Abortion by God

[John]

Ken has said in the trans thread that it is God who allows a pregnancy
to go full term. I know several people who have lost their babies before
being born, or at birth or just after. One of my friends lost a twin
just after being born because her head hadn't developed, half of it was
missing.

To me these are just natural occurences that happen, but if God is
responsible for these deaths, then what does that say about Him?

Around 10-15% of known pregnancies result in a miscarriage. Is God to
blame or are they just, as I believe, natural occurencies?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/07/2022 14:43, John wrote:

> To me these are just natural occurences that happen, but if God is
> responsible for these deaths, then what does that say about Him?
> Around 10-15% of known pregnancies result in a miscarriage.  Is God to
> blame or are they just, as I believe, natural occurencies?

Actually the figure is more like 50%-60% of all pregnancies end in
abortion, though in the majority of cases the abortion takes place even
before the woman realises that she is pregnant - before the fertilised
egg can implant in the wall of the womb.

My belief is this: Yes, there are random events - people being struck by
lightning, falling trees, unviable chromosomes, and so on. These are
part of living in a sinful and imperfect world.

Christians ask for God's guidance and protection; against this the devil
is actively seeking to harm God's children. We would expect that
normally Christians will receive divine protection against random harms,
but sometimes, for His own purposes, God may allow the devil's plots to
proceed. (Think of Job.) It is up to us, then, the display the same
faithfulness as Job displayed and remain true to God - as Job said,
"Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him."

So yes, they are natural occurances, but God has allowed them to happen
to one of His children.

Those who are not God's children are not in any way protected - unless
God sees that He can be glorified by intervening in their lives.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[John]

On 27/07/2022 21:57, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 27/07/2022 14:43, John wrote:
>
>> To me these are just natural occurences that happen, but if God is
>> responsible for these deaths, then what does that say about Him?
>> Around 10-15% of known pregnancies result in a miscarriage.  Is God to
>> blame or are they just, as I believe, natural occurencies?
>
> Actually the figure is more like 50%-60% of all pregnancies end in
> abortion, though in the majority of cases the abortion takes place even
> before the woman realises that she is pregnant - before the fertilised
> egg can implant in the wall of the womb.

I read the figure was 1 in 4, but I didn't post it because it posed
another question. How can they put a figure if the woman doesn't know
she was pregnant and it had already terminated?

> My belief is this: Yes, there are random events - people being struck by
> lightning, falling trees, unviable chromosomes, and so on. These are
> part of living in a sinful and imperfect world.

> So yes, they are natural occurances, but God has allowed them to happen
> to one of His children.

So what are you saying, that God could prevent a pregnancy from being
terminated but chooses not to?

Let's just say that a woman loses her baby at 15 weeks. At 5 weeks God
decides what sex it's going to be and presumably gives the unborn baby a
soul. God can see that a natural occurence is about to happen but
doesn't interfere.

I can accept that but then why does God get the glory for bringing the
baby to full term when that is also a natural occurence?

Also, for the babies that haven't made it before before being born, what
happens to their soul? And is it any different for those stillborn or
only survive a few days?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/07/2022 09:04, John wrote:

> I read the figure was 1 in 4, but I didn't post it because it posed
> another question.  How can they put a figure if the woman doesn't know
> she was pregnant and it had already terminated?

That I couldn't tell you - but the 50% figure is from New Scientist.

> So what are you saying, that God could prevent a pregnancy from being
> terminated but chooses not to?

Sometimes. Perhaps He sees that the foetus is damaged in some way,
perhaps He sees that the woman could not cope with the pregnancy at that
particular time, perhaps he sees that that particular foetus would grow
up to be a monster of evil.

> Let's just say that a woman loses her baby at 15 weeks.  At 5 weeks God
> decides what sex it's going to be and presumably gives the unborn baby a
> soul. God can see that a natural occurence is about to happen but
> doesn't interfere.

Don't bring souls into it! That is a real can of worms. (My personal
belief is that "soul" is just another word for "personality" or
"character", which is a combination of genetic personality and life
experiences and choices.

> I can accept that but then why does God get the glory for bringing the
> baby to full term when that is also a natural occurence?

For many reasons: for the miracle of life, for keeping the mother safe,
for keeping the baby safe, for allowing a safe delivery.

> Also, for the babies that haven't made it before before being born, what
> happens to their soul?  And is it any different for those stillborn or
> only survive a few days?

As I said, don't bring souls into it.

Mind you, if you really want to discuss the soul, you could begin by
defining "soul".

