The demonic Roe v. Wade decision, a key instrument used to justify the premeditated murder of over 70 million unborn human beings created in the image and likeness of God, is dead.
If anything better has happened in my lifetime, I'm certainly not aware of it.
It is not the end of the fight to protect innocent life. Not by a long shot.
But it removes one of the biggest obstacles preventing the States from at least once again prosecuting those who commit such murder going forward, and, hence, deter many of these murders in the future.
Now, the unborn, in some states at least, will have a fighting chance.
I praise God for this huge victory, while continuing to entreat Him that the fight to protect innocent life will continue until it is no longer necessary.
You are correct, this is good news. It now makes it up to each state to decide whether they want to murder the unborn or not.
I would not be surprised to see riots on the issue soon.
I just was told about a story concerning the “heart beat law”, by someone who is somewhat happy about the defeat of Roe vs Wade.
She told me that because of the “heart beat law”, a doctor needs to get a judges signature if he needs to terminate a pregnancy because it endangers the women life.
They told of a case where there was a tubal pregnancy where the baby was dying and needed to be removed before the mother was in danger herself.
They told that it took quite long to get a judges signature. They did not know if the mother died, but knew she had serious complications.
In a case like this; should abortion be legal; perhaps with another doctors signature?
One person said that regardless of even if the mother died from complications; under no conditions should they be allowed to abort the baby.
I would not go that far; but I felt that had I said my opinion; they would not have been happy with me.
Why not choose to do everything possible to save BOTH the life of the baby AND the life of the mother? Why do many make it and either/or decision?
Though that is a good question, from the story I heard that was not a viable option.
I suspect however, that although this may be true in some cases. It is probably far rarer than many try to make it out to be and they probably use it to play on the hearts of people for their agenda.
That is why, I really do not trust them. But do not want to rule it out in extreme medical emergencies. That option, in my mind should be the exception, rather than the rule.
I would love to hear experts in the medical community, who are pro-life speak to this issue.
It is NEVER necessary to purposefully kill an unborn child in order to treat ectopic pregnancy or any other medical condition.
It is sometime necessary to perform procedures that have the UNINTENDED result of causing harm or death to the unborn child, but it it is and always was and always will be UNLAWFUL, according to all of natural, biblical, common, statute, and constitutional law, to cause that death intentionally, or to do anything less than everything possible to save that life.
Also, the "in case of the life of the mother" was the wedge that demonic scum always used to try to persuade otherwise sensible, but uninformed people (Christians and otherwise) to keep it as an "option for extreme medical emergencies." Those emergencies sometimes unfortunately result in the death of an unborn child but they do NOT EVER justify killing that child deliberately.
"Life of the mother" quickly becomes "physical health of the mother" which quickly becomes "mental/emotional/financial health of the mother" which quickly becomes "for any reason whatsoever."
PLEASE do not repeat the lies of the enemy. If you do, then you risk derailing the effort to stop the mass murder that has already claimed too many hundreds of millions of lives. I am not suggesting any of you are doing so knowingly, but I am suggesting that you educate yourself on the matter and do not give any aid or comfort to the enemies of life and of God.
As you noticed from how I started this, I am looking for expert medical information. What you said about this an example of what I am looking for; however if you can provide any information that backs up what you said; it would be very helpful.
I would never intentionally repeat any lies of the enemy. The more information I have, the more likely I will recognize real lies that I hear.
What "information" are you actually looking for that would justify what? The premise which jta and I hold is that life in all its forms is of infinite value because life is from God and ALL are created in God's image. Thus, ALL life should be deemed worthy of every possible effort to be saved. IF in the process of trying to save BOTH one or both dies there is no fault. But to arbitrarily decide that the unborn are less precious than the mother and discard that life for whatever reason is an abomination before God and in my opinion... murder. The vast majority of "unwanted" pregnancies are due to the promiscuity of the parties involved. Sex is now nothing more than something recreational rather than something restricted to the marriage relationship. And, in our day the consequences of one's decisions are seen as inconsequential with no responsibility attached to them. Murder is sin and a capitol crime not a remedy to one's Godless selfish desires.
I am still doing research on this, but here is something from my latest research I have found.
Ectopic pregnancy is where the egg gets fertilized inside the Fallopian tube.
