Thoughts on abortion from a christian perspective!!

......

There is this lady on my mom's job that had 13 abortions. She uses abortions as her contreception. She did let one live. But hey it was her "choice" right?
This woman needs proper sex education and PSYCHOLOGICAL COUNSELING! Obviously something is wrong if you feel the need to take the torturious path and shun common sense. I won't even mention exposing yourself to AIDS/HIV.

....My best friends cousins has had four of them and she would do it stickly to get even with her husband. She would get pregnant then abort to hurt him. I guess proving her power as a woman. What she does not care that she has hurt a child.
Another example of a woman turning over her responsability for assuring her own happiness to a man. How can anyone possibly say they have a good man and a healthy marriage if they feel the need to abort to hurt another?
 
kally said:
Jcoily, So you mean to tell me that just because a "fetus" is conceived to someone poor that the unborn does not deserve to live? There are rich young girls who are forced to abort as well. This is a life we are dealing with not a toy. If this is the case then only the rich or well to do should be allowed to have kids.

Nope, didn't say that at all. Financial incentive isn't a reason to abort, particularly from a Christian perspective. If a girl/woman really wants to be a mother then she shouldn't be above taking a job that will probably provide less in the way of comfortable lifestyle than what her parents supplied her with. You say that the threat of being cut off financially is forcing someone to abort. I say that in this situation, the woman chooses her own comfort over motherhood.


kally said:
Many parents treat their grandchild if conceived by their young child as if she did this on purpose and like a toy. Saying things like "she don't need it" . Wow what a way for your own grand parents to feel about you. I guess some people do not value the live of others. Sad world we live in.

A young child getting pregnant by consensual sex probably does regard their baby as a toy. That's a broad statement but I stand by it. A 16 year old isn't likely to contemplate how to provide food and shelter for themselves, let alone a baby. I don't care how much the grandparents love the baby, odds are if they wanted another child to support in their house, they would have had their own.

But if that 16 year old insists on being a mother then they have to embrace the good, bad and ugly that comes with being a 16 year old mother.
 
kally said:
There is this lady on my mom's job that had 13 abortions. She uses abortions as her contreception. She did let one live. But hey it was her "choice" right?
I got two answers for you on this

Christian answer - God will judge her.

JCoily answer - Those 13 souls are better off where they are at than with this woman. Someone who has had 13 abortions has pretty much proved that she SHOULD NOT BE A MOTHER.

Question, if this woman had had all 14 children, are there pro-life groups out there that step in to help her out?
 
I am definitely pro-choice. There's no doubt that what the bible states is clearly black and white but it's not left up to me to enforce my beliefs on someone else. God is the judge....Not I.
 
I am not judging anyone. Nor forcing my beliefs upon anyone. I am simply stating what happened to this woman and my views on the whole abortion issue.

If I had a young daughter with child I would help her out for she is carrying a generation. I do not want to see a whole generation of my family gone on the bases of a selfish "choice" The child is conceived and I would do my best to make it right.

It is medically possible to have multiple abortions. I have heard of women who have had even more then that. How their abilty to continue to conceive is still going, is beyond me.

It is not the pro-lifers fault this lady decided to get pregnant 14 times. Our goal is to look out for the unborn. Where as pro-choicers feel that it is common sense and "wise" to kill your child if you can not afford it or because you can, because you are woman and have the power to decide who lives and who dies, or what is good for "her".

The ironic thing about abortion is that those who are for it are already born.

The only good thing about abortion is that it prevents future abortions.
 
kally said:
Where as pro-choicers feel that it is common sense and "wise" to kill your child if you can not afford it or because you can, because you are woman and have the power to decide who lives and who dies, or what is good for "her".

You're capable of reading the minds of pro-choicers? You may disagree with the pro-choice perspective and that's fine, but I can't stand when pro-lifers decide to speak for the rest of us and say how we think.

I am pro-choice because I believe that it's a decision that's between a woman and her God and ultimately she will have to answer only to Him for her decision.

By all means, stay on your pro-life course... and you might get more converts by focusing on why life is so important instead of making up reasons why pro-choicers believe the way they do.

