# abortion in life threatening situation



## cupotea (Feb 25, 2010)

What's Bible's teaching on abortion due to life threatening effect to the mother ?


----------



## jfschultz (Feb 25, 2010)

Self preservation, which is expressed in Westminster's understanding of the sixth commandment, comes into play here. If the condition would be fatal to both mother and child, abortion would probably be an easier choice than if the situation was life of the mother or the child.

BTW: The most liberal statistics for the U.S. put abortions for life of the mother, rape, or incest at under 5% of all abortions.


----------



## Montanablue (Feb 25, 2010)

Even though abortion proponents pull this situation out frequently, its actually extremely rare. 

Having said that, if the pregnancy means death for both mother and child (for example an Ectopic pregnancy), then an abortion might be the lesser of two evils. I think one has to leave it up to the conscience of the mother in those situations.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 25, 2010)

Pregnancy is not a disease, and abortion is not a cure.


(that said, saving the life of one individual, if the death of the other is not the goal, is not an abortion.)


----------



## PuritanZealot (Feb 25, 2010)

One also has to question Gods will in the situation. 
My mother in law was forced into an abortion by her ex husband after the birth of their first son (my brother in law) and they couldn't afford the bills of an extra child. Then after the birth of their second child and a divorce, she got pregnant with a new boyfriend, whilst having undiagnosed cervical cancer. The doctors said if she didn't have an abortion both she and the baby would die. 
She refused to go through with it and said if she died then so be it, she felt that it was her chance to make it up to the child she aborted. Lucy was born in 1989 without complication and both her and her mum went through the birth without incident. Then her unbiological father (the father of her half brother and sister) took Annie (Lucy's mum) back and adopted Lucy.
Lucy has since become a Christian and is a blessing to all her family (none of whom are), so had her (non Christian) mum gone ahead and had the abortion there would be one less of the Elect walking the earth. I'm not saying that all pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother deserve this treatment but sometimes the doctors get it wrong and sometimes God's providence shines through and changes the outcome entirely.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 25, 2010)

For a long time, I would have qualified abortion as great sin "except to save the life of the mother."

We know, that this phrase has been "dumbed down" to "affecting the health of the mother," even the mental health (sort of like getting a speeding ticket affects one's mental health). But putting aside the crafty and clever arguments men make to justify their sin, the question is whether killing an unborn child can be justified in God's sight ever.

We have now reached a place in our nation where almost 1 in every 3 live births is being aborted. 

We could establish that defending one's life from the intended actions of another to take it is self-defense, and not a violation of God's law. We could establish there are even different degrees of culpability, and mitigating circumstances, hence the common law distinguishes between murder and manslaughter generally.

Until the US Supreme Court 7-2 majority took the power to protect innocent preborn human life from the States to regulate, many States classified it as manslaughter, sometimes "voluntary manslaughter," a lower degree felony, but a felony nonetheless. It was possible that doctors who performed abortion for a living could be charged at a higher level.

An excellent position paper was done by the PCA, and in effect it says "no"- an unborn child never really threatens his mother in a self defense sort of way. It gave me great pause to consider this well written biblical exposition:

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-015.html

---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------

Craig,

A marvelous story of God's redemption in an apparently impossible situation! Thanks.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Feb 25, 2010)

Tim and I talked about this months ago, and I was glad I did when I was being prepped for the emergency c-section when Grace was in distress--the agreement was to save Grace, if it came to a decision. Not everyone will come to that conclusion, but it's something I think those involved in a pregnancy should talk about (I'd also informed the doctor).


----------



## lynnie (Feb 25, 2010)

I thought the PCA paper failed to present the situation fully. Of course no baby is agressively deliberately seeking to harm the mother, like an intruder breaking into your home at night. 

However, roughly 2% of pregnancies are ectopic (outside the womb, in the fallopian tube, ovary, or elsewhere) and as the baby grows, about half will spontaneously die, and with the other half the mother will almost surely die. (There is the very rare "miracle story" of such a baby who grows in the abdominal area and attaches to the blood supply of an artery). 

