|
Post by rosa on Jun 25, 2010 11:11:10 GMT -5
Cindy, i think that's a perfect approach.
There's enough work in the world to do, if we all do the parts in our own spheres, we'll still never run out.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 29, 2010 10:49:10 GMT -5
New Update: 1. I've not yet heard back from the National Right to Life Committee with some kind of statement about their relationship to Dan Becker (head of Georgia Right to Life, the state-level affiliate of the national group). I doubt that they will make a statement about ectopic pregnancy, but they should, in all rights, make a statement about their relationship with their affiliates. 2. A Christian Apologetics Organization (apologetics is a transliteration of the Greek word which means "to give an answer or defense for belief") has been in touch with me and is working on a response, though I do not know how formal it will be. I would mention the group's name here, but I do not want to see Vision Forum start harassing them, trying to do pre-emptive damage control. The group may just be willing to help me strategize behind the scenes. They have made a statement about ectopic pregnancy in the past, deeming surgery to treat the condition an acceptable and moral intervention, something in no way is like an abortion. 3. A pro-life physician's group is preparing an official statement on ectopic pregnancy. It will go to committee for approval, but we should have it in about a month. 4. A Christian Bio-Ethics group is going to address the Samaritan Ministry involvement as a "woman's issue" within the next month or two. This is a very busy season for this organization because of their commitments and activities, but they are going to address the issue. 5. I again want to note Don Veinot's Blog item from 2 weeks ago addressing the topic. It was referenced in the NLQ blog item, but I thought I'd point it out again, as it is a sign of the progress being made: midwestoutreach.org/blogs/visions-of-vision-forumSo by the end of August, there should be much more to report on this matter, and I am very encouraged thus far. Thank you for all your help. I think that NLQ has made a huge difference. Again, I would like to tell you the names of the organizations who have contacted me, but until they come up with open and publishable responses, I don't want Vision Forum to know who they are, as there is a high likelihood that they would work to thwart the effort.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jul 8, 2010 19:40:42 GMT -5
I just received word from the American Academy of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and they've just released their statement on ectopic pregnancy. (The Baby Conference held by Vision Forum commenced today also.) AAPLOG Statement on Ectopic Pregnancy July 2010
Ectopic pregnancy refers to any pregnancy that is implanted outside the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tube. By the time an ectopic pregnancy has been discovered (usually by 7 to 8 weeks gestation) the embryo has died in the majority of cases. However, the supporting tissues for the pregnancy often continue to grow and can cause life-threatening bleeding, either through rupture of the fallopian tube or other mechanisms.
In a small number of cases a living embryo can be observed in the ectopic pregnancy. Unfortunately, this embryo will die in the near future if observation is continued, and the mother’s life remains in imminent danger from a life-threatening hemorrhage, before and after the death of the embryo. Continuation of such a pregnancy cannot result in the survival of a baby and entails a very substantial risk of maternal death or disability. Hence treatment is commenced to end the pregnancy surgically or medically. In certain cases, an additional benefit of early treatment may be preservation of fertility potential.
This scenario is somewhat analogous to the case of a woman who develops an intrauterine infection with an unborn child that is too early to survive outside the womb. There is no chance for survival of the child, either inside or outside the womb, but there is a very real, imminent danger of death or disability for the mother. In these cases delivery is effected to preserve the life of the mother. Regrettably, in each of these clinical situations the child cannot be saved. In either case, the intent for the pro-life physician is not to kill the unborn child, but to preserve the life of the mother in a situation where the life of the child cannot be saved by current medical technology.
For these reasons the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians recognizes the unavoidable loss of human life that occurs in an ectopic pregnancy, but does not consider treatment of ectopic pregnancy by standard surgical or medical procedures to be the moral equivalent of elective abortion, or to be the wrongful taking of human life.
www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/what-is-aaplog%E2%80%99s-position-on-treatment-of-ectopic-pregnancy/
|
|
|
Post by cereselle on Jul 9, 2010 15:04:58 GMT -5
Cindy, that's great! I'm glad you got a more reasonable voice speaking on the topic.