BTW, do you have a link to the story of the woman who was forced to have an abortion? I'm sorry, but if I didn't want to have an abortion and it was THAT important to me, I'd quit and sue the pants off that employer (and I say that from a PRO-CHOICE perspective). That sounds quite ridiculous for a pro-life person to give in so easily because she says she doesn't want to fight, but then say, "Waaah, I was forced to have an abortion."

In that case, why call herself pro-life if the "life" wasn't important enough for her to fight for?
 
kally said:
I am not judging anyone. Nor forcing my beliefs upon anyone. I am simply stating what happened to this woman and my views on the whole abortion issue.
That's cool. We're all in here just talking. I actually think this is one of the tamest abortion discussions I've been in.


kally said:
It is not the pro-lifers fault this lady decided to get pregnant 14 times. Our goal is to look out for the unborn.
If your focus is just on the unborn, then you can't claim to care about the baby either. It's the theory of a baby that you want to protect, not the actual child.

kally said:
Where as pro-choicers feel that it is common sense and "wise" to kill your child if you can not afford it or because you can, because you are woman and have the power to decide who lives and who dies, or what is good for "her".
There are pro-choice people who have responded to you here that haven't said anything remotely like this. The consensus has been that it's between a woman and God.
 
Which goes back to my original question, why does God allow the woman the gift of conception if he knows she will abort the child?
 
here that link:


http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=2085&department=BLI&categoryid=femfacts


Where Are All the Feminists When You Need Them? 9/18/2002
By Angie Vineyard, Research Fellow

This week The Washington Post reported that during her coaching career at the University of California at Berkeley, Marianne Stanley forced an assistant coach to choose between having an abortion and quitting her job.




The assistant, Sharrona Alexander, was actually on her way to Atlanta to have the abortion, (allegedly paid for by Stanley) when she changed her mind and decided that she didn't want to terminate her pregnancy, nor did she want to step down from her coaching job. Her decision did not suit Stanley, now the head coach of the Washington Mystics, who asked Alexander to resign. Alexander refused, was subsequently fired and later brought a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against the university, which reportedly settled for $115,000.




Lest we think this is an isolated incident, it was only a month ago that the D.C. inspector general recommended "appropriate disciplinary action" against an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) supervisor, whose advice led three rookie emergency medical technicians to have abortions, for fear of losing their jobs.




According to the D.C. inspector general's investigation, the majority of a March 2001 EMS orientation class recalled operations chief Samanthia M. Robinson saying they were on a year's probation, had no union representation and could be fired if they became pregnant. Robinson denied telling class members that pregnancy would result in termination, but three students came forward independently, to tell that they had chosen abortions, based on Robinson's remarks.




And so, the unequivocal question: When these women were forced to make this horrific choice, when they were told they could not simultaneously hold onto their careers and assume the role of motherhood, where were the feminists?




That any boss would pressure an employee to abort her child, simply to keep her job, is preposterous. Federal and state laws clearly prohibit pregnancy discrimination. Notwithstanding, 4,287 pregnancy discrimination charges were filed just last year with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.




But the most appalling fact in both of these cases is that the bosses were women.




Why would a female boss pressure an employee to have an abortion, lest she lose her job? Were these women ever slacking in their job performance? Or did their employers make an assumption that pregnant women are weak, professionally incompetent and incapable of carrying out their job responsibilities?




If the boss in either of these cases had been a male, feminist groups would have fallen all over themselves to lambaste the chauvinist and drag his name through the media mud. But when the boss is a female, who is to come to the aid of pregnant employees?




Where was Planned Parenthood? Where were the throngs of women who, three decades ago, fought a contentious court battle for reproductive rights, all in the name of "choice?"




Wasn't it their beloved Margaret Sanger who wrote in Woman and the New Race:




"Women who have a knowledge of contraceptives are not compelled to make the choice between a maternal experience and a marred love life; they are not forced to balance motherhood against social and spiritual activities. Motherhood is for them to choose, as it should be for every woman to choose."




Ah, but this assistant head coach and these EMS students didn't get to choose. Rather, their choice was made for them.




Wasn't it also the mother of Planned Parenthood who wrote:




"No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."





