No ruling yet from the Florida Supreme Court on abortion ballot measure, the six week law or on marijuana. They have until April 15th
I am simply asking questions. What kind of response would measure up to your moral standards? Do you celebrate all life as a gift and something to be cherished or do you not? Is a child born to a middle school girl as a product of rape not something to be celebrated? We are talking about new life. We are talking about a new creation. We are talking about a new little person who will have a birthday every year of their life.
Absolutely NOT! Forcing a child to carry to term under those circumstances is like raping her every day. There should have been provisions made for her to have her abortion at no cost. Shame on you and your thoroughly twisted sense of "morals." I hope your spouse/girlfriend/child/female family member is never raped and impregnated. I would never wish that on anyone. But, God forbid, should that ever happen to you, you'd likely be singing a different tune.
So, you would tell this child that she raped her mom everyday she was in the womb? Man, Peanut sure would feel special hearing that. I have never been through this type of situation, so I can't speak to the pain and the struggle of the situation. I would not wish rape on any woman I know or do not know, but every child no matter how they were conceived should be cherished and celebrated. So, yes I would definitely be singing a different tune than you if I was in this situation. I am certain it would be extremely difficult. However, living the rest of my life knowing I am responsible for killing a baby would not be an option on the table. What you are proposing is like killing your spouse to get insurance money. Not everything that makes life easier is morally right even if the government turns a blind eye and you can get away with it.
Thankfully for me and members of my family we have never been faced with such intolerable circumstances or found it necessary to make such decisions. But I do know if I had become pregnant I would have had the baby and given it up for adoption after investigating child placement agencies .Apparently this Mississippi family did not consider this alternative and now their lives have been radically changed for generations to come. I'm a gardener. My back yard has been planned, designed, and diligently maintained for optimum healthy growth and enjoyment. I've educated myself to know what soil is best and how much water is needed for plants I've chosen and intentionally planted to thrive in my climate. The garden has been designed not only for my enjoyment but also for the enjoyment of others and eventually for my children who will some day inherit the property and contents after I am gone. In order to maintain the garden's design and appearance as planned it is necessary to pull weeds growing from unplanned weed seeds blowing into the yard from outside the fenced area. Allowing them to grow would disrupt the overall designed plan, wasting the time, money, energy needed to start, maintain and enjoy the growing garden. If emerging seedlings are not wanted, they will be pulled from the ground before maturing to damage the garden they were intrusively implanted. Families that thrive are planned, brought into existence by responsible parents who have a constructive vision for the future. Parents who shared their vision, resources, and intentions with young children they have intentionally and lovingly brought into the world will also more likely contribute to their children raising a subsequent generation of children who will continue to value and appreciate their intentional efforts, thereby sustaining the vision.
Valid points made here for sure. The question that strikes at the truth is if you aborted a family member, then could it be said that you and the aborted baby thrived? We must be very careful to place ourselves correctly in the analogy you have created here. To call another person a "weed" and to mark them them as undesirable and to be killed is to assume that you and I are the gardener in the analogy. There is only one person who truly has the right to say what is a weed and what is not a weed, and that is God. A weed could say in its heart, "I am the gardener. I will kill all that I find undesirable in the garden." That weed could then start killing the other plants in the garden. What will the gardener do when he comes to the garden, and he sees what this weed has done to the other plants? He would have every right to remove and dispose of that weed.