According to sources, if the baby gets too big, it can cause a medical emergency for the mom. I.e the Fallopian tube will cause bleeding and or rupture.
The solution to this is removing the baby, will by necessity kill the baby, regardless of whether you try to save the baby.
The baby cannot survive outside the womb until a certain point in the pregnancy.
The issue, then is because of Roe vs Wade; the doctor in question needs to get a judges ruling before they are able to save the mother.
Would you then say, in cases like this, so be do but remove the baby?
This is the information I have received.
If it is a lie; I want to know from reliable sources because I do not want to repeat it.
My friend from Westminster T.S. was a woman who survived from an ectopic pregnancy. Her mother told me that her doctor advised that she should terminate the pregnancy as it was too dangerous for both. They were wrong. Both mother and daughter survived this difficult situation. So, despite what you have read, and I am sure there are examples of mothers and babies who may not have survived, it is not an absolute. Her mother told me that this life growing within her was the Lord's will and He would take her through it. We should fight for life for both the baby and mother. Both lives have value in God's sight.
So what you are saying that even if it results in the death of both the mother and baby; a procedure in the effort to save the mother should not be done.
I had what happens explained to me in a tubal pregnancy.
They indicated that it is very unlikely that a baby could be saved.
When they pointed out where the baby plants itself during a tubal pregnancy.
It certainly would seem they are correct.
I was just talking to a friend who had this happen to his wife. She ruptured and that was over 30 years ago now. Ever since that time, she has been in severe pain. Had they done a procedure earlier, that would have been avoided.
Not to mention that even before the mother knows she is pregnant, in many cases she is having health issues.
IF that procedure does not include murdering the baby, the mother's life may also be saved. One can press the issue to justify murdering one to save the other. I do not believe that is justifiable in God's economy. God has commanded us to not murder. I stand by that and reject the arguments. Has God not ordained all things? Even an ectropic or some other difficult pregnancy? It may be that one or the other die but it should not be by man's hands.
Tom, I concur with what jta expressed above. Do read carefully what he wrote. It is a violation of God's command to take the life of one to save the life of the other. All efforts should be directed to saving both lives.
My friend Shari's mother was told to end Shari's life so that she, herself could live. The doctors were wrong. Both survived and lived to be old ladies.
I am not willing to discuss this issue with people who claim to be Christians, yet think it is ever OK to purposefully murder another human being. In fact, I am not willing to associate with them in any way I can possibly avoid, until/unless they repent. (1 Cor. 5)
I don't expect openly lost people to understand "Thou Shalt Not Kill" in an openly lawless, satanic, anti-God, anti-life, pus-oozing carcass of what used to be a culture.
But I do expect Christians to, because of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Ectopic pregnancies, and all other conditions in which a pregnancy threatens a mother's health or life, are treated in such a way as to try to preserve the life of BOTH patients. It is demonic to even tolerate, much less approve of, any so-called "medical procedure" that purposefully murders one - either one - to save the other.
The issue here is not that the unborn child usually dies. We cannot save him or her in most cases at our current stage of medical technology. But we can try, and by trying, we will eventually figure out how. Just as we could not save extremely premature babies at one time, but, by trying, we've learned how to do that at earlier and earlier points in gestation.
The issue is that we MUST try to save both the baby and the mother, and MUST NOT under any circumstances purposefully kill him or her.
People will believe and do what they want, because, obviously, the demonic left has torn down every authority which otherwise might have restrained them.
However, they will answer to God for it.
Not going to argue any further.
Thank you jta! My blood was beginning to boil. There is no justification for murder of the unborn and murder it is. This should be very clear to those who profess to be Christians.
Few things make me more upset either. I needed hours to cool down before I could post what I did.
Exactly these same arguments were made 50 years ago to initiate what, soon afterward, became the worst mass murder in the history of the world, and, indeed, probably worse than all of those currently known to history, combined.
But they were not made by Christians. They were made by murderers. And these two are mutually exclusive categories, as per 1 John 3:15.
I am not suggesting that mere ignorance or confusion makes a person automatically guilty of murder.
But I am suggesting that the person who is born of God ought not to join forces with murderers, in any way, including, but not limited to, repeating said murderers' arguments.
Lord Jesus, come quickly.