Another Question From Dougie

[debrand]

This is from Vision Forum Facebook page

facebook.com/visionforum?hc_location=timeline

Are you willing to say that abortion is ALWAYS wrong? Always? That it is always murder? Give me a simple "yes" (always wrong), or "no" (not always wrong).

I can not remember how to do a screen shot or find it on my computer so I am copying out the answers.

this.

Vision Forum You can not say "yes" and then argue for exceptions.

32 · May 14 at 2:30pm

Hide 12 Replies

Alan Friz I would think that rationally goes without saying . . .

2 · May 14 at 2:36pm

Karin Corr yes

May 14 at 2:48pm

Vicki Fender Jarrett I would not argue for exceptions

1 · May 14 at 2:56pm

Tracy Walker ALWAYS wrong. It is murder.

May 14 at 3:57pm

Diana Bates Martinez always wrong

May 14 at 5:11pm

Michelle Sullivan Chappell Always wrong

May 14 at 5:42pm

Win Harbin YES!!!!!!!!!

May 14 at 6:43pm

Heather Fitzgerald No problem, I'll keep it and use your taxes to feed, clothe and house it. Thanks!

May 14 at 7:02pm via mobile

Linda Mills Dunnihoo Heather,if you want to be consistent, we might as well kill off the homeless, and the elderly. Abortion is ALWAYS murder.

1 · May 14 at 10:11pm

Emily McCune Foster Or Heather, give it up for adoption. There are thousands of couples out there who want but can't have their own...

1 · May 14 at 10:27pm

Leslie Bryant plan a loving adoption rather than "give it up"

May 16 at 10:05am

Tami Mason yes!

May 16 at 11:02pm

[docmom]

This just needs a little tweaking:

Are you willing to say Doug Phillips (who is a tool) is ALWAYS wrong? Always? That he is always a tool? Give me a simple "yes" (always wrong), or "no" (not always wrong).

You cannot say "yes" then argue for exemptions.

YES

[debrand]

Here are the more scary posts about whether a mom life should be more important that the child's

James N Brittany Barrett regarding ectopic or other life threatening situations for mom and or baby, didn't God already know that part? Doesn't He have complete control? so if He says no and knows you or the baby could die, wouldnt it be better to obey? Jesus knows if the daddy will be alone and He will provide His sufficient grace and excellent mercy to that man. I'm not scared. His law is just and true at all times.

7 · May 14 at 2:57pm

Ashley Taylor AMEN!

May 14 at 2:58pm

Jessica Chaffee Then why have an OB/GYN deliver your baby instead of your minister? you obviously don't need medical care for the time you're pregnant, because it's all in god's hands anyway. Just pray, and if you or the baby dies, who cares? you'll be in heaven right?

May 14 at 3:33pm

Kathryn Andrews Point to me a place in the Bible where it is forbidden to ever take a life in self defense. Doesn't God "already know" when someone has cancer whether they will die? But we don't tell people "Don't get treated for your cancer." Don't we believe He can protect us from all harm? But do we tell people (including law enforcement and military) never to carry guns to protect themselves? No, there is an old saying "Trust in God, and keep your [gun]powder dry." God will take care of you, sometimes the means He uses is a gifted medical doctor who says "You are dying, and here is what needs to happen to prevent it." It's always a tragedy, yes, and it's always the end of a human life, but is it always "evil?" No.

2 · May 14 at 3:40pm

Dara Fisk Ekanger There's a misunderstanding between God's perfect will and His permissive will. Scripture says "God is not willing that any should perish but all should come to repentance." But it also is very clear that not everyone will be saved, so God's "perfect" will is not always accomplished on earth. His permissive will allows us to experience the consequences of living in a fallen world, with sin, diseases, and even life threatening pregnancies. That does not mean He ever intended for a woman to die because of a pregnancy gone horribly wrong.

May 14 at 3:46pm

Sarah Bailey yes. I believe the Bible tells us no greater love than this to lay down one's life for another - doesn't matter if that is your friend, husband, born alive child or a pre-born child - Christ laid down His life for you.