[John]

On 28/07/2022 10:41, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 28/07/2022 09:04, John wrote:


>> Let's just say that a woman loses her baby at 15 weeks.  At 5 weeks
>> God decides what sex it's going to be and presumably gives the unborn
>> baby a soul. God can see that a natural occurence is about to happen
>> but doesn't interfere.
>
> Don't bring souls into it! That is a real can of worms. (My personal
> belief is that "soul" is just another word for "personality" or
> "character", which is a combination of genetic personality and life
> experiences and choices.

Oh? I thought Christians believed that a human was made up of spirit
body and soul. If what you believe is true, then that's the brain,
which becomes in effect, our life computer. The brain is part of the body

>> Also, for the babies that haven't made it before before being born,
>> what happens to their soul?  And is it any different for those
>> stillborn or only survive a few days?
>
> As I said, don't bring souls into it.
>
> Mind you, if you really want to discuss the soul, you could begin by
> defining "soul".

To me, it's similar to how you describe, but something which comes
"into" our bodies at some point up to birth. My own personal belief,
based purely on seeing my son born, is that it's at the point of birth.

If it is as you believe, then why do Christians get upset about
abortion? Surely the unborn child is just a body being formed in the
womb. It won't start gaining personality and character until it has
been born, and becomes a he or she.

[John]

On 28/07/2022 10:41, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 28/07/2022 09:04, John wrote:

> Sometimes. Perhaps He sees that the foetus is damaged in some way,
> perhaps He sees that the woman could not cope with the pregnancy at that
> particular time, perhaps he sees that that particular foetus would grow
> up to be a monster of evil.

I doubt that last part of the sentence is true. There's been lots of
evil people throughout the ages. If it were true then the likes of
Putin, Hitler, Sutcliffe, Brady and Hindley, the list could go on for ever.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/07/2022 23:43, John wrote:

> Oh?  I thought Christians believed that a human was made up of spirit
> body and soul.  If what you believe is true, then that's the brain,
> which becomes in effect, our life computer.  The brain is part of the body

No, that's the mind. When you go to see a psychologist (a name based on
the Greek for "soul") he doesn't whip out a scalpel and start cutting,
which is what he would do if he was treating your brain.

> To me, it's similar to how you describe, but something which comes
> "into" our bodies at some point up to birth.  My own personal belief,
> based purely on seeing my son born, is that it's at the point of birth.

Current Catholic teaching, I believe, insists that the foetus is
"ensouled" at the moment of conception. In previous times it was
believed to happen when the baby "quickened" (came alive), which was
when the mother first felt it move. The idea that the first breath marks
ensoulment is reasonable, but in my opinion confuses "nephesh" or
"pneuma", both of which mean "wind", with "ruach" or "psyche".

> If it is as you believe, then why do Christians get upset about
> abortion?  Surely the unborn child is just a body being formed in the
> womb.  It won't start gaining personality and character until it has
> been born, and becomes a he or she.

Because of respect for the potential? Because of respect for that
abstract thing, Life?

I am against abortion on demand for both those reasons, but given that
50% of fertilised eggs are naturally aborted, I find it impossible to
justify the extreme anti-abortion stance of either the Catholic church
or some very right-wing Protestant. If the mother's life is in danger,
if the woman is the victim of rape or incest (usually both together), or
if the foetus is not viable, I believe that abortion, though
regrettable, is justified.

[Mike Davis]

On 29/07/2022 23:43, John wrote:

Babies in the womb have been shown to recognise their mother's voice (I
don't know how the showed that!)

And Lk 1:41
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and
Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Presumably John (in the womb) recognised someone!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[steve hague]

> abstract thing, Life?
>
> I am against abortion on demand for both those reasons, but given that
> 50% of fertilised eggs are naturally aborted, I find it impossible to
> justify the extreme anti-abortion stance of either the Catholic church
> or some very right-wing Protestant. If the mother's life is in danger,
> if the woman is the victim of rape or incest (usually both together), or
> if the foetus is not viable, I believe that abortion, though
> regrettable, is justified.
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down
>
>
>

That's similar to my own belief. Abortion is always wrong, but on very
rare occasions it may be the least wrong option.
Steve Hague

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/07/2022 12:38, steve hague wrote:

> That's similar to my own belief. Abortion is always wrong, but on very
> rare occasions it may be the least wrong option.

Exactly. We live in an imperfect world and therefore sometimes our
decisions have to be imperfect.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/07/2022 10:16, Mike Davis wrote:

>> If it is as you believe, then why do Christians get upset about
>> abortion?  Surely the unborn child is just a body being formed in the
>> womb.  It won't start gaining personality and character until it has
>> been born, and becomes a he or she.

> Babies in the womb have been shown to recognise their mother's voice (I

> don't know how they showed that!)

