Therapeutic Abortion
 

Where do Bible believers stand on this issue?

If it was induced by the mother or a third party I believe it is the same thing as an elective abortion.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Biblestudent,
over the years I have found that the definitions and wording regarding abortion can sometimes be misleading and varied... for example, on eMedicine, therapeutic abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy before fetal viability in order to "preserve maternal health," followed by 5 possible situations. But as we have seen, the "health of the mother" can mean different things to different people... what is the exact situation you are describing?

The term can be used for anything from an abortion needed for an ectopic or other medical situations where the lives of both are certain be lost if action is not taken.

Or in a the case of a missed miscarriage where the baby already died and the body does not naturally abort it. Which in some cases can grow into a rare form of cancer if left.

To physical/medical stress that a doctor believes the pregnancy may or may not put on the mother's body or other baby/babies in a multiple pregnancy. (including a twin in some cases/doctors) Or how a baby may or may not be formed or how long s/he will live once born.

To "mental stress" for whatever reasons they medically wish it to cover.

How many ways do we have to accept different words for 'murder' ??

Yes, Byrd, but if the baby has already died, it's not literally an abortion: it's just a removal of the little corpse. Nothing wrong with that.

I firmly believe that 99.9% of "therapeutic abortions" are simply done for the sake of convenience. The only time abortion is justified is when carrying or delivering the baby would literally kill the mother - - - and such cases are exceedingly rare.

Jae or JB is good for short. True. Most are an after the fact form of birth control.

I was just listing what falls under the term of a doctor prescribed "therapeutic abortion". It does range from a non-issue, life threatening self-defense, possible life threatening, and out right "just don't feel like it or it isn't the sex I wanted" scenarios.

Asking what a group thinks of it would require defining what he is asking. In my re writing and removing superfluous information I removed my first sentence that asked that. oops.

Hello, everybody! Sorry for the delayed response. (We've got a lot of brownouts here recently.)

The question has to do with killing the baby when pregnancy endangers the mother's life.

Excuse me, Jae. No disrespect intended. I've just always wanted to be able to call a lady "Byrd," in honor of one of my old favorites:

http://www.historyplace.com/specials...ix/johnson.jpg

Actually, my brother-in-law went to school, in Mississippi, with a kid named Hugo Byrd III. They called him "The Third Bird."

:D

So it is ok to kill someone if someone is supposedly going to die anyway? Murder is still murder. Why don't we just trust God in these rare situations rather than murder the baby?

This is really an ignorant statement. Who would you "murder" the mother or the baby? Think about this for a second before you respond. They don't usually kill (although some mothers aren't against abortion so they just might), but often times they'll try to get the child out and if the lungs are healthy enough put the child on a ventilator. Premature babies happen all the time, and doctors are getting better and better about saving this children.

http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/Newbo...re_babies.html

So anywho, it's important to remember that a husband and wife are one flesh. Let me put it another way, if the Lord were to bless me with a wife I would have a very difficult time telling the doctors to "murder" my wife in order to save the baby that "might" live.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Having a premature baby is far different from having an abortion because the mother "will" die (in the doctors OPINION anyway). Trusting God is not murdering the wife, it's saying "we will obey God by not murdering our baby, and trust Him with the wife's life".

"We" might do that, Aussiemama: "we're" Christians, and know about trust in God. But I'm afraid the vast majority of women in this situation don't know the Lord at all. How can they trust in Whom they have not even believed? You can't expect Christian behavior from non-Christians.

Biblestudent,
I am probably one of the most ardent pro-lifers you will find, been very close to this issue for many years, and most of the pro-lifers I know all say in the rare case a mother's life is indeed actually "threatened," then it is considered self defense, she certainly has a right to her survival with our full support. But let's face it: today's medical tech has virtually removed this from the realm of reality.

And, let's not forget the threat of the abortion itself.
In the last seven years, four major epidemiological studies have shown that abortion is actually associated with HIGHER rates of death compared to childbirth. The most recent study of pregnancy-related deaths was published earlier this year in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. That study, linking birth, death, and abortion records for the entire country of Finland over a thirteen year period, found that women who had abortions were three times more likely to die than women who gave birth:
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/DeathsReview.htm

"What happens if the life of the mother is medically threatened?"