If you do have a baby growing in the fallopian tube, to not remove it is a death sentence for the mother unless it dies on its own. So if you want to take the position that it is better to die than to kill the baby, OK, but I think you need to be clear that the Mom will die, and face up to that.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 25, 2010)

Scottish Lass said:


> Tim and I talked about this months ago, and I was glad I did when I was being prepped for the emergency c-section when Grace was in distress--the agreement was to save Grace, if it came to a decision. Not everyone will come to that conclusion, but it's something I think those involved in a pregnancy should talk about (I'd also informed the doctor).



I agree that one should discuss the subject with their spouse. It may be easy for the husband to say no abortion no matter what, but it isn't your life that is on the line.


----------



## sastark (Feb 25, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> > Tim and I talked about this months ago, and I was glad I did when I was being prepped for the emergency c-section when Grace was in distress--the agreement was to save Grace, if it came to a decision. Not everyone will come to that conclusion, but it's something I think those involved in a pregnancy should talk about (I'd also informed the doctor).
> ...


 
I doubt you meant that to be offense, but to insinuate that the husband would put his own interests above that of his wife is repugnant. The husband should always have his wife's best interests in mind "just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her."


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 25, 2010)

Oh no I did not mean it as offensive. I was speaking from experience more than anything so let me give the background and maybe it will be clearer.

I grew up thinking that any type of abortion was wrong. If the wife's life was at danger, you still let God be God and let the chips fall where they may. Obviously I would miss my wife and would grieve, but I would assume that God had a purpose in the situation and that it would work for the good. One day when discussing this with my wife I realized that she did not have the same convictions. Her convictions were not necessarily grounded in Scripture, but fear. The idea of dying can be a tough pill to swallow. This opened the door for us to grow together spiritually and discuss the situation.

It was a million times better for us to discuss everything when she was not pregnant and the hypothetical situation could not occur for quite some time vs. bringing up the subject for the first time right after a doctor told us the wife would die in a few hours if she did not abort (the latter being a hypothetical situation).

My previous post was an attempt to agree that married couples needed to discuss the situation. The parties involved are approaching the situation from different angles. One is contemplating giving up the love of his life. The other is contemplating giving up their own life.


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 25, 2010)

I don't know if we can give a hard-and-fast answer on this one. The principles of preserving life, implicit in the sixth amendment, could be applied to either the mother or the child depending on the situation. This is where wisdom comes into play. Definitely, the spouse is part of the decision. If there's time, I'd want the counsel of members of my session. (Implicit in all this is the assumption that both mother and child are created in God's image and protected by His law!)


----------



## Rich Koster (Feb 25, 2010)

Just think..... 100 years ago, this discussion would not have taken place. I often ponder this thought: Where has medical science overstepped its boundaries?. I make no accusation towards any previous post. However, sometimes physicians play god and they do not take prayer to the real God into account.


----------



## TimV (Feb 25, 2010)

Most of the pregnancies of the type described haven't reached the point when the church has historically called animated, i.e. received a soul. I'm not saying it's right, but it makes the ethics easier.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 25, 2010)

Rich, 100 years ago about 1/6 of all women died from childbirth. The rates are the same today in places like Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. And almost half of all kids died before adulthood. Medicine has saved more lives than it has killed.

If God had intended for a baby to live, I think He would have it embedded it in the womb and not the fallopian tube. So all we are doing is keeping the Mom alive instead of both dying. Thanks to modern medicine and ultrasounds a homeschool Mom with three little kids won't die....especially the horrific death where she ruptures and bleeds out in front of the kids in the space of five minutes.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Rich Koster (Feb 26, 2010)

lynnie said:


> Rich, 100 years ago about 1/6 of all women died from childbirth. The rates are the same today in places like Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. And almost half of all kids died before adulthood. Medicine has saved more lives than it has killed.
> 
> If God had intended for a baby to live, I think He would have it embedded it in the womb and not the fallopian tube. So all we are doing is keeping the Mom alive instead of both dying. Thanks to modern medicine and ultrasounds a homeschool Mom with three little kids won't die....especially the horrific death where she ruptures and bleeds out in front of the kids in the space of five minutes.
> 
> Just my opinion.



The post of my opinion is targeted at docs who recommend termination if there is ANY higher than normal risk to the pregnancy. Example: a mom in her late 40's, someone with heart problems, someone with other issues/complications. This is where I think they play god and kill the child with no room for prayer in their thought.


----------

