) "Without a second thought?" In my experience, the decision to have an abortion usually involves a lot of soul-searching and careful consideration. I absolutely loathe the idea that women skip over to the doctor's and get an abortion because they want to fit into a little black cocktail dress or some such foolishness.

 

The notion that women have abortions as casually as they brush their teeth is just anti-choice propaganda IMO.

 

(2) Since many miscarriages occur before the woman even knows she's pregnant, I don't think you can say that a miscarried "baby" is always wanted.

A midwife told me that 25% of pregnancies miscarry - and that is only the ones even THEY know about.

Share this post


Link to post

no death is natural, i'm shore every religious faction in the history of history will say the same if you look closely.

Death is the most natural thing on the planet, and the most inevitable, and forms the basis of most religions to answer the biggest of questions; is death the end?

Edited by Kestra15

Share this post


Link to post
Both really

What about women who have a phobia of pregnancy? Should they be forced to carry to term? I personally have a friend who almost shot herself when she had false pregnancy signs. Those women are in so much relief when recieving an abortion and I don't think that calling them a child killer and using G-d as guilt is the best thing for them after a traumatic experience...but hey, that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
What about women who have a phobia of pregnancy? Should they be forced to carry to term? I personally have a friend who almost shot herself when she had false pregnancy signs. Those women are in so much relief when recieving an abortion and I don't think that calling them a child killer and using G-d as guilt is the best thing for them after a traumatic experience...but hey, that's just me.

I might be under there. I'd rather have a chest burster eat the inside of me and jump out rather than be pregnant..

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.