Evidence for God from Science

Ok, I'm copy-pasting this from an anti-abortion discussion forum, and I want to know what you guys think of it:

Let me start out by saying that my grandmother is a very devout Christian. Of course, she is strongly against abortions.

My aunt was, quite unfortunately, raped at the age of 13. Even more unfortunate was that she became pregnant. When my aunt and grandmother went to the doctor about the matter, the doctor stated that having the child would result in my aunts death. She was too small, frail, and young to be having children. This took place in Kentucky and, at the time, a parent was required to sign the paper stating that my aunt could have an abortion.

My grandmother signed the paper, and I am glad she did. Because of my aunt having that abortion, she was able to give life to two more children who are both grown and very healthy.

What would you all do in this situation? Would you chose your daughter's life, or your grandchild's?

Swamper wrote:Ok, I'm copy-pasting this from an anti-abortion discussion forum, and I want to know what you guys think of it:

Let me start out by saying that my grandmother is a very devout Christian. Of course, she is strongly against abortions.

My aunt was, quite unfortunately, raped at the age of 13. Even more unfortunate was that she became pregnant. When my aunt and grandmother went to the doctor about the matter, the doctor stated that having the child would result in my aunts death. She was too small, frail, and young to be having children. This took place in Kentucky and, at the time, a parent was required to sign the paper stating that my aunt could have an abortion.

My grandmother signed the paper, and I am glad she did. Because of my aunt having that abortion, she was able to give life to two more children who are both grown and very healthy.

What would you all do in this situation? Would you chose your daughter's life, or your grandchild's?

Daughter's life without question - that is probably the only situation where I believe abortion is a ethically viable option.

Personally, I would do exactly as the grandmother did. That is assuming that the medical advice really is sound.

These situations are extremely difficult as they represent a conflict of moral absolutes - thou shalt not kill applied in a contradictory setting.
If the child lives, the mother is likely to die (we do not know for certain, but assuming the medical advice was sound then the risk is great).
If the child dies, the mother's life will be saved.

I believe that God is compassionate and forgiveness is readily available in situations such as this one. Some would say that, in such a conflict of moral absolutes, there is even no need to seek forgiveness.

Normally when two moral absolutes are in conflict, a choice needs be made to follow the higher one. There is room here for argument over which path represents the higher one.
It is a known fact that the child will die if the abortion proceeds, but it is not a known fact that the mother will die if the birth goes ahead. Therefore some may well opt for denying the abortion and trusting to God for the outcome, and if the mother dies... well, there was bound to be a death anyway.
However, if the mother dies during delivery, it may also be that the child dies too - two deaths are possible.
Medical advice would have to include likely chances of survival of both mother and child if pregnancy was shortened by an early delivery by Caesarian Section.
So... the quality of the medical advice impacts the decision.

I believe that these kinds of decisions require a great deal of prayer, seeking to be informed as much as medical opinion can make possible, and over all seeking God's guidance.
The outcome then, needs compassion, not any judgmental response from uninvolved onlookers.

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

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

Could you say more about your view, please, and the thinking behind it?
You have not said which way you would decide and why. Your response needs some elaboration.

I think this is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situations.
Whichever way you choose could result in a death - doing something, or doing nothing.
Doing nothing (then losing the mother in childbirth, and quite possibly the child with her - 1 or 2 deaths) might be seen as murder (and is it "murder" or something else?) just as much as doing something (abortion - 1 death, and a small possibility of 2).
It is about educated risk assessment. How do you make the right decision?

I would let the mother go through with the birth.

It's sad she was raped, but it doesn't justify murdering the child.
It's sad she'll probably die, but it doesn't justify murdering the child.

miller wrote:I would let the mother go through with the birth.

It's sad she was raped, but it doesn't justify murdering the child.
It's sad she'll probably die, but it doesn't justify murdering the child.

I tend to agree. The child's certainty of death trumps the mother's probability of death.

It seems to me that classifying all abortions as "murder" is something of a stretch.

It's the same logical extension of classifying all state sponsored executions as "murder." There are times where "murder" and "justifiable killing" are separated by a very thin line.