9 · May 14 at 2:19pm

Nicole John AMEN!

2 · May 14 at 2:45pm

Sharon Bachman Yes

2 · May 14 at 3:08pm

Liz Austin Except you are not laying down your life for another, the meaning of that verse/phrase is that you are dying so that another can live. Dying so that you both can die is not honorable, it is foolish ignorance.

2 · May 14 at 4:39pm

Alexia Acha I'm going to play devil's advocate, and say no. in the less than 2% of cases where it is for saving a mom's life, I'd say no.

I personally would choose to let my child live, same as if I had to jump in front of a train to save them.... BUT I don't think I could (in good conscience) force a woman to give up her life for another's.

8 · May 14 at 2:13pm

Kathryn Andrews And in most of the cases where the mother's life is threatened, the baby is going to die anyway. If the family already has children, is anyone REALLY OK with saying those children should be motherless and lose their sibling, simply because ending the pregnancy in self-defense is "always always wrong?" Yes, it's tragic to lose a baby. Dear God, I know this all too well! But why make it a double-tragedy if it doesn't have to be?

5 · May 14 at 2:41pm

Carol Belliveau Hebert My mother-in-law was in that position. She chose to keep the child - who grew up to marry me. She died almost 45 years later, a few weeks short of turning 80. Ultimately, God is in control - and if we obey Him in all circumstances, we invite the blessings that follow. Everyone in my family - my husband and 3 children, would not be here if she had given in to her fears.

5 · May 14 a

Liz Austin Your mother-in-law was clearly given inaccurate information when the doctor told her to abort to save her own life. Obviously, since she and the baby lived. Which is why it is so important to get a second, third, even fourth opinion when making such a drastic decision. But to put your head in the sand when you are clearly going to die and so is your baby, but you just pray for a miracle? That is along the same lines as people who simply pray their illnesses away and don't believe in medicine or doctors. You may be the hand who stopped the baby's heart beat, but if the baby is already dying (as in a ectopic pregnancy), and you stop the baby's life a few days early to save your own, that is not "playing God" any more than it is "playing God" to get antibiotics to cure your pneumonia. It is only honorable to die for your children if you are actually saving their life - If my child's heart was failing and I cut out my own heart to give to them even though my heart was too big and the wrong blood type, that is not honorable, it is foolish. I believe putting our heads in the sand about genuinely ectopic pregnancies is along the same lines. It is only honorable if you are saving a life - dying for no reason is foolishness.

6 · May 14 at 3:25pm

Sandra Clark A lot of the time the doctors CLAIM the child is endangering the mother's life, and it simply ain't so.

[debrand]

More, well the mom can just give her life for a mass of cells, crap

3 · May 14 at 4:37pm

Christine Taylor Since when is it biblically permissible to kill a child? God hates the shedding of innocent blood. Our constitution says that we have a right to life, given to us by our creator. The baby has a right to life, that should be protected. Yes the mother has a right to life, but there are consequences to our choices. If you choose to have sex and conceive, then that was the choice you made. If a rapist chooses to have sex and the woman conceives, it wasn't her choice, but it's also NOT her body that she wants to tear to pieces. The baby HAS to be protected. The government has a duty to protect the innocent, and to punish criminals. Rapists should be killed, but not the baby.

and

Denise S. Crisp Allie - God alone is the judge, but even if a woman is raped by whoever (which is a horrible thing in and of itself), she can always choose to do the RIGHT thing and allow the child to live... It is completely innocent. That doesn't mean she has to keep the child or even acknowledge it... but she does need to allow it to live. God's Grace is sufficient for all circumstances...