"This question has to be answered with a question. Just ask someone who is pro-choice: What medical condition are you referring to? 99.99% of the responders will not have an answer. There is only one biological reason why the life of the mother could be threatened by a fetus. (Ectopic pregnancy). Most often it is discovered early. The procedure to safely render the medically threatened mother entails the removal of the fetus but in most cases the viability for life for the fetus was threatened at the moment the egg made its attachment. Challenge those who believe in choice to ask a doctor if they know of any medical cases when it has been necessary to abort the fetus because the mother’s life is threaded after 45 days into development. Again this is another false argument."
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=22797

VR, I was only speaking to the Christians on this board who seem to think it would be ok to kill a baby to save a mother, not unsaved people.

Aussiemama. I love you dearly. I'm your Patron and Defender, okay? But I've gotta say something you might not like to hear.

I've had four children, and two of them have produced multiple offspring of their own. I love babies; if I could afford it, I would have had ten or twelve (had my wife agreed!). I was present at the delivery of all four of mine, and the experience ranks almost as high as my conversion as the most precious of my life.

But, let's say - - - although it's statistically very, very unlikely - - - that a Christian woman is told, by a capable and pro-life doctor, that carrying a newly-conceived child will kill her. No ifs, ands, or buts: either the mother or the baby will die.

It's fine to talk about faith, and if the parents in such a situation decided against an abortion, I'd admire and envy their faith. But say they already had children. Is refusing an abortion really worth depriving those children of their mother, and depriving her husband of his wife - - - especially when she might have other children in the future?

No, abortion is never "okay." Not at all. But, if it were my wife, and the doctor really knew what he was talking about, I would, as head of the home, opt for the abortion.

And if anyone wanted to say that I "didn't have enough faith," they'd just have to say it.

VR, I appreciate your very personal and sincere confession. At this point, I have never had to make such a decision, and my prayer is that neither my daughters, daughters-in-law, or any sisters of my church family will never be faced with such a no-win decision.

Not yet having become a father, I am not one to place a whole lot of stock in as far as parenting issues and things like this go. However, I do want to throw my thoughts into this discussion real quick, and then I'll jump back out and see what happens. ;)

From my perspective, a man and a woman are one flesh; that is a special union ordained by God. Lo, children are an heritage from the Lord; however, they do not intrude (or should not!) upon the bond between the man and his wife. As someone once said, children are but guests in their parents' house for 18-20-something years. Guests that should be taken care of, loved, and protected at all costs, but not when that comes between the parents and their unique, God-ordained union. My parents loved me, but they loved each other first, and that is how it's supposed to be.

I know that for women this can be hard; especially for mothers or expectant mothers. While killing a child is never a good thing for any reason, sometimes there is little choice when it comes to the life of the mother. Granted these times are extremely rare, and the chances of that occurring to anyone involved in this particular discussion are very slim, but the principle should be established.

Something else: some say that things of this nature are a test of faith; while this may or may not be true, saying that someone, in this hypothetical situation, lacks faith because he or she decides to take the life of the child, is rather retarded. Locking your door at night isn't a lack of faith in God: it's common sense.

Overall, I think it's important to step back and try to view the situation from others' perspectives, be it that of someone else in this discussion, someone of the opposite gender, or a completely uninvolved third party. Things tend to clear themselves up once you get a wider angled view of the situation.

I'm a mom to two young boys and my husband said he would never want to lose me, but both us and our church believe that murder is wrong for ANY reason. I don't know why this concept is so difficult for people...it's emotional for sure, but the Biblical commands are clear here so we just have to put our emotions in check and OBEY.

Gents:
Regardless, I think we should be able to respect each other's views here without using these kinds of descriptions... (caps mine)

Ditto

Obviously a couple of the cases that fall under "therapeutic abortion" take place after life has ceased.

The only case I can think of that is a truly life threatening "therapeutic abortion" is an ectopic pregnancy. There is no good outcome from this. Death is guaranteed from the moment of implantation.

Thanks to medical science 90% of women who have an ectopic no longer die from it. Most now only lose one ovary/fallopian tube. Which brings with it close monitoring for future pregnancies. They have a 10% chance of having another ectopic.

Which means if another ectopic is detected (there are hormonal tests as well as ultrasounds to determine this) they can either wait till it ruptures or starts internal bleeding and risk dieing (and then do surgery anyway), use hormones to terminate the pregnancy in hopes to save the last ovary/tube/minimize internal damage, or in some cases lose the last tube despite a hormonal abortion.

I know of several women who did not know they had an ectopic and have had ruptures and nearly died. Some of which lost any chance at ever having children and few who have saved one tube only to be faced with the horrible choice of terminating the next ectopic pregnancy.