I'm as pro-life as anyone. I believe when you have a medically certifiable situation where the death of the mother or the baby is as certain as can be determined by competent medical people then there is room for a reasonable decision to save the life of the mother.

That said, I've known of many situations where such a decision was presented, the mother chose to continue with the pregnancy and both mother and child survived and did well. My own sister-in-law and my nephew are evidence of that. She was diagnosed with Breast cancer in the first trimester of pregnancy and all but ordered to abort or she would die. She chose not to, underwent an immediate double mastectomy, delivered her son and then underwent chemo and radiation therapy after.

As has been said before, there are times when absolute values can come in conflict with each other. When that happens, you have to make a choice and prayer along with a sensitive heart and spirit are the best resources we have.

I'd not be quick to judge someone in that position for the decision they make.

This is a commonly raised argument by pro-choice advocates. In practicality however, the percentage of actual abortions that are performed in situations like this are miniscule. It is a red herring in most instances.

Bart

It seems to me that classifying all abortions as "murder" is something of a stretch.

I'm defining murder as an unjust killing, so all abortions fall under this definition.

I believe when you have a medically certifiable situation where the death of the mother or the baby is as certain as can be determined by competent medical people then there is room for a reasonable decision to save the life of the mother.

but you don't know 100% that the mother will die.

As has been said before, there are times when absolute values can come in conflict with each other.

WHat are these two absolutes?

I'm defining murder as an unjust killing, so all abortions fall under this definition.

I'm saying most abortions would fall under this category. When there is an instance where the mother's life is clearly in danger and a competent medical opinion that a choice exists in terms of one or the other, then I see that as possible grounds for a decision in favor of one or the other.

but you don't know 100% that the mother will die.

If you want absolute knowlege in a situation like this than your standard is impossible and impracticle.

What are these two absolutes?

The life of the mother with the medical profession's and societies obligation to protect and preserve life, against the life of the child and the same organization's obligations.

You've apparently determined that there is a formula in these instances that is infallible and fool-proof. I've determined over many years of wrestling with this as a Christian and a committed pro-life supporter that there are rare instances where a decision may have to be made in favor or one or the other. That's the result of the fallen world we live in. Often times unmerited and undeserved tragedy descends upon people and brings a difficult decision which pits moral absolutes against one another and a decision has to be made which one to elevate over the other.

The classic example of this is the scenario from WWII of a person detained by the Nazi's and asked if they know where some Jews are hiding. The person does know and knows also that if he gives that information that they will likely be taken and killed.

What moral absolute do you elevate? Thou shalt not bear false witness or Thou shalt not murder?

More along the same lines what do you do with cojoined twins? Many times you have a situation where no action will lead to the probable death of both if a separation is performed. One has to be chosen as the most viable and the other usually dies. Would you argue that because no one "knows" 100% what will happen if nothing is done then no attempt should be made to save one over the other?

When you make the standard absolute knowlege you erect an arbitrary wall that effectively relieves you of the need to wrestle with the issue, you ignore the fact that we live in a fallen world and that God has made us stewards and agents of choice accountable to Him and to each other. 100% certainty rarely exists in most situations.

I'm certainly aware and stated before (which you snipped out apparently wanting only to focus on this) that this argument is a red herring as it is used in the current pro-life/pro-choice debate. I would end elective abortion immediately if it were in my power to do so for reasons probably the same as yours. I'm not able to be as dogmatic in life or death of one or the other type choices. I observed one in the case of my sister-in-law as I mentioned, and she chose to risk herself for her child which I supported and saw come out positively. They don't all end that way, and so, in this very limited scope where a legitimate risk exists and one or the other will most likely die, then I am far more understanding of a decision being made and I will not judge the person making it (regardless of the direction.)

All analogies break down at some point of course, but you get the idea.

Bart's outline of his thinking on this situation parallels exactly that of my own.