The discussion in recent days in this thread makes me think of this: Love. In Christianity love considers others more important than ourselves. The ultimate example of this is Jesus. He loved to the point of death. He gave everything for others. That was how selfless Jesus truly was. That will always be the primary example of what love truly is. So, a mother who loves in a Christian way is a mother who puts her own child before herself. She is willing to sacrifice for the one whom she loves. She is inherently motivated by the welfare of another outside of herself. A mother who makes that choice shows that she is made in God’s image. The dominant ethos in our culture is doing its best to plant its stake and claim this word, “love,” as its own (as lustful passion and government welfare programs), whilst rejecting the Christian notion of love. In Christianity love is required in the sense that is not optional. It is commanded. Any person who does not love is guilty of disobedience before God. It is foundational to good character, and when its absence is found in the soul of a person that person is found to be morally deficient, evil, and corrupt. Lovelessness finds love to be an abomination. It says shame on you for standing on what is right and true. Shame on you for imitating the good God who created you. Shame on you for putting others before yourself. Shame on you for being like God and not like the devil. Shame on you for not being deeply self-centered to the point where you would be willing to kill to have your life your way. Love vs. Lovelessness. God vs. the devil. Christianity vs. godlessness. All of that is what swirls underneath the surface of this thread. @G8tas thank goodness the triune God did not adopt the attitude abortion advocates do when he faced the choice of going to the cross or not going to the cross. Jesus chose to do the will of the Father. And we are all better off for it.
I would differ with many in this thread in that I oppose the death penalty for the innocent, which is what an unborn child is, even one who was conceived as a product of rape. For the guilty, specifically those who have committed murder, I think it is a valid form of civil punishment. And FWIW Christianity is a radically different religion without the death penalty because that is the penalty Christ had to pay for sin. And Jesus being the God of love willing accepted that penalty on himself so that it would not fall on others who deserve death. Death there is understood to be physical, spiritual, and eternal. So, that is not to say that you and I will not die. Lots of people have died who were redeemed by Christ’s blood, but we all die physically because we have all sinned. So the death penalty for sin affects us all.
"Do you celebrate all life as a gift and something to be cherished or do you not?" And yet, you just said you support imposing it on others whom you believe deserve death. You're not making sense.
There is no inconsistency there. There is no incompatibility between a respect for the value of life and the acknowledgement of the rightful penalty for sin. Just like you might celebrate a new car, you can celebrate a new human being. We are not exactly new in every respect, so the analogy falls short in some respects. Nonetheless, a car can be destroyed after you once cherished it. We celebrate new life, but there is a path of destruction and many choose it everyday. You can be made upright and innocent but then make choices to bring destruction upon yourself. God is the giver of life. We should celebrate God's gift of life. We are the ones who bring death upon ourselves by not living how God would have us to live. Then Christ brings hope and restoration, where there was no hope or restoration if we believe and trust in Him. There is nothing contradictory in that. A car going to the dumpster does not contradict that it once was loved and cherished. Likewise, a man facing judgment for his deeds does not contradict the fact that he was loved and cherished. It simply demonstrates that the love of God does not defang God to the point where he is an old man without any teeth. He is loving, but He is still just. He is love, but He will still judge every man according to his deeds. The two are not mutually exclusive.
You said "all life," not "new life." It's also a bit rich after you lectured people here for not having enough respect for life that you analogized the death penalty to scrapping an old car. I wish you luck reconciling your stances.
I don't expect to satisfy you. Jesus spoke to lawyers in parables for a reason. He hid the truth from them because of their hearts. However, it should be made abundantly clear that my opinion and your opinion are worthless because neither you nor I possess any moral authority. And remember you might be able to play lawyer over a keyboard on the internet, but the Judge is the Judge. We are talking about a Judge who sits in a courtroom you and I are not worthy to enter. If He decrees abortion is murder, but then also decrees that the soul that sins shall die...that decree is final. Cute lawyer tactics won't work. You and I possess no authority to question Him. He is not on trial because you and I are not the judge. He is the judge. It is you and I that are on trial before Him. I hope you find your way into the good graces of the Judge before it is too late.
I would present evidence, but the problem is you are the judge. I am not going to quote the Bible to have you twist it and spit on it. You can do that with someone else.
It ain't even that complicated. You're saying the "Judge" made a ruling. Just show me where the "Judge" explicitly said "abortion" in the Bible and decreed it murder. Abortion happened during the periods when the Bible was written, so it shouldn't be hard to show the "Judge" explicitly discussing abortion.
It is not hard, but the Bible also talks about those who hear but do not hear and those who see but do not see. It says not to throw pearls before swine. Some things are revealed to the humble and the lowly and not the wise of this world. You are not a true seeker. You are a lawyer trying to pick an argument. There is a big difference.