I know of a woman who has had to do make the choice twice (after losing a tube on her first pregnancy) and will be having her last tube removed to prevent ever having to make that choice again. And another that this weekend also had to make the choice as they have no idea where the baby implanted. These are women who are Christians and have waited, prayed and longed for children for years. It is not an easy choice and one they deeply grieve over, but one that they really have no choice at all as all choices lead to death.

Another side of "therapeutic abortion" is the possible life threatening.

This ranges from a multiple pregnancy where they want to do selective reduction to increase the odds for the other child(ren) and ease the burden on the mother to health risks associated with the mother. And sometimes because of health issues with the baby. In a lot of cases even non-Christians tend to leave it to the natural course of things.

Of the cases I know MOST have had good outcomes for both mother and child(ren). Sometimes the loss of a child or all children in a pregnancy. I have read of one case were the mother refused an abortion and was put off cancer treatment until after the baby was born and she died from her cancer.

Of the cases I do know of no matter the outcome the Christian families have been at peace with their choice to leave these cases in God's hands. This includes the families that have born children without brains or other defects so that their organs may be harvested so that other children might live.

As to "mental health" that is just a medical work around for "elective".

Correct per post 14,
JaeByrd, your comments present a good overview and show your insight into this painful topic... we are blessed to live in an age of technology that spares women from medical conditions that could be far worse.

There is nothing disrespectful about what I said. I don't think aussiemamma has put any real thought into this specific situation. I think she's totally blinded by her obsession with abortion. She clearly cannot see anything but that word in her mind when we discuss this.

Ignoring what the Scriptures say about the marriage covenant etc to focus on a Christian belief that isn't really even mentioned at all in the entirety of Scriptures is ignorant. That is, she (as well as others who take this stance) have completely hid themselves from any disagreeing points of view, even those that are well supported by what the Holy Scriptures teach.

VR's comment was right on, and she didn't even care to address it. She just chided in with her OBEY comment then disappeared. This behaviour is completely condescending to say the least.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

I need to clarify something, brethren: I was never faced with this decision in my own life. The example I gave was hypothetical.

I can only add - - - - and this is tough, but it has a place in the discussion - - - that Christ told us to love our wives as Christ loved the church; for reasons of His own, He did not tell us to love our children in that manner. I don't think allowing my wife's unnecessary death would fulfill that command.

very good point, VR.

For men to love their wives as Christ loved the church means that she should take precedence over the child(ren).

You know, I don't know why, but every time I see your avatar Kittn1 I think of Sega Genesis. :D LOL.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Well, keep going then if you want to brother, that won't keep me from saying you're out of line. I wouldn't presume to know if another believer is "obsessed" or "blinded." But somehow these do indeed strike me as disrespectful comments from your keyboard.

Marriage covenant, I thought we were talking about views on abortion. Sorry, I still say calling people "ignorant" or retarded, etc. because we disagree with them is inappropriate for a difficult subject like this. I think at least two of us of here picked up on it. You're old enough/smart enough to see and avoid this, brother. :rolleyes:

I never called anyone retarded. I never even used that word. But her comments were ignorant, and it doesn't make me disrespectful for pointing it out when I feel that her comments could cause a young Christian woman to stumble if faced with the situations we're talking about.

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (am I now not old enough or smart enough for doing just this?)

And it is beyond me how you can't see that the doctrine of marriage plays a huge role in resolving this issue we're here discussing.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (not elect to let her die a preventable death, so a premature baby might live, without a mother none the less.)


Did you even read what she wrote Bro. Parrish?

This comment is pure rhetoric and completely sensational. She hasn't backed up a word of hers with Scripture.

And then we had this:

Seriously? The denial of medical attention which WILL result in the death of an already living and breathing soul isn't murder? This reminds me of a recent bit of news I read:

http://www.livescience.com/health/08...yer-kills.html

So tell me, where does it say in Scripture that we Christians must trust God to heal us instead of say taking a prescribed antibiotic or even say an aspirin? Is it being an unfaithful Christian to use a doctor and his services to provide for the well being of our families?

I normally wouldn't get so frustrated over this issue, but I don't like it when people accuse the brethren of not OBEYING something that isn't even spoken of in Scriptures. I believe we need to stand strong on solid NT doctrine, not half hazard conjectures based on OT Scriptures.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen

LOL, out come the verses...
Stephen, I have no problem with your views on the topic, only your manner of delivery. As I said my friend, you can go ahead and knock yourself out claiming another believer here is "obsessed" or "blinded" or "ignorant," until the cows come home or the moderator stops it. Personally, I think she has a right to her opinion without having you make judgment calls about her personal character or brow beating her for it. I'm only suggesting we speak the truth in love to each other on these forums brother. :rolleyes:

I have not qualms with doing things in love. It's just that I've noticed a pattern with aussiemamma that I think needs to stop. If she wants to discuss something, then fine. But these hit and run messages of hers are not healthy contributions to these discussions.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

So now I post and run just because I don't sit on my butt on the computer all day? I'm a young mom...with a toddler and an infant and I don't have time to sit here all day every day to keep posting. Doesn't make me a bad person.

