Evidence for God from Science

BTW, I did not perceive Bart as being rude. Sometimes it is the way something is read, which is not intended by the writer. We don't have the advantage of observing body language or hearing the inflection and tone of voice on these forums. It would make it easier to understand each other sometimes if we did.

This is obviously quite a difficult issue and there is no clear cut answer. I just know that if it was my wife I would pursuade her to abort and then mourn and pray for fogiveness.

Silvertusk

Silvertusk -- I would ask for guidance, not for forgiveness.
Either an act is wrong, or it isn't. If it is, you shouldn't do it. If it isn't, you needn't be forgiven for it. I agree with Canuckster and Judah on this issue, by the way.

miller wrote:Understood. I just wish Canuckster1127 hadn't of been rude. But I do apologize as well. I'm sorry.

Miller,

I'm confused where you get the impression that I was being rude.

That certainly was not my intent nor my attitude in responding to your statements. I'm frankly in agreement at a very high level with much of what you say and I am a strong pro-life advocate.

My impression is that you desire to be argumentative to the degree that anyone who does not agree with you 100% is totally opposed to you and further, the closer they are to your position without agreeing completely, the more you wish to push to acheive complete agreement.

My comment about the red herring had nothing to do with you. I was noting that many from the pro-choice camp use this as an argument for allowing abortion when in fact it accounts for less than 1% of all abortions performed. The comment was addressed in that direction, not to you.

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer and regret that offense was taken.

In terms of your other comments, if you believe that telling the truth to a Nazi raises above protecting the life of an innocent person, then I understand how you hold the degree of position that you do with regard to the life of a mother in these rare instances. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I hope your values in this regard are never put to such a test. The doing of such a thing and living with it for a lifetime is quite a bit different than the intellectualizing of it.

Best Regards,

Bart

What abortions are just?

I think you are misunderstanding me. I believe most abortions are unjust and not for justificable reasons. When there is a life or death decision to make in terms of the mother or the baby, the issue is not justice. There is no justice in either one of them dying. What there is, is reality and the result of a broken world in which these things happen regardless of the "justice" of it. Justice ultimately is in God's hands, not ours, although we certainly have some obligation as stewards to seek justice where it is in our power to institute it. Thankfully, God is not just justice, but also mercy. We ourselves would have no future except for that element.

We know 100% the child will die if aborted. If the mother goes through with the birth it's not 100% that the mother will die.

It is 100% that the child will die. I think you're not grasping that there are situations where it is 100% that the mother or both will die without a decision or close enough to 100% as to make the decision practically to be rendered on that basis. I understand the dilemma however. In every situation like this as Christians we should look to the intervention of God and not discount what faith can bring about. I've seen one such situation as I mentioned with my sister-in-law and I know of others.

I don't presume to know in every situation and circumstance of this nature what is right. I believe when a situation is presented in which no action will likely result in the death of child, mother or both, then to do nothing is in itself a decision. These situations are very rare and sometimes they are trumped up for outside reasons, but they do exist and I have nothing but compassion for those who face them. I will not add my judgement against them when they make such a decision, regardless of which way they make it. There are sometimes decisions to make in which there is not perfect solution.

I dealt with this in a paper for my ethics class. A Christian must tell the truth. I don't understand how you think that the Christian is murdering the Jews, they're not, that's the Nazis and it will be the Nazis sin to deal with.

I've dealt with this question before too. Let me ask you a hard question. If you believe a lie should never be told then why would you answer at all in this situation? Let's say a Nazi is standing in front of you with a gun and asks you where the jews are hiding. To speak the truth saves your life and betrays the life of the Jews. To lie violates God's law (at least as you understand it in this situation.)

Why would you say anything? Why not just keep silent. Could it be that in this hypothetical situation you are elevating your own life over others?

Can they not possibly save both lives? I've never looked into conjoined twins.

Perhaps you should. Much of what we are discussing here is a moving target because the playing field changes as medical technology advances. I believe in moral absolutes. They exist in perfect balance and harmony within the person of God. What I don't have complete faith in is my or anyone elses ability to find that balance in every situation. There are instances, rare though they may be, where there are conflicting values and we are forced to make a decision to take action or not take action (which in itself is a decision.)

It's a result of a fallen world and a painful reality which sometimes presents us with unwinnable situations where there is no seemingly good answer. If you wish to insert your "absolutes" into those areas you had better be sure that you have a perfect grasp of all that is involved. I've long since learned that I do not.

Except for the fact that abortions murder 100% of children.

Again, murder is a strong word. I certainly believe that elective abortion as birth control is morally wrong and believe it to be the moral equivilent of murder. I do not agree with your assertion that all abortions equal murder.

That makes no more sense then equating capital punishment as murder and is the same sort of category error that I believe you are logically making.

Making a choice between mother or child when to make no choice will likely result in the death of both, or one or the other, does not equate to murder.

When death is imminent or highly probable and the potential exists to save one or the other, it could even be argued that to do nothing is itself immoral and the equivalent of "murder" or at least negligent homocide.

My thoughts on the matter anyway.

Canuckster1127 wrote:In terms of your other comments, if you believe that telling the truth to a Nazi raises above protecting the life of an innocent person, then I understand how you hold the degree of position that you do with regard to the life of a mother in these rare instances. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I hope your values in this regard are never put to such a test. The doing of such a thing and living with it for a lifetime is quite a bit different than the intellectualizing of it.

Not to trivialize the issue in any way but that's basically what it comes down to (Bart's comments above). To sit here and pontificate is one thing. To actually be faced with that situation is an entirely different matter. My wife and I are staunch abortion opponents and I also know full well what her choice would be if she had to make it herself. But I'll be very honest, if my wife is incapacitated in some way and the decision falls squarely on my back to choose between her and the baby, I would not hesitate for a second to choose her.

Byblos.

miller wrote:So y'all would choose murder because it is highly probable that the mother would die?

You would choose the very real possibility of murder of not only the daughter but also the daughter's other possible children? You would save the one who was not meant to be by sacrificing the three who were?