4 · May 14 at 3:16pm

and

Alan Friz Well . . . I am a scientist and in fact biology is my specialty. The baby has completely different DNA. There is no communication of bodily fluids. The circulatory systems come in very close proximity, but never are they connected. In the realm of physiology, the uterus is technically not even considered the "inside" the woman's body. Rather, it is an invagination of the external surface. If you take your finger and push in on the outside of an inflated balloon, would you say that your finger is now inside the balloon? No, even though it is pushed in, it is still technically outside the balloon. Medical science considers the interior of the uterus as technically the outside of the body Now, As to your argument that the baby receives nourishment from the mother's body, to take that argument to it's logical conclusion, all nursing babies would then be considered not individuals but just part of their mother's body, and hence, subject to extermination. I am sure that you are not suggesting that.

and

Linda Hoover Liz, just so you know - nowadays the medical profession is so advanced it can often save both the baby's & the mother's lives. I know from experience, having known a friend who had a very difficult 5th pregnancy. She had congestive heart failure & a cancerous brain tumor & the baby was putting enormous strain on her heart. The doctors were worried she would die before the baby was "viable" outside the womb. They kept her alive as long as they could, while the baby was growing. When he quit gaining weight (at 24 weeks) they took him. Both mother & baby survived and the baby boy is now 10 years old. Even in life-threatening pregnancy situations, there is often a solution for both mother & baby that doesn't require the death of either! So, I still say, yes, absolutely wrong!!

[debrand]

This just needs a little tweaking:

You cannot say "yes" then argue for exemptions.

YES

Doug is the greatest of all tools but he plays dress up very well.

[MamaJunebug]

]

Christine Taylor Since when is it biblically permissible to kill a child? God hates the shedding of innocen

I so wish amateurs would get out of the bible business -- looking at you, Doug Phillips. IIRC the Old Testament has an ok on stoning a rebellious child. I don't think you can stone a person halfway. But what do I know?

Doug keeps his followers up-in-arms about repro rights to distract them from how he's working to enact a theocracy, which I srsly doubt most of them want.

About should be legal, safe and rare. Why doesn't Doug address the root causes of problem pregnancies?!

[debrand]

I so wish amateurs would get out of the bible business -- looking at you, Doug Phillips. IIRC the Old Testament has an ok on stoning a rebellious child. I don't think you can stone a person halfway. But what do I know?

Doug keeps his followers up-in-arms about repro rights to distract them from how he's working to enact a theocracy, which I srsly doubt most of them want.

About should be legal, safe and rare. Why doesn't Doug address the root causes of problem pregnancies?!

He doesn't answer those questions because the answer would take treating people as humans with the right to decide if they will have sex or not. It means rather than a black/white world view, he has to discuss deep issues that are complicated and might not have simple.

I keep finding crazy answers on that thread.

JohnandEmily DeMyer Yes, always wrong! ECTOPIC PREGNANCIES HAVE RESULTED IN SURVIVAL OF THE BABY...READ STORIES FROM NANCY CAMPBELL...do research, dont just accept what a doctor, trained in evolutionary thinking(whether he knows it ir not) tells you. We are called to be wise! Do we ever have the right to take a life outside the womb to spare our own? Even if you "think" it "might" save the other life? I challenge anyone to defend "playing God" from biblical reasoning! And yes, we have 8 children, & would give my life readily for any of them, or with any of them, no matter what the outcome...which is BTW not up to me!

May 15 at 11:57am via mobile

[salex]

Here are the more scary posts about whether a mom life should be more important that the child's

James N Brittany Barrett regarding ectopic or other life threatening situations for mom and or baby, didn't God already know that part? Doesn't He have complete control? so if He says no and knows you or the baby could die, wouldnt it be better to obey? Jesus knows if the daddy will be alone and He will provide His sufficient grace and excellent mercy to that man. I'm not scared. His law is just and true at all times.

7 · May 14 at 2:57pm

Ashley Taylor AMEN!

May 14 at 2:58pm

Jessica Chaffee Then why have an OB/GYN deliver your baby instead of your minister? you obviously don't need medical care for the time you're pregnant, because it's all in god's hands anyway. Just pray, and if you or the baby dies, who cares? you'll be in heaven right?

