Advent Talk
Theology Category => Doctrinal Discussions => Topic started by: Johann on April 09, 2010, 05:23:51 AM
-
What would you do if you discover that your unwed daughter is pregnant? As a church leader you may feel you need to cover what has happened. Would it be appropriate to make your daughter have an abortion?
-
No. If Prophet Nathan were still alive, he might have a talk with you.
-
No!
Is this a "new era justification" change?
Is it life or death choice?
-
I think it would be rather inappropriate for a pastor to have a baby killed rather than take the time and effort to nurture a daughter and grandchild through a rough time. We are horrified at the thought of the priests of Baal sacrificing babies on their altars thousands of years ago, but how many babies get sacrificed on the altars we build to the god of Convenience today?
-
This is an interesting point here. Now Nathan gave counsel to David, but God still allowed the child to die. Now if that were today, what would be the difference in God allowing to die by something some would consider SIDS, etc. or David having Bathsheba abroting the baby. The baby died either way.
BTW, Totally against abortion, but just as passionate about against a faulty and coorupt government to legislate against it. They are taking away "God-given choice". We ALL have the choice to sin.....and reap the consequences.
Just playing devil's advocate here....hehehe!
No. If Prophet Nathan were still alive, he might have a talk with you.
-
Sometimes we just let God take care of mistakes as He sees it pertaining to childbirth. When in doubt, it is always in His Hands.
-
This is an interesting point here. Now Nathan gave counsel to David, but God still allowed the child to die.
However, remember that it was David as the king and judge who decreed that the rich man in Nathan's story would have to pay back four fold for his hideous crime. In other words, it was David (rather than God) who in essence decided that David was to lose four children as punishment for committing adultery and murdering Uriah, of which the first child to die was that baby.
They are taking away "God-given choice". We ALL have the choice to sin.....and reap the consequences.
The fact of the matter is that most of the time, folks already exercised their power of choice when they engaged in behavior that results in babies. Just because they don't like the results of their choices doesn't mean that they have the right to permanently take away the power of choice of the baby yet unborn. Shouldn't that baby have the right to be born and grow up to make choices too? If not, why not?
-
Bob, I likes this answer!!! Amen!!! i still dont' like the the thought of state legislating something like this, I am still pro-choice on that level. Those who commit this sin will reap the natural consequences, and also the ultimate consequences if, like all other sins, it goes unrepentent. However, I am prolife, in that I would not require my teen daughter to have an abortion.
However, remember that it was David as the king and judge who decreed that the rich man in Nathan's story would have to pay back four fold for his hideous crime. In other words, it was David (rather than God) who in essence decided that David was to lose four children as punishment for committing adultery and murdering Uriah, of which the first child to die was that baby.
The fact of the matter is that most of the time, folks already exercised their power of choice when they engaged in behavior that results in babies. Just because they don't like the results of their choices doesn't mean that they have the right to permanently take away the power of choice of the baby yet unborn. Shouldn't that baby have the right to be born and grow up to make choices too? If not, why not?
-
Bob, I likes this answer!!! Amen!!! I am still pro-choice on that level. However, I am prolife, in that I would not require my teen daughter to have an abortion.
Now, which is it?? Totally confusing ...amongest other things....Hmmmmm,
-
The state legislates that I can't kill you today. You are an adult person who is walking the earth. Do you believe that the state has the right to legislate that? Where is my choice? Shouldn't I have to wait for the natural consequences of it? 150 years ago children in England and Ireland were considered property and could be used in any manner their parents chose. They had no legal protection under the law. Eventually, against the pro-choice furor of many parents, laws were passed protecting children from slave labour and sexual misuse. Yet today, people who portray themselves as compassionate and show concern for human rights fight to keep the rights of the most helpless of humans from being protected. Why? It seems a dichotomy to me.
Bob, I likes this answer!!! Amen!!! i still dont' like the the thought of state legislating something like this, I am still pro-choice on that level. Those who commit this sin will reap the natural consequences, and also the ultimate consequences if, like all other sins, it goes unrepentent. However, I am prolife, in that I would not require my teen daughter to have an abortion.
However, remember that it was David as the king and judge who decreed that the rich man in Nathan's story would have to pay back four fold for his hideous crime. In other words, it was David (rather than God) who in essence decided that David was to lose four children as punishment for committing adultery and murdering Uriah, of which the first child to die was that baby.
The fact of the matter is that most of the time, folks already exercised their power of choice when they engaged in behavior that results in babies. Just because they don't like the results of their choices doesn't mean that they have the right to permanently take away the power of choice of the baby yet unborn. Shouldn't that baby have the right to be born and grow up to make choices too? If not, why not?
