Abortion regret

Post Reply New Topic

Disagree.

Plenty of unwanted kids have lives they enjoy, have many good experiences, grow up to have educations, careers, families etc.

Why would being an unwanted kid preclude one from ever having anything good happen to or for them in the lifetime?

"AngelRho" was born back in the early days of the internet when I was an IRC addict. The IRC channel I frequented had a user who called herself Angel___. I happened to be memorizing the Greek alphabet at the time. I joined the channel one day when everyone was making fun of her by putting "Angel" in front of their nick. I'd been going as Rho before then. When I changed to AngelRho, I decided I liked the sound of that and kept it.

First, let me say I enjoy your posts. Makes me feel a little less alone on WP. We seem to have a lot in common. My goal is to live a more holy life. I already know where I'm spending eternity. The OT for Christians isn't about salvation. But the way I see it, if the OT was good enough for a groups of people God had set aside as His own, it's good enough for me and my family. It's not possible to apply every single law, nor were every single law applicable to every single person during the time of Moses and Joshua. It illustrates what God intended daily life to be like for those who love Him, and I feel that's the most important takeaway for us. That, and Christology, of course. My interpretation of the OT might often appear legalistic. But understand that I see it as a practical guide to daily life for believers, not as the way to salvation. Righteousness in the form of works/deeds for anyone outside the Hebrew faith is outlined in the Laws of Noah. And to further differentiate between righteousness and salvation, even atheists can live according to righteousness and enjoy the temporal benefits of it without experiencing salvation. For us Christians, righteous works are only of secondary importance to our relationship with Jesus. But I also believe that anyone who loves Jesus/God would want to draw closer to Him and obey His commands.

The question of self-defense in the Bible makes no distinction between intended/unintended harm. It would be a contradiction of the Bible to say the unborn get a pass. Logically, you can't kill an armed robber in your home and then demand a woman allow her baby to live if it would mean having the baby WILL kill her. I do believe that babies are innocent and that babies cannot be guilty of attempted murder. But it makes no difference given the circumstances. If giving birth would mean either the baby lives or the mother lives, but not both, then the mother should be held blameless if she chooses to save herself over her baby.


The last paragraph here, you and I are on the same side--though I don't consider childbearing or work as curses. And you are right, the baby isn't maliciously attack the mother. It is living and growing. But given the circumstances when the choice is between the life of the baby and the life of the mother, there is no difference.

In Biblical laws concerning murder, it's always intent that's the focus. Was the cause of death intentional? No? Then it's not murder. Does the baby intend to kill its mother? No. So babies cannot be murders, or at least that's what we assume. That's the only thing we can assume. But does a mother intend to kill her baby to save her own life? Well...maybe, and maybe not. What matters is whether causing the death of another person is necessary to save a life. If killing a baby is necessary to save one's own life, the intention isn't murder--it's self-preservation. The Bible does affirm the right of individuals to defend themselves. It can't be assumed that the mother intends to commit murder, only that she wants to save her own life.

What makes this simultaneously simpler and more complicated is that it's rare that having a baby is life-threatening, and as time goes by it's increasingly rare. At one point in time, placenta previa was certain death for both mother and child. Over time, brutal, barbaric methods allowed the mother to live but meant certain death for the baby. Now C-sections are so well-rehearsed by doctors they could almost be an outpatient procedure (ok, I'm exaggerating, but I've watched C-sections). Point is, placenta previa need not spell doom for either the mother or the child, and that's only one example of other pregnancy complications. Worst case you might have preeclampsia, but that's often survivable with patient monitoring and bed rest. When I talk about conditions that have a near-certainty of death for the mother and baby, I mean things like ectopic pregnancy, or a cancer diagnosis. What about if a mother already has 4 children? If the mother dies, is it reasonable to expect the father to care for a new baby PLUS four others? Maybe. But what if the mother is a widow or the father is otherwise out of the picture? Now it's not simply the mother at risk, but potentially an entire family. And when something like that means giving kids up to "the system" when the mother could save herself and keep her family together, having an abortion might actually be preferable.

It's not that I think abortion is always the right way to go. I don't believe that at all. But I think it would be un-Christian to disregard the consequences of forcing a woman to give up her own life to have a baby when those consequences are potentially much farther-reaching than just that one woman or that one baby.


See above. And I can't emphasize enough that those circumstances or scenarios are rare in the extreme. A perfect storm kind of situation. As to it being far-fetched, a situation that's far-fetched isn't always a situation that's impossible. Just unlikely. But as long as there is any possibility of things going that horribly wrong, no life-saving measure is off the table. There are places in the world where they deal with placenta previa the old fashioned way, and it's the stuff of nightmares and horror films. But I would still support any brutal measure no matter how gruesome to save a woman's life if there were no other available options. I know about placenta previa because my wife had it with my oldest daughter. I did a lot of research on that. We are blessed to live in a society in which neither women nor babies have to die because of that condition.

But it is frightening. Perfect storms are rare but they do exist. Nobody wants to be in a situation where they have to choose one life over another. Yet certain complicated pregnancies put us there.


Ummm...