And didn't Sanger also write:




"Woman must have her freedom - the fundamental freedom of choosing whether or not she shall be a mother and how many children she will have. Regardless of what man's attitude may be, that problem is hers - and before it can be his, it is hers alone."




But the problem wasn't "man's attitude," rather it was woman's.




It isn't likely that feminist groups have never heard of Marianne Stanley. It was Stanley who sued the University of Southern California for sexual discrimination in 1993, demanding compensation parity for men's and women's head coaches. Stanley lost the lawsuit on the grounds that her coaching and marketing experience did not equal that of her male counterpart. But by the time that verdict was handed down, her name had passed through feminist circles across the country.




So what do the feminist groups think about these cases? Do they think there is any reason to rally around Alexander and these three EMS students in their quest to be working mothers? Or do the pro-choice activists secretly denounce these women for not being willing to give up motherhood in order to further their careers in sports and medicine? Do they furtively think these young mothers just weren't willing to pay the price to remain on level playing ground with the men and such is their loss, they should have known better?




If the latter is true, then it's starkly obvious. It never really was about the right to choose.

Printer Friendly Version

Recent Articles
Pediatricians Shun Abstinence-Only Education
Young Teen Sex:
Hottest New Pop Culture Concern
Tough and Tougher, Meet Toughest
Free Love: Boulevard or Cul-de-Sac
Science Proves the Case
Sharia, Again in Iraq?
Leaving on a Jet Plane:
Illegitimacy Trends and the Nation’s Children
The Broken Chains of Iraq
Damage Control
Is Planned Parenthood Liable for Client’s Death?






Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806


Feedback / Questions? || Problem
 
Thank you for the link.

I went on Nexis to read the news stories that were published about both the incidents with the basketball coach and the EMS technicians. In both cases, the stories didn't hit the news until after the fact -- after the abortions were done in the case of the EMS techs and after the coach was fired for refusing to have an abortion.

So I just wonder how anyone pro-choice or pro-life was supposed to advocate for these women when their cases weren't discovered until they filed lawsuits... and by then the decisions had already been made. I have no idea if pro-choicers would have advocated for them the same way they fight for abortion rights... but I can't agree with the "they don't fight for women who want to keep their babies," statement simply based on a few cases in which the women didn't speak up until after the fact.

Again, I say that if a woman knows she wants to keep her child and someone is threatening her with a job loss if she doesn't abort, she should be screaming to every reporter she can find and instantly get a lawyer who can also be her advocate to the media.

Make a ruckus and fight like heck for your right to keep your child, because you will ALWAYS be in the right under our federal laws here in the USA.

The good news... that basketball coach ended up getting an assistant coaching job in 2003 at West Virginia and I found an article that showed that she just got her first head-coaching job over the summer.

http://www.cwpostpioneers.com/News/wbball/2006/5/3/reaveshiring.asp?path=wbball


To conclude... even if we don't agree with the other side, I think it would do everyone a ton of good to actually listen to what they have to say sometimes and not assume that you automatically know what they believe, because it's never as cut and dried as one might think. It would be wrong for me to say that ALL pro-lifers believe in killing abortion doctors, for example... and it's just as inaccurate to say that pro-choicers don't care about children and think that women should be able to "kill babies" just because they feel like it.
 
I agree. I guess they did not come forward, because they did not think help was available or was to ashamed.

I admit some pro-lifers believe in the eye for an eye thoery. I however do not
 
Bunny77 said:
I am pro-choice because I believe that it's a decision that's between a woman and her God and ultimately she will have to answer only to Him for her decision.

But, everything we do is ultimately between us and God, but we still have laws to protect our fundamental freedoms...which, first and foremost, is life. :confused:

Second, does God not hold us responsible for how we treat our neighbor/fellow man?
 
I'm pro-choice and a Christian. I would never have an abortion (but I've also never been placed in a situation that would merit that thinking thank God), but I have a hard time telling someone who's shoes I've never been in what to do with their life. Meaning in cases of rape, or incest-I don't think I would be able to look at a woman and tell her she should give birth to her fathers child, I just couldn't. But the women who use abortion as birth control are misguided, I believe, and need as much help and prayer, but without the harsh judgement.
 
Back
Top