May 14 at 3:33pm

Kathryn Andrews Point to me a place in the Bible where it is forbidden to ever take a life in self defense. Doesn't God "already know" when someone has cancer whether they will die? But we don't tell people "Don't get treated for your cancer." Don't we believe He can protect us from all harm? But do we tell people (including law enforcement and military) never to carry guns to protect themselves? No, there is an old saying "Trust in God, and keep your [gun]powder dry." God will take care of you, sometimes the means He uses is a gifted medical doctor who says "You are dying, and here is what needs to happen to prevent it." It's always a tragedy, yes, and it's always the end of a human life, but is it always "evil?" No.

2 · May 14 at 3:40pm

Dara Fisk Ekanger There's a misunderstanding between God's perfect will and His permissive will. Scripture says "God is not willing that any should perish but all should come to repentance." But it also is very clear that not everyone will be saved, so God's "perfect" will is not always accomplished on earth. His permissive will allows us to experience the consequences of living in a fallen world, with sin, diseases, and even life threatening pregnancies. That does not mean He ever intended for a woman to die because of a pregnancy gone horribly wrong.

May 14 at 3:46pm

Sarah Bailey yes. I believe the Bible tells us no greater love than this to lay down one's life for another - doesn't matter if that is your friend, husband, born alive child or a pre-born child - Christ laid down His life for you.

9 · May 14 at 2:19pm

Nicole John AMEN!

2 · May 14 at 2:45pm

Sharon Bachman Yes

2 · May 14 at 3:08pm

Liz Austin Except you are not laying down your life for another, the meaning of that verse/phrase is that you are dying so that another can live. Dying so that you both can die is not honorable, it is foolish ignorance.

2 · May 14 at 4:39pm

Alexia Acha I'm going to play devil's advocate, and say no. in the less than 2% of cases where it is for saving a mom's life, I'd say no.

I personally would choose to let my child live, same as if I had to jump in front of a train to save them.... BUT I don't think I could (in good conscience) force a woman to give up her life for another's.

8 · May 14 at 2:13pm

Kathryn Andrews And in most of the cases where the mother's life is threatened, the baby is going to die anyway. If the family already has children, is anyone REALLY OK with saying those children should be motherless and lose their sibling, simply because ending the pregnancy in self-defense is "always always wrong?" Yes, it's tragic to lose a baby. Dear God, I know this all too well! But why make it a double-tragedy if it doesn't have to be?

5 · May 14 at 2:41pm

Carol Belliveau Hebert My mother-in-law was in that position. She chose to keep the child - who grew up to marry me. She died almost 45 years later, a few weeks short of turning 80. Ultimately, God is in control - and if we obey Him in all circumstances, we invite the blessings that follow. Everyone in my family - my husband and 3 children, would not be here if she had given in to her fears.

5 · May 14 a

Liz Austin Your mother-in-law was clearly given inaccurate information when the doctor told her to abort to save her own life. Obviously, since she and the baby lived. Which is why it is so important to get a second, third, even fourth opinion when making such a drastic decision. But to put your head in the sand when you are clearly going to die and so is your baby, but you just pray for a miracle? That is along the same lines as people who simply pray their illnesses away and don't believe in medicine or doctors. You may be the hand who stopped the baby's heart beat, but if the baby is already dying (as in a ectopic pregnancy), and you stop the baby's life a few days early to save your own, that is not "playing God" any more than it is "playing God" to get antibiotics to cure your pneumonia. It is only honorable to die for your children if you are actually saving their life - If my child's heart was failing and I cut out my own heart to give to them even though my heart was too big and the wrong blood type, that is not honorable, it is foolish. I believe putting our heads in the sand about genuinely ectopic pregnancies is along the same lines. It is only honorable if you are saving a life - dying for no reason is foolishness.

6 · May 14 at 3:25pm

Sandra Clark A lot of the time the doctors CLAIM the child is endangering the mother's life, and it simply ain't so.