Ask anyone on WP, I'm one of the resident conservative Christians here. Patriarchy clearly exists. A few decades ago, it was out in the open in the form of blatant misogyny. It has shifted into a different form now, though. Men claiming identity as trans women in order to compete against weak opponents. I don't see women as weak, and that this happens is an insult to women.

But nevertheless, patriarchy is real and has an interest in keeping abortion alive. Sexual assault? Eh...it's ok, she can just get an abortion. It'll be fine. Or go back to what I originally posted in the case of a young woman who was pressured into having multiple abortions by the entertainment industry. What about human trafficking? Forcing a woman to have an abortion so she can stay a sex slave? Or any time a man "isn't ready to be a father," just do whatever you want with a woman, she can just have an abortion and that's that. This is not an argument to ban abortion. I just think it's important that when anyone would consider abortion as an option that we're can be supportive of women who are only considering abortion because of the abuse they'll face if they try to keep the baby.

I don't really side with feminists, so I'm not touching any arguments regarding them. I think feminists have done enough to sabotage their own cause they don't need me weighing in. Oh, I've argued against feminists plenty, enough to know there's little point other than my own personal entertainment. My main motivation is in seeking truth. Maybe, just MAYBE I can sway someone to my point of view. If nothing else, I get people to honestly THINK about their own positions. They won't change their minds. But you never go back to where you were mentally once you've been confronted with your own poor reasoning.

I’ve had two C-sections, they are nowhere near being an outpatient procedure.It is major surgery since the abdominal wall is cut into.All sorts of complications can arise, blood clots, infection, pneumonia, reactions to anesthesia , etc.Hospital stay is usually three days.No way are you going home right afterwards.
Watching one isn’t the same as going through one.

Maternal Mirror Syndrome from Hydrops is gruesome, and often fatal.

People want babies, not messed up older children who poop their pants and pee their beds.

I tried to do foster care, went through the classes and fixed up my home to accommodate a baby (in my room with a new crib), bought baby stuff, even formula, even did fingerprints. And the social worker never called me and did not return my calls. So that was that. I just chalked it up to God not wanting that for me at that time.

I fostered, and adopted, and gave birth, and miscarried at 4 months.

A little bit of everything.

I was a foster kid and in group homes for two years and I never wet the bed of pooped my pants.None of the others did either.
That’s rather insulting to kids in need.
I guess all these kids will just keep waiting .
https://www.adoptamericanetwork.org/waiting-children

Yes, it is. I was saying it facetiously. But I find it to be true, don't you? Everyone wants a baby, not a foster child. Many do , but not all. Most people want babies, especially barren married couples.

The reason I was going for a baby under 2 yo is because my little house only has 2 legal size bedrooms (the 3rd bedroom in the basement is not up to code) so I could not get a child because I have a child of my own still. However, a baby I could place in my own bedroom. They don't allow older children to stay in an adult's room and I did not want to make my autist son have to share a room with a foster child.

If you don't think people have the right to abort, than maybe you should be more accepting of taking in unwanted kids instead of "facetiously" characterizing them in such an insulting way. That kind of attitude is exactly why foster kids sometimes have a very difficult time.

Also, if people can't abort, there will be a lot more foster kids in need of a home.

Again, I was saying what most people who would adopt probably think, not what I think. I love children and would adopt a dozen if I could, poopy britches and all. I can't because I am single, working FT, and have a 14 yo son who wants nothing to do with it.

Less abortion = more babies. to adopt.

I’m not sure what any of this has to do with abortion, but I was single and working full-time when I fostered and adopted. I don’t want anyone thinking it’s not possible.

I mean why can't christians just opt not to have abortions, rather than trying to force it on the rest of it.

In the end according to their beliefs god is the final judge, so why not just leave it up to god to judge the 'sinful aborters'?

I do not care if someone is personally against abortion I would entirely support their right to carry the pregnancy to term regardless of what anyone else says, just as much as I would defend someones right to get an abortion if they don't want to be pregnant, or if complications develop later that make pregnancy to risky to continue.

I do not really understand women who do not want that choice for themselves. Like you can't go wrong with choice...if you are uncomfortable with abortion or it goes against your beliefs you don't have to have one, but on the same token you should not be able to force people to keep their pregnancy against their will.

Exactly.

Pro Choice means each person has the right to make their own choice, whether they choose yes or no.

People can choose no all they want, and as many times as they want. That’s the meaning of choice. The only difference is that we don’t get to choose for others.

But as you say even you have limits to how many children you could take on. And some peoples limit is they don't want any. Like it is not my responsibility to be a birth environment to provide children for you to adopt.

Perhaps if us humans laid eggs that would be more realistic, I could just give my egg to you but human pregnancy takes 9 months of suffering that is quite simply not worth it if you don't want any kids ever. Plus my mom had to have c-sections for me and all my siblings..I could not imagine doing that if you don't want kids.

Also, I have a muscle/dna condition...that makes it more risky like they could have physical problems if born and my body may not even be able to handle pregnancy. I certainly don't want to die in childbirth just to provide a baby for someone to adopt.

Where there's a will there's a way, for sure.

I understand! Lots of people don't want children.