-
Well, the problem is that I dont' trust a corrupt system to legislate my morality. Plus I think of the fact that God did give women recreative abilities, not by themselves, but still the closest to His own. If they make the wrong decision or abuse that privilege, then they answer to God. Mind you, I am still mulling this one over, and George, I completely understand about killing those, outside of the womb........I totally understand also when someone kilss an expectant mother, they are charged with two counts of murder no matter how far along she is. Still at the end, I don't think it is right and definitely a sin simply because it is a Divine privilege bestow upon women, and He beleives all life is precious.
It is really ok if you are confused, these are my thoughts and I am working them out. You might already have worked this out in your mind.
Now, which is it?? Totally confusing ...amongest other things....Hmmmmm,
-
This is how I can make a decision no matter what both sides can bring out to justify each different belief.
Thou shalt not kill. So then it is no longer our choice under the banner of God's commandments.
I do not try to justify what is clear and direct even thou I know one can come up with every reason there is. It is unfortunate many times over in variable situations. But I must have faith in this commandment that all will work out for what ever it is. But if a person will die from it. I can see trying to save a life. Better to save one as two die.
-
The fact of the matter is that most of the time, folks already exercised their power of choice when they engaged in behavior that results in babies.
That's true. However, it misses one big point. There is one religious denomination that neither believes in birth control or, basically, in methods to prevent contraception. They don't teach about birth control in any of their many thousands of parochial schools, either.
For religious denominations that provide adults with sex education unwanted pregnancies are very low.
Abortions result from unwanted pregnancies. Among Jews, unwanted pregnancies are so low that the abortion rate is also very low. The same is true for many of the Protestant denominations that provide age-appropriate sex education.
However, abortion remains a big problem for just one denomination that keeps its members in the dark when it comes to sex education, methods to avoid contraception, etc.
-
But people do die at the hands of others, all the time in wars. In the Bible the COI slaughtered folks lead by God to do so to get the Land He promised to them, including the women and children, did they not? Now that is cool with us and the Jews because the "earth is the Lord's and the fullnes there of, the world and they that dwell therein". However, the Arabs do not acknowledge that authority to just take they land, murder their families, etc. The babies were allowed to die when Herrod was looking for Jesus, and at least a couple more times, and God did not intervene. God did not intervene in Cain killing Abel, etc. "Thou shalt not kill", doesn't always hold up in the Bible. "Conditions" were set up somewhere along the way that we could kill and not pay consequences for taking another life, even a child's life. This is the dilemma of many agnostics and atheists. How do we get from "Thou shalt not kill" to "I am going to give you this land and help you kill the people who now rightfully occupy it". As I said, we, as christians(definitely including myself) take these things in faith that God is in control, knows all, loves all, and all will work out for the good.
Once again, let me state plainly, that I whole heartedly against abortion personally, just not for legislating against it.
This is how I can make a decision no matter what both sides can bring out to justify each different belief.
Thou shalt not kill. So then it is no longer our choice under the banner of God's commandments.
I do not try to justify what is clear and direct even thou I know one can come up with every reason there is. It is unfortunate many times over in variable situations. But I must have faith in this commandment that all will work out for what ever it is. But if a person will die from it. I can see trying to save a life. Better to save one as two die.
-
Do you think that is is right for the government to legislate against the killing of you?
But people do die at the hands of others, all the time in wars. In the Bible the COI slaughtered folks lead by God to do so to get the Land He promised to them, including the women and children, did they not? Now that is cool with us and the Jews because the "earth is the Lord's and the fullnes there of, the world and they that dwell therein". However, the Arabs do not acknowledge that authority to just take they land, murder their families, etc. The babies were allowed to die when Herrod was looking for Jesus, and at least a couple more times, and God did not intervene. God did not intervene in Cain killing Abel, etc. "Thou shalt not kill", doesn't always hold up in the Bible. "Conditions" were set up somewhere along the way that we could kill and not pay consequences for taking another life, even a child's life. This is the dilemma of many agnostics and atheists. How do we get from "Thou shalt not kill" to "I am going to give you this land and help you kill the people who now rightfully occupy it". As I said, we, as christians(definitely including myself) take these things in faith that God is in control, knows all, loves all, and all will work out for the good.
Once again, let me state plainly, that I whole heartedly against abortion personally, just not for legislating against it.
This is how I can make a decision no matter what both sides can bring out to justify each different belief.
Thou shalt not kill. So then it is no longer our choice under the banner of God's commandments.
I do not try to justify what is clear and direct even thou I know one can come up with every reason there is. It is unfortunate many times over in variable situations. But I must have faith in this commandment that all will work out for what ever it is. But if a person will die from it. I can see trying to save a life. Better to save one as two die.