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jul 13, 2010 22:34:33 GMT -5
That is rational and reasonable. Thank goodness and I surely hope that can be circulated in the rest of the pro-life community.
|
|
|
Post by amaranth on Jul 19, 2010 18:39:45 GMT -5
I was debating this topic with a Christian friend of mine. He's essentially anti-abortion in his mindset, and refused to budge from the stance of "never kill an embryo", even after my many attempts to explain that if the mother dies, the baby dies.
His stance seemed to rest on a belief that God is a God of miracles, and that if God really wanted to save that embryo, he could and would...if we let him, of course. He (my friend) would be willing to bet a mother's life on a possible miracle...and not only that, he believes that we have a moral obligation to extend to God that kind of trust. Of course, by implication, anyone who would terminate a pregnancy to save a mother's life obviously doesn't believe in God's ability to work a miracle, and by extension they deny his sovereignty.
I just didn't know how to argue with that kind of thinking. I mean, I'm willing to believe in the possibility of a miracle, but not at the expense of a life that could otherwise be easily saved. Does that mean my faith in God is less than my friend's? I was curious what the folks here would think.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 19, 2010 18:48:17 GMT -5
I was debating this topic with a Christian friend of mine. He's essentially anti-abortion in his mindset, and refused to budge from the stance of "never kill an embryo", even after my many attempts to explain that if the mother dies, the baby dies. His stance seemed to rest on a belief that God is a God of miracles, and that if God really wanted to save that embryo, he could and would...if we let him, of course. He (my friend) would be willing to bet a mother's life on a possible miracle...and not only that, he believes that we have a moral obligation to extend to God that kind of trust. Of course, by implication, anyone who would terminate a pregnancy to save a mother's life obviously doesn't believe in God's ability to work a miracle, and by extension they deny his sovereignty. I just didn't know how to argue with that kind of thinking. I mean, I'm willing to believe in the possibility of a miracle, but not at the expense of a life that could otherwise be easily saved. Does that mean my faith in God is less than my friend's? I was curious what the folks here would think. Well... I know the folks here don't want to debate abortion, so we should be careful on this note. HOWEVER, isn't there a verse about thou shalt not tempt the lord thy god? From my understanding of Christian theology, you are not supposed to attempt to FORCE god into a position where he must act. y'know, the whole don't jump off the temple thing even if you believe god COULD work a miracle and save you on the way down. And if you're pushing people off the temple? Well... let me just say that I imagine god is going to be FAR less than pleased with that. But of course, I'm an atheist, what do I know.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jul 19, 2010 19:19:22 GMT -5
Jemand is quite right, in my opinion. You don't deliberately risk your own life or someone else's, in order to force a miracle. I believe that's what "you shall not test the Lord your God" means.
|
|
|
Post by asteli on Jul 19, 2010 19:41:42 GMT -5
Reminds me of a joke There was this flood at first they sent this guy a truck they said to get in or you will drownd he said no God will save me.Next they sent a boat but the guy said that God would save him.Last when he was standing on the roof of his house a hellicpter came but the guy said God will save me.After that he died and when he got to heaven he said God why didn,t you save me.Then God answered I sent you a truck,boat,and a hellicopter what else did you need? Perhaps the real miracle is that we can save women now, usually with minimal damage to them & expecting god to intervene individually is like the guy in the flood epecting an obvious & personal saving. (hope that makes sense, I'm barely awake)
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Jul 19, 2010 20:46:37 GMT -5
HOWEVER, isn't there a verse about thou shalt not tempt the lord thy god? From my understanding of Christian theology, you are not supposed to attempt to FORCE god into a position where he must act. Deuteronomy 6.16, which (in a modified form) Jesus quotes to the Devil in Matthew 4.7//Luke 4.12. (ETA context.)
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jul 20, 2010 5:40:54 GMT -5
There comes a point where you aren't practicing faith, just presumption.
|
|