Probably by something like showing that the foetus was either excited by
a particular voice or went still and paid more attention to a particular
voice.

However I think the previous poster is mistaken in thinking that a child
does not become "he or she" until the moment of birth. From the
chromosomes through to the physical anatomy, the sex of the baby is
determined[1] from conception all through to birth.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: With the usual nod to the very rare exceptions where chromosomes
are mixed and/or physical characteristics are not clear.

[John]

On 30/07/2022 12:38, steve hague wrote:

Ken said

>> if the woman is the victim of rape or incest (usually both together),

Incest and rape don't go hand in hand. Rape is (too) common, incest is
rare.

>> or if the foetus is not viable, I believe that abortion, though
>> regrettable, is justified.

> That's similar to my own belief. Abortion is always wrong, but on very
> rare occasions it may be the least wrong option.

tut tut you two, do you not know your bibles?

According to the NIV if a man rapes a woman who is not betrothed then he
has to marry her. Deutoronomy 22:28-29

[John]

On 31/07/2022 06:49, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 30/07/2022 10:16, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>>> If it is as you believe, then why do Christians get upset about
>>> abortion?  Surely the unborn child is just a body being formed in the
>>> womb.  It won't start gaining personality and character until it has
>>> been born, and becomes a he or she.
>
>> Babies in the womb have been shown to recognise their mother's voice
>> (I don't know how they showed that!)
>
> Probably by something like showing that the foetus was either excited by
> a particular voice or went still and paid more attention to a particular
> voice.
>
> However I think the previous poster is mistaken in thinking that a child
> does not become "he or she" until the moment of birth. From the
> chromosomes through to the physical anatomy, the sex of the baby is
> determined[1] from conception all through to birth.

That was maybe bad wording on my part, sorry. I'm aware that
the sex of the foetus is determined when it's 5 weeks old. I was
refeering to the <whispers> the soul, which I believe doesn't "inhabit"
the body until the birth.

When my son was born, he flopped down onto the bed like a piece of
jelly, then suddenly there was a cry and he "came to life". It was only
a few seconds between the two, but really surreal how it happened.

Here's a thing Ken. Given that you believe the soul is really just our
character and peronality, what if the foetus develops as a man, but the
brain develops as a woman, so that genuine gender dysprophia is real and
not just a figment of the person's imagination.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 31/07/2022 11:18, John wrote:

>>> if the woman is the victim of rape or incest (usually both together),

> Incest and rape don't go hand in hand.  Rape is (too) common, incest is
> rare.

You are correct and I didn't express myself well. I meant that incest
and rape usually go together.

> tut tut you two, do you not know your bibles?
> According to the NIV if a man rapes a woman who is not betrothed then he
> has to marry her.  Deutoronomy 22:28-29

1. That has nothing to do with abortion.

2. I believe that the law in fact deals with seduction rather than rape
(though a girl caught in compromising circumstances might well cry
"rape" to get off the hook).

There is, in fact, a second law which states that if the girl's father
absolutely refuses to give the girl to the man, he has to pay a fine and
that's it. I presume that if it really was rape, the girl would work on
her father and there would be no marriage.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 31/07/2022 12:09, John wrote:

> When my son was born, he flopped down onto the bed like a piece of
> jelly, then suddenly there was a cry and he "came to life". It was only
> a few seconds between the two, but really surreal how it happened.

A wonderful experience that you will treasure life-long.

> Here's a thing Ken.  Given that you believe the soul is really just our
> character and peronality, what if the foetus develops as a man, but the
> brain develops as a woman, so that genuine gender dysprophia is real and
> not just a figment of the person's imagination.

No, I don't believe that the brain develops as a woman (or as a man in a
woman's body). There may be a mental illness which leads the person to
think that he is a woman (or Napoleon). I believe there are recognised
treatments for such delusions.

[John]

Again, this was written tongue in cheek, but only after learning
something in the process. I did originally think it was rape, but
further study reveals two different words for the rape described in
verse 25 and the NIV rape described in verses 28-29, which as you say,
was more seduction than rape.

[John]

Pray tell, what is the recognised treatment for gender dysphoria?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/08/2022 17:08, John wrote:

>> No, I don't believe that the brain develops as a woman (or as a man in
>> a woman's body). There may be a mental illness which leads the person
>> to think that he is a woman (or Napoleon). I believe there are
>> recognised treatments for such delusions.

> Pray tell, what is the recognised treatment for gender dysphoria?

Owing to it being such a hot potato, the treatments for people who think
they are Napoleon have probably not been tried on those who think they
are the opposite sex. Probably about time they were tried.