-
What would you do if you discover that your unwed daughter is pregnant? As a church leader you may feel you need to cover what has happened. Would it be appropriate to make your daughter have an abortion?
Whatever the views of the hypothetical church leader on abortion, I do not think s/he has the right to "make" the hypothetical daughter undergo the procedure.
Such a decision should not be imposed.
That is my POV anyway.
-
Sure do, but I am not at age 52 a symbiant(sp) part of my Mother..........
Do you think that is is right for the government to legislate against the killing of you?
-
I am totally against Abortion, except in the case of health of the mother( and then she has to make that decision with her Dr and God, I could not). In, rape, I believe it only makes 1 terrible thing, 2 terrible things. At least, if the baby is carried full term, the baby can be adopted out. I agree- Murder is murder
-
I am totally against Abortion, except in the case of health of the mother( and then she has to make that decision with her Dr and God, I could not). In, rape, I believe it only makes 1 terrible thing, 2 terrible things. At least, if the baby is carried full term, the baby can be adopted out. I agree- Murder is murder
Have you any experience with adoption Mrst53?
Certainly adoption has provided children with homes and childless couples with children....but there are issues there too. I have two adopted children and 2 to whom I have given birth....the adopted children can be left searching for so much, in spite of all the love and care and everything else they are given. And those issues are extremely likely to be carried forward to the next generation.
I do not think I would have a personal problem aborting a fetus who had such a severe disability it would be stillborn..(I have had to face that possibility too), for the rest I am not willing to pontificate on the choices of others.
-
Well Emma, I am adopted, and I would much rather have questions than be dead.
I am totally against Abortion, except in the case of health of the mother( and then she has to make that decision with her Dr and God, I could not). In, rape, I believe it only makes 1 terrible thing, 2 terrible things. At least, if the baby is carried full term, the baby can be adopted out. I agree- Murder is murder
Have you any experience with adoption Mrst53?
Certainly adoption has provided children with homes and childless couples with children....but there are issues there too. I have two adopted children and 2 to whom I have given birth....the adopted children can be left searching for so much, in spite of all the love and care and everything else they are given. And those issues are extremely likely to be carried forward to the next generation.
I do not think I would have a personal problem aborting a fetus who had such a severe disability it would be stillborn..(I have had to face that possibility too), for the rest I am not willing to pontificate on the choices of others.
-
Adoption is wonderful! I feel I was adopted by all 6 of my new wifes's children - when I was 73!
-
I guess I just wanted to make the point that adoption is not a universal cure-all. Adopted children
can have suffer great pain as they search for their identity, I have watched that in my own children and
some other close family. In one the search ultimately brought tragedy.
And George I am glad you are not dead too :)
-
Now Emma, in the olden days, when my parents were adopting and they were closed, I would have agreed with you. However, in this day and time, unless the adoptive parents are purposely keeping the birth information from the child, there is no reason why the child should have any problems findings information on birth parents/family. In fact, there are at least two shows dedicated to that very thing, let alone the websites, etc. I don't know that either of my brothers wanted to find their birth parents. My parents gave them the information they had, and let them make the choice.
My family ws also into foster care for as long as I cna remember, and I know the struggles you speak of Emma, But I am like Goerge...Where there is life there is hope!
-
In general that is true, Di.....but there are circumstances in which it is impossible, which apply to the
situations of which I speak.
-
Emma,
I bet I can understand what situations you are referring to and yes there are situations better not known.
-
Ok so forgive in advance, because in quire minds want to know...........I know there are situations, like someone I know who recent suffered some heart problems, and because they were adopted during the time of closed adoptions, they could not trace family medical history, and that is often time very important. Now, if you are talking about reunification of some sort, then no, often time it is not possible, and in fact, harmful underscoring why the adoption was best. It can also make a difference in how you "treat' the adoption with the child. Do you hide it completely? do you use it as a weapon, i.e., "we took you in...." kind of thing. Is that child aloving part of your family, but also being honest about the adoption? It is a very thin line you have to balance. I happen to thinkthat my parents and family did a great job with both adopted and foster children.
I also know that in foster care that the children struggle, and even into adulthood maintain those abanadonment issues. Sometimes we cann't keep them from some hurts, but we can extend God's love to them and do the best we can.
-
How does one decide that another person's life would be so terrible that that person should be put to death before they even have a chance to try? I am close with some women whose father is also their grandfather. Would that be a case where you feel these women would be better off dead? They are happy, healthy professionals with beautiful families. They love to travel and adventure, and the family that adopted them treasures them very much. Is it possible that saying a person would be better off dead can be a means of justifying a decision based on one's own needs, fears, and convenience by trying to convince themselves and others that it is about what is best for the child?
-
See now, George. Youa re askign the right questions. Better for child or for the audlts?