Here Am I,
sorry I am not aware of any Bible verses that would make me think it's appropriate to call another believer on this forum "obsessed" or "blinded" or "ignorant," or "retarded." All of those personal judgments have been voiced on this thread about another member or her views, not about the topic. The most recent post actually goes well beyond the topic and concerns the discussion of "a pattern with aussiemamma that I think needs to stop." No wonder she feels like she is being considered a bad person. As I told Stephen, he is certainly free to do this, but it won't keep me from being saddened at how quickly some of us will pull out Bible verses to excuse such behavior. My position remains: I suggest we speak the truth in love to each other on these forums.

Beloved brother, Aussiemama is making great strides in her relationship with the Lord. When I first "met" her, she was not exactly Miss Congeniality. She still isn't: but who cares? I can be a crank and a grouch and a zoom dweemie myself - - - but I usually get away with it because I'm a man. Anyway, although I don't agree with her position in this thread, she has a right to it: apart from Christian liberty, she is something that you and I will never be: a mother.

As for her posting "style," it is what it is, and she's already explained it.

LOL! Will you calm down? I'm trying to be your Noble Defender here! I know it's a self-appointed position, but don't take it away from me!

http://baptist1611.phpbb3now.com/use...s/paladi10.gif

Bro. Parrish, one thing: I never called anyone retarded. I stated that someone that would attribute an abortion to save the life of the mother to a lack of faith would be doing something retarded. No one on here, to the best of my recollection (I might be wrong here) stated that, though it's possible.

There's a difference between calling a belief "retarded" and calling a person that. (Also, it would be appreciated if you could state that you emphasized a part of a quote; I didn't caps "retarded" in my original post but you made it look as if I had.)

I don't think she's a bad person. All I have to go off of is what she's said in her posts. And if one watches these forums like I and others do you will notice a trend with the things she's said. I feel like everything she ever says is meant to throw a log on some already heated discussions. I don't think this is helpful, and I'd like to see it stop. I don't want her to stop participating, but I'd like to see her work with us in our discussions, not against us. These forums are a forum for av1611 Bible Believers. Ninety plus percent of the conversations that take place here deal with our belief in God's preserved and inerrant Scriptures, in some shape or form. If she wants to be a healthy participant in these discussions, she would be wise to show that her beliefs are supported by her faith in what God's Word says. I haven't seen her indicate this at all yet, and it is this reason that has lead me to respond in the way that I have.

Concerning the words I've chosen to use in my posts; I've been very careful with my wording lately, since my tendency is to not. You may think those terms I've used are inappropriate, but I used them after deliberate thought, and I think they were well suited for making my point. I could show you Scripture that supports what I believe, but you've clearly indicated that you don't want me to use the Word of God to make the stand that I do. Therefore I really don't know what I could say to you Bro. Parrish that you would listen to.

VR, I believe you brother. I'm not trying to alienate the poor woman, I'm just trying to let her know that her comments aren't helping anyone. To be honest, I'm quite frustrated, as I'm sure is apparent. I truly mean it when I say that I've held back a lot in my comments (I'm quite the grouch myself). I want to be of help, and not the other way around.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen

What, pray tell, is a "zoom dweemie?"

Stephanos, what I'm getting from your posting is that nothing is edifying in your opinion unless it agrees with you. I like to discuss things, so what is the point of entering into the multiple Bible topics where I do agree? Nobody would learn anything if people only posted in the threads they agree with someone else in. And, I'm not really trying to change your mind. I'm just bringing in a different viewpoint, which I personally believe to be the ONLY Biblical viewpoint. I believe that me standing up for what I believe is right is more important than never disagreeing with you.

The Bible says "thou shalt not kill" and we all use that as our basis to say abortion is wrong. But some are trying to do away with that verse "if the mothers life is in danger" instead of just obeying the commandment (thou shalt not kill) they are saying "thou shalt not kill unless not killing would kill someone else". There are actually several Bible Believers who believe the same as me on this issue, I know a few in my own home church.