God thwarts the high-priests of medicine. Baby refuses to be aborted.
- Thread starter BobVigneault
- Start date
- Status
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
3 things:
Wow!
Hallelujah!
Praise God!
Wow!
Hallelujah!
Praise God!
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
VaughanRSmith
Puritan Board Sophomore
Beautiful babies.
And to think the amount of trust people put in "those-in-charge-who-know-what-they-are-doing".
And to think the amount of trust people put in "those-in-charge-who-know-what-they-are-doing".
BobVigneault
Bawberator
That's exactly my point Vaughan. After my second daughter was born with a large hole in her heart the doctors told us that if we had any more children that they would most likely have the same birth defect. My doctor strongly suggested I get a vasectomy. I did. It has been one of my deepest regrets. I was so naive. These doctors over step their bounds and think they can play God. I am just so happy that in this case God many a loud statement against these 'high priests'.
Beautiful babies.
And to think the amount of trust people put in "those-in-charge-who-know-what-they-are-doing".
Anton Bruckner
Puritan Board Professor
i wonder how those doctors are feeling? If this doesn't let them give up performing any future abortions I don't know what will.
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
That is amazing!
I don't think the doctors can be faulted for their decision. With the limited information they had they believed that they had to choose between one child dying and both children dying. We don't know for sure, but both children may have died if the placenta was not divided. Calling them "high-priests of medicine" is uncalled for; their intention was to save the other child.
I don't think the doctors can be faulted for their decision. With the limited information they had they believed that they had to choose between one child dying and both children dying. We don't know for sure, but both children may have died if the placenta was not divided. Calling them "high-priests of medicine" is uncalled for; their intention was to save the other child.
VaughanRSmith
Puritan Board Sophomore
Scott, why couldn't they have just split the placenta in the first place? Why was the euthanaizing of the sick child necessary?
turmeric
Megerator
Well, maybe they done learned them something! I just want to see what Gabriel turns out to be! Focus on the Family had a show with a woman who survived abortion when she was a baby, and the adoptive parents of a boy who survived partial-birth abortion. They both appeared before the Supreme Court when the partial-birth abortion ban went through.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
A close relative of mine survived a pre-Roe v. Wade aborton attempt (not physically or otherwise unscathed). There are websites devoted to abortion survivors. Each story is amazing. Praise God for confounding the wicked, and being the Lord of life. Have mercy upon us, O Lord. 
Cheshire Cat
Puritan Board Sophomore
BobVigneault
Bawberator
Respectfully Scott, I disagree. The doctors weren't trying to remove a dangerous tumor or defective part, they were trying to kill a baby. By kill, I mean 'to take someone's life without a just cause'. Obviously, the baby proved that the doctors advice was mere speculation and speculation is not a just cause to kill. I stand by my labeling these doctors as 'high-priests' of medicine. This wasn't medicine, it was prognostication and guessing. They tried to kill a healthy baby.
Wow...I felt funny seeing the pic with the happy mom and the two happy kids.
I kept thinking, "Little boy, your mom is smiling away and she is the one that gave permission to have you killed..."
A serious question: What are the psychological effects on children that know that their parents tried to have them killed and the only reason they grow up was that they somehow survived that which their parents tried to have done to them.
THe mother probably thought she had to choose to lose one or both, so perhaps she is not as guilty. But WOW, how does a child grow up secure when they know that they were wanted as dead even as babies.
I kept thinking, "Little boy, your mom is smiling away and she is the one that gave permission to have you killed..."
A serious question: What are the psychological effects on children that know that their parents tried to have them killed and the only reason they grow up was that they somehow survived that which their parents tried to have done to them.
THe mother probably thought she had to choose to lose one or both, so perhaps she is not as guilty. But WOW, how does a child grow up secure when they know that they were wanted as dead even as babies.
kvanlaan
Puritan Board Doctor
:cold chill:We have some old copies of a magazine called "Above Rubies" and in there is a story of Tucker, a beautiful little boy who survived an abortion attempt. He has only stumps for legs and had some fingers ripped off as well, but even the most bloodthirsty "doctor" can't thwart God's Will. (He was adopted by an American couple.)
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
I don't know what their reasons were, but it seems rather presumptuous of us to assume it was because they really, really wanted to kill that baby. We simply don't have enough information to make that claim.
The action they took was not an abortion or euthanasia but more akin to cutting off life support. I believe we all agree that there are times when it is ethical to remove a person from life support when his condition is not expected to improve. Such was the case here.
Ironically enough, it might be the very procedure that the doctors used to try and murder Gabriel that ended up saving both the babies lives by evening out the nutrients to both babies. I wonder if they will now use this event to learn about how to save other children who might be in similar aituations instead of simply giving up and trying to murder one of them.
Jim Johnston
Puritan Board Sophomore
From the article:
"Doctors told her his death could cause his twin brother to die too before they were born, and that it would be better to end Gabriel's suffering sooner rather than later."
[...]
"Mrs Jones said: "They told us that if he died, it could be life threatening for his brother."
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
26 years ago my wife was pregnant with our third child. From the beginning, a variety of physicians (HMOs in those days often gave you a different doctor on every visit) all agreed that there was something "wrong" with the baby. They all claimed she was "too small" and used the then exotic ultrasound to confirm their varied observations. Several physicians advised us to have a therapeutic abortion due to probable multiple birth defects and almost certain mental retardation. On Nov 18 another doc insisted that the baby was small and that my wife was at least six weeks away from delivery. On Nov 22 (four days later!!!) another physician (the head of OB-GYN at the California hospital) confirmed that the baby was "very small." The nurse disagreed, saying: "But Doctor, the baby is huge!" Around noon our 9 lbs 5 oz little girl was born.
Oh, btw, she finished 3/600 in high school; graduated from college AND seminary (summa cum laude) in 4.5 years; and her husband sure thinks that she is beautiful. She teaches at a Christian