Florida woman forced to give birth to a baby that will die immediately

While there are no actual images of Jesus based on his background as a Middle Eastern man of Jewish decent the speculation is that he probably looked like this:

 

Looks like a 9/11 hijacker. Kidding. Really! Just Kidding….

 

Ah, a euthanasia aside. This is an example where I think legalism fails us. Murder involves taking the life away from somebody with malice. When somebody is terminally ill, depending on their condition, of course, it may be reasonable to conclude that they don't have any semblance of a "life" to be taken away such an effort is conceivably without malice. It's a shame that we allow our pets to be put down peacefully, but we don't always do the same for our fellow man. Without self-defining, is it possible to commit murder when there is no malice involved? The counter-point, of course, is that the committer does not recognize the evil involved (which I take to be your perspective). I think it is prudent to consider that some evil is committed by forcing somebody to suffer when they have no hope for recovery. In such a case, I would consider the non-evil route to be that which leads to a similar result but with less pain and suffering. More importantly, I'd rather leave the state out of this decision-making process and leave it to the freedom of individuals and their families with their ultimate acts being judged only by God. My opinion, of course, but just sharing since you shared yours.

What I take from this is that you are saying in a round-about way that you support the state banning abortion in each and every case where there is still a technical life in existence. If I'm incorrect, please let me know. I imagine your view is not unique, and to @WarDamnGator's point and others @GatorJMDZ (etc.), I do think it would be appropriate to have better verbiage or to leave out the restriction altogether. God's law should be sufficient in and of itself, we shouldn't need man's law to enforce what we may deem to be moral/immoral behavior. But again, I appreciate your take on the topic. Your sister has taken a truly noble approach, but not one that I think should be mandated by the state. Again, just my opinion.

Whose to say that the life can't be and won't be celebrated to the extent that it existed? My wife and I lost a child during a pregnancy, and it's termination did not prevent us from celebrating in our own way the preciousness and value of that life. I actually learned a lot about the personal nature of this in going through the process. But to your question, it's not "we" that should be making any decisions about it, but only those who are most intimately involved in the actual experience.

Agreed. And if that were what is happening here, I would still call it immoral, but I would still say it's not for the State to be involved in that process. I'm content with letting God deal with that on His terms. In my view, we don't have man's law to reinforce Biblical law. We have man's law so that we can coexist with one another and allow for civilization to respect each other and compromise wherever we can.

And that should be enough, no? To say we need man's law on top of that for such a thing is to say God's law isn't good enough. As long as the doctor isn't being compelled to perform such a thing against his/her wishes, of course.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

There are a couple of points that press against this. First, King David executed the death penalty on a man who claimed to kill King Saul to spare his suffering. That is a huge problem for the position you are advocating. The man after God's own heart quite clearly did not agree with the principle you are advocating. Furthermore, Romans 13 says that the purpose of the state is to punish evildoers, and one of the primary ways human civilizations have carried this out is by punishing murderers. It has always been the state's domain to punish the shedding of innocent blood, and this is without question Biblical. The idea that a doctor and their family can decide to shed innocent blood, and that there should be a shield of immunity from prosecution of the state is unbiblical.

Second, legalism often operates in multiple ways. The legalist will make up their own man-made rules and regulations, as the Pharisees did with all sorts of things. I am assuming that is what you mean by legalism here. Most people acknowledge this aspect of legalism. However, the legalist will also see themselves as so wise in their own eyes that they think they carve out their own exceptions where they don't have to obey God's commandments. One example of this is seen by the Pharisees who rationalized why they didn't have to financially care for their elderly parents. They were rebuked by Jesus for this because Jesus saw it as shirking honoring your father and your mother. So, legalism can also take the form of relaxing obedience to a commandment when obedience is deemed too costly.

The problem with this is God is not a respecter of persons, and the state shouldn't be either. If we are going to say "God's law is sufficient" then that shouldn't discriminate from case to case and from person to person based on any characteristics. You would need to abolish the prosecution of murder across the board for all people indiscriminately to truly hold this position consistently. Of course that is not what you are advocating. What you are really advocating here is selective anarchy towards people you view as less worthy of justice and protection before the law.

Who are the people most intimately involved in the life of an unborn baby? It is the God who knits that baby together in the mother's womb who is most intimately involved. And then it is the baby. And then it is the parents. The first two are often left out of the moral calculus of these decisions.

Again, this is favoritism. You would be advocating a different set of standards and principles if we were talking about your wife. You would not be saying, "Well God's law is sufficient" if you discovered someone had killed your wife.

If you want to hold this position, then you should hold to it universally for all people. When you have one set of standards for one group of people, and you have another set of standards for another group of people that is unjust.

 

You are misrepresenting what my sister went through. You do not go through what she went through, and then say, "Oh, that worked for me." See that is a rationalization for murder. The situation did not work for my sister. The grief was unbelievable, but my sister was selfless in the midst of that. She laid aside her own desire in order to love. She considered others more important than herself. She was broken by it, but in the midst of that she drew strength from her God. The desires and the needs of another superseded her own.

And she saw through the lie of the devil that abortion is: In the end you are still a parent who had a baby. Your baby is still dead. However, if you get an abortion, then you are the one who murdered your own baby. That is why your baby died because you killed your own baby. That is what abortion is. And once you've crossed that bridge it can never be undone. That will always be what happened.

Now, it cannot be undone, but forgiveness is possible with Christ. For those who humble themselves before Him and confess their sins believing in Him, He will forgive them for what they have done.