It is yet another game of "holier than thou" where once you've said "Even if the mother and fetus both die, I'm against abortion" makes you holier than saying "Well, an ectopic pregancy ..... that is not the same as an abortion" I learned last summer my inlaw is against "abortion" in the case of ectopic pregnancies.

What I find is that most / many of the ones playing "holier than though" are not in a situation they will ever be pregnant. They are men, or old, or have had all the children they plan to and more importantly, are not currently in a crisis pregnancy situation, so to them I say "screw off"

I also say their dismissive, derogatory and nasty tone toward women is almost exactly the same (different words, same tone)on this as it is on the MRA pages.

[debrand]

Alan Friz Well . . . I am a scientist and in fact biology is my specialty. The baby has completely different DNA. There is no communication of bodily fluids. The circulatory systems come in very close proximity, but never are they connected. In the realm of physiology, the uterus is technically not even considered the "inside" the woman's body. Rather, it is an invagination of the external surface. If you take your finger and push in on the outside of an inflated balloon, would you say that your finger is now inside the balloon? No, even though it is pushed in, it is still technically outside the balloon. Medical science considers the interior of the uterus as technically the outside of the body Now, As to your argument that the baby receives nourishment from the mother's body, to take that argument to it's logical conclusion, all nursing babies would then be considered not individuals but just part of their mother's body, and hence, subject to extermination. I am sure that you are not suggesting that.

What the hell is Friz talking about? I looked up his facebook profile and it does not give any listing for his employment.

A nursing infant can be given to another woman to nurse or be fed formula. The mother doesn't have to nurse the child and can stop doing so any time she desires. And what does he mean that my uterus isn't inside my body and what does that have to do with forcing me to incubate a mass of cells

[docmom]

What the hell is Friz talking about? I looked up his facebook profile and it does not give any listing for his employment.

A nursing infant can be given to another woman to nurse or be fed formula. The mother doesn't have to nurse the child and can stop doing so any time she desires. And what does he mean that my uterus isn't inside my body and what does that have to do with forcing me to incubate a mass of cells

By his logic we should be able to harvest his skin at will to treat burn victims as it is not "inside" his body.

[FlorenceHamilton]

More, well the mom can just give her life for a mass of cells, crap

3 · May 14 at 4:37pm

Christine Taylor Since when is it biblically permissible to kill a child? God hates the shedding of innocent blood. Our constitution says that we have a right to life, given to us by our creator. The baby has a right to life, that should be protected. Yes the mother has a right to life, but there are consequences to our choices. If you choose to have sex and conceive, then that was the choice you made. If a rapist chooses to have sex and the woman conceives, it wasn't her choice, but it's also NOT her body that she wants to tear to pieces. The baby HAS to be protected. The government has a duty to protect the innocent, and to punish criminals. Rapists should be killed, but not the baby.

and

Denise S. Crisp Allie - God alone is the judge, but even if a woman is raped by whoever (which is a horrible thing in and of itself), she can always choose to do the RIGHT thing and allow the child to live... It is completely innocent. That doesn't mean she has to keep the child or even acknowledge it... but she does need to allow it to live. God's Grace is sufficient for all circumstances...

4 · May 14 at 3:16pm

and

Alan Friz Well . . . I am a scientist and in fact biology is my specialty. The baby has completely different DNA. There is no communication of bodily fluids. The circulatory systems come in very close proximity, but never are they connected. In the realm of physiology, the uterus is technically not even considered the "inside" the woman's body. Rather, it is an invagination of the external surface. If you take your finger and push in on the outside of an inflated balloon, would you say that your finger is now inside the balloon? No, even though it is pushed in, it is still technically outside the balloon. Medical science considers the interior of the uterus as technically the outside of the body Now, As to your argument that the baby receives nourishment from the mother's body, to take that argument to it's logical conclusion, all nursing babies would then be considered not individuals but just part of their mother's body, and hence, subject to extermination. I am sure that you are not suggesting that.

and

Linda Hoover Liz, just so you know - nowadays the medical profession is so advanced it can often save both the baby's & the mother's lives. I know from experience, having known a friend who had a very difficult 5th pregnancy. She had congestive heart failure & a cancerous brain tumor & the baby was putting enormous strain on her heart. The doctors were worried she would die before the baby was "viable" outside the womb. They kept her alive as long as they could, while the baby was growing. When he quit gaining weight (at 24 weeks) they took him. Both mother & baby survived and the baby boy is now 10 years old. Even in life-threatening pregnancy situations, there is often a solution for both mother & baby that doesn't require the death of either! So, I still say, yes, absolutely wrong!!

