It might be better to accept the risks and possible fate in dying, even if it means the child may die also, than to make the decision to kill the unborn child.
To die is not to sin. To kill another, is.
It is likely that the baby would also die in these cases. What would be the use in dying with the child?
If the first part of your statement is so, then the jabs at fundamentalists is uncalled for. Clearly, the options of adoption/fostering are available for Mothers, rather dumping the life they have given birth to!
To place blame on fundamentlists for Mothers dumping their children in the trash is just wrong.
The blame should not rest upon them completely but the element of fear is put in place partially by the influence of them on the local government. I live in a liberal state and the conservative and fundamentalist elements have countered the abortionists by providing help with adoption services and prenatal care.
My brother lives in a southern state where an abortion is nearly impossible to get. He says that the help with adoption and unwed mothers is very rare and discouraged by the local conservatives. His daughter became pregnant and all he heard from most of his church members was judgment about his lack of supervision and what a bad daughter he had. I had her come live with me until she had her son and he was adopted, with the help of our friends at the Life Center.
There are places, options and support available to the Mother, other than the trashcan. There needs indeed to be some responsibility on behalf of the Mother towards her child!
The spirit of fear can be quite powerful.
Yet earlier you said:
"Since the death of the mother would very likely result in the death of the child, it seems to be less bad to have the child aborted and save the mother."
Clearly, you are also aware that the seriousness of an action "can" be mitigated by exceptional/desperate circumstances. That is for God to judge the heart and intentions. Such sins sincerely repented of to a loving God are forgiven. Whether the initial intention was selfish, or whether the person was uninformed, desperate and living under a possible death sentence etc.
I was pointing out that if it is sin then it is sin. A man stealing a loaf of bread is still stealing. One of the reasons that farmers in Israel had to leave part of their crop in the fields was so that the poor could glean that food and not have to steal to stay alive. It prevented sinning out of need. Right clever, I think.
The sexual act is a gift from God designed towards the outcome of the conception of a human being. To share and teach the Christian alternatives to pre-marital sex, and artificial contraception, particularly the youth, is neither unrealistic nor old fashioned and works! Purity does not become outdated, no matter what the voice of the age is to the contrary.
The soul is most important.
Yes it is but reality should be considered also. Purity should be emphasized but prevention needs to be included. We teach drivers the techniques to keep out of crashes but we also teach them how to use safety belts in case they fail to use the good techniques they were taught.
Not everyone will remain pure...that is a fact. If they are not taught to be safe then the consequences can be dire. Some of the more conservative elements in the US have actually stood against teaching birth control because they think that the mother deserves to go through pregnancy if she decides to have sex. To me, that's like saying that the driver shouldn't be taught how to use safety belts because he deserves to get injured if he doesn't follow the safe driving techniques he was taught.
Sorry, but that seems a bit less than Christian to me.