 

There are so many things wrong with this post. Just a few.

Setting aside that I don’t believe in God, people “after gods heart” are very rare and certainly did not exist in the Old Testament.

Most of the world doesn’t care and doesn’t know what Romans 13 says

Ditto the Pharisees.

Gods law isn’t sufficient for anyone but your tiny sect of Christianity and perhaps extremist Muslims

the rest is mumbo Jumbo

 

But we know the most extreme anti-choice people are coming from the extreme religious right.

 

If your sister CHOSE on her own to go through that, that's fine and I don't recall anyone in this thread suggesting the woman in the OP should be required to have an abortion. If it was my sister and she opted to have an abortion in that situation, I would take her to the first place where it could be legally performed or pay to have it done illegally (women of means have always had access to medically safe abortions) and you would be well served not to get in my way as I was taking her there.

 

Well, you don't serve yourself or your sister well. What does the power of choice profit you and your sister if you lose your soul?

 

That's not how my Christian faith looks at it. Our souls would be fine, thank you very much. Your church is no better than mine and, if I want to be arrogant about it, I could make an argument that mine is objectively better than yours.

To be clear, I'm fine with the decision your sister made. I fully resent your assessment that my hypothetical sister's decision would not serve her or my soul well. To be blunt, who the hell are you to make that assessment? When I am meeting my maker, I feel supremely confident you will not be there nor will you ever be part of that decision making process. You are dismissed out of hand as a judgemental annoyance.

 

It is not I who said, but Christ who said it.

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” -Matthew 16:24-28, ESV​

 

I'm not sure how you find equivalency in the two. The Amalekite who claimed to have killed Saul was telling King David what he thought he wanted to hear. The Bible says that Saul took his own life; the Bible says that the Amalekite claimed to have killed him for compassionate reasons. The Bible doesn't say that the Amalekite killed Saul. The only Biblically consistent conclusion is that the Amalekite did not kill Saul, but lied about it.

That's a fair counter. I think that's why we pray and leave the matter to the family rather than to the State. If a family is in wrong in their internal decision, that's between them and God; not a matter for the State to negotiate between citizens.

I don't agree with you here. The State prosecution of murder doesn't exist to reinforce God's law; it exists to help a civilized society function. As rational people, we recognize that we can't enforce God's law on those who do not follow Him. In our church, it is commonly emphasized that we should not expect non-Christians to follow Christ (as a matter of law, at least). As such, governments exist, NOT to follow the laws of the Bible, but to provide a mechanism for civilization to be managed between Christians and non-Christians alike.

But that is not for the State to decide.

No, I wouldn't. I don't have to worry about accountability to God, we all are. If another person killed my wife, that would be a violation against civilization (in addition to, not instead of, a violation of God); hence the need for civilization's government to manage the situation. In this case, it's not even a matter of what I want, but what is appropriate for society to be able to respect each other and their most personal boundaries. My point is the rules we need to manage a society are often more nuanced than the rules we need to manage our spiritual life.

Your view on suffering is what leads some folks to stay clear of the use of medical advancements that help to save lives. Folks draw different lines spiritually, necessarily, but it is the decision of what is reasonable to call on governments to assist with where we seem to get lost.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

As mentioned a certain Sect of Christianity embraces suffering and wants to make you suffer as well. It’s on full display here.

 

No offense to anyone, but I don't care what Christ said or didn't say. I'm not religious. And my family isn't Christian. If that condemns me to hell, so be it. And my actions around if it were my sister facing a similar situation wouldn't matter anyway.

I don't envy anyone in this situation as the OP. But each woman in this awful predicament should have the choice what they feel is best. The ugly and unfortunate reality is, abort or not, the baby isn't going to live long. While that's just awful, what difference does it make to the baby? is it really better they live outside the womb, possibly in pain, for a few hours, or days maximum versus terminating earlier? A question I can't answer. Nor should anyone really answer for anyone else. The decision should be the woman's, with anyone else she chooses to make the decision with.

Again, the ugly truth is the baby dies either way. Why force a woman to carry if that's going to cause her significant emotional, and possibly physical harm?

 

If only it were that simple. You’re just arguing one side of the issue.

 

And what's the other side of the issue? Other people's religious beliefs dictating what women can do in this situation? The rare case of misdiagnosis and the child lives? It happens, sure, but how often. And is this 1 in a million chance worth forcing women to give birth regardless? Again, you need to weigh the mental and physical health of the mother. While some women would certainly hold out hope, which is their choice, I don't think we should force every woman to do the same.

 

Nothing to do with religion. You never mention in your argument the idea that’s the most obvious. A woman can choose not to have sex.

 

True. But in the case of the OP, the couple is married, and it's assumed that they want to have kids. Can't have kids without having sex. Completely irrelevant in this discussion, or any discussion where the pregnancy is wanted, and ends up in tragedy. Abortion bans end up effecting women in this situation, and that's cruel in my opinion.

 

Okay, I agree. Sorry these threads do wind around a bit and I lost track.
No doubt there should be a safeguard to allow some later abortions to protect the mother.

 

I can confidently state that 99.9999999999+ of women decided not to do it with you, it’s only 99.9% with the rest of us, and in part because they want to have it with each other (hot!). Again you want the rest of us men and women to be in the boat with you. Not a chance in hell which you may visit (your condemnation of the rest of us has to violate one of the cardinal sins (vain glory comes to mind).