This kind of situation happened in my own family, to my own mother. She had several very small children dependant upon her as well when she was given the either/or death option. She chose the abortion. Had she not done so, my brothers and I would have lost our mother and, given other situational factors, the negative consequences would have multiplied.
She saved herself (and kept our family intact) but lost a child and mourned, and I (when I was told of this years later) realized I had lost the only sister I never had. However, I look forward to meeting her one day in Heaven.

Meanwhile, I have always believed myself to be in absolutely no position to make any kind of negative judgement on my mother's decision. Those who are put in this terrible situation deserve the utmost compassion. I am "pro-life" but I will not stand in judgement on decisions made in such circumstances.

I'm saying most abortions would fall under this category.

What abortions are just?

If you want absolute knowlege in a situation like this than your standard is impossible and impracticle.

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.

The classic example of this is the scenario from WWII of a person detained by the Nazi's and asked if they know where some Jews are hiding. The person does know and knows also that if he gives that information that they will likely be taken and killed.

What moral absolute do you elevate? Thou shalt not bear false witness or Thou shalt not murder?

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.

More along the same lines what do you do with cojoined twins? Many times you have a situation where no action will lead to the probable death of both if a separation is performed. One has to be chosen as the most viable and the other usually dies. Would you argue that because no one "knows" 100% what will happen if nothing is done then no attempt should be made to save one over the other?

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

100% certainty rarely exists in most situations.

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

I'm certainly aware and stated before (which you snipped out apparently wanting only to focus on this) that this argument is a red herring as it is used in the current pro-life/pro-choice debate.

Haha, ok Mr. Jerk. I understand that this is unusual.

miller wrote:

I'm certainly aware and stated before (which you snipped out apparently wanting only to focus on this) that this argument is a red herring as it is used in the current pro-life/pro-choice debate.

Haha, ok Mr. Jerk. I understand that this is unusual.

Miller,

I strongly suggest that you stick to the subject and quit the ad hominem attacks. The Discussion Guidelines exist for a reason. Either you follow them or you will be banned.

Byblos (Moderator).

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

miller wrote:

I'm saying most abortions would fall under this category.

What abortions are just?

When you begin to consider some of the broader ramifications, then the view of justice (that abortions are never just) is certainly challenged. The dilemma of deciding which life to sacrifice, given that we do not have absolute knowledge, may cause more deaths than you anticipate if you make the so-called "just" decision. For instance, should both the mother and child die in childbirth rather than the child only through abortion.

miller wrote:

If you want absolute knowlege in a situation like this than your standard is impossible and impracticle.

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.

As I have mentioned already, we may equally end up with two deaths instead of one. The fact is, we do not have absolute knowledge.

miller wrote:

The classic example of this is the scenario from WWII of a person detained by the Nazi's and asked if they know where some Jews are hiding. The person does know and knows also that if he gives that information that they will likely be taken and killed.

What moral absolute do you elevate? Thou shalt not bear false witness or Thou shalt not murder?

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.

Bart is not saying that the Christian is murdering the Jews.
By not telling the truth, lives are then saved - a matter of reasonably forseeable consequences influencing a decision made from a position of graded absolutism. The Christian foresaw the likelihood and on that basis made the decision to sacrifice the truth rather than assist the Nazis to carry out their objective of murder. The Christian's action has saved lives.

miller wrote:

More along the same lines what do you do with cojoined twins? Many times you have a situation where no action will lead to the probable death of both if a separation is performed. One has to be chosen as the most viable and the other usually dies. Would you argue that because no one "knows" 100% what will happen if nothing is done then no attempt should be made to save one over the other?

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

100% certainty rarely exists in most situations.

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

Do look into the situation of cojoined twins, especially if you are studying ethics. These situations are extremely challenging.

It sounds to me as though you take the position of unqualified absolutism, such as was taught by St Augustine, which claims that no moral absolute should ever be broken. From this position one must always tell the truth, for example, even if someone dies as a result of it - no exceptions.

I am inclined towards a position of graded absolutism which holds to a heirachy of absolutes and that our responsibility is to obey the greater commandment and that in doing so, we are not guilty for not following the lesser conflicting one. To my way of thinking, this is a more compassionate and less legalistic position - and I believe in a God who is merciful as well as supremely just.