WAIT! How can the baby be innocent if it is conceived in sin? Isn't every human a sinner from the start? Don't the Calvinists believe that babies are born unrepentent sinners (because they are incapable of repenting)? Can't have it both ways. The new human conceptus cannot be a sinner and an innocent.

Oh, and on the biology of the situation. It is true that the conceptus has different DNA and that the uterus is an invagination and is technically on the "outside" the woman's body. However, the placenta is not a perfect filter and there is a mingling of blood and body fluids and nutrients between the two circulatory systems. This is why rH negative mothers develop antibodies to the rH positive babies they carry. We give these women Rhogam after the first pregnancy so that the mother does not reject subsequent pregnancies. And on the issue of nursing...the conceptus is an obligate parasite of the mother's womb. A newborn can be nourished by other means.

[Marian the Librarian]

Doug keeps his followers up-in-arms about repro rights to distract them from how he's working to enact a theocracy, which I srsly doubt most of them want.

About should be legal, safe and rare. Why doesn't Doug address the root causes of problem pregnancies?!

Thank you, MJB. To your wise observation, I would add that Dougie also keeps his followers up-in-arms about any number of pointless, pseudo-intellectual, "how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin" questions to distract them from just how blatantly he's ripping them off with his overpriced crap, tours, and history-mangling "mega" conferences.

Doug Philips is a tool.

[chaotic life]

Scientists also now know that a woman carries DNA cells in her blood stream for the rest of her life from every pregnancy that she carries. Thus, no the system is NOT closed.

The sheer ignorance of the extreme fundies who have now expanded their so-called pro-life stance to forbid women to save their lives from ectopic pregnancies is astounding. Those some haters also believe a woman should carry a molar pregnancy, because afterall the cancer tumor carries the DNA of a potential human and thus must be alive.

It feels to me that the value of women and their lives drops every few years to a new low you think they just can't possibly go lower than the last stance until they open their mouths with a new idea and you realize the depth of their depravity has no end.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Scientists also now know that a woman carries DNA cells in her blood stream for the rest of her life from every pregnancy that she carries. Thus, no the system is NOT closed.

The sheer ignorance of the extreme fundies who have now expanded their so-called pro-life stance to forbid women to save their lives from ectopic pregnancies is astounding. Those some haters also believe a woman should carry a molar pregnancy, because afterall the cancer tumor carries the DNA of a potential human and thus must be alive.

It feels to me that the value of women and their lives drops every few years to a new low you think they just can't possibly go lower than the last stance until they open their mouths with a new idea and you realize the depth of their depravity has no end.

Soooooo by now Michelle Duggar is probably half Jkid and this gave her the power to control their minds?

I cant understand how not letting a woman have an abortion if it could save her life is pro life. Cause if the woman dies, the fetus would die anyway because it cant live outside the uterus, and now there are two lost lives instead of just the fetus.

[snarkyjan]

Thank you, MJB. To your wise observation, I would add that Dougie also keeps his followers up-in-arms about any number of pointless, pseudo-intellectual, "how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin" questions to distract them from just how blatantly he's ripping them off with his overpriced crap, tours, and history-mangling "mega" conferences.

Doug Philips is a tool.

I can tell him how many angels can dance on a pin: A. Multiply the circumpherence of the pinhead by the diameter to get the area. B. Measure the angel's butt C. Divide (B) into (A). Question answered!

*Edited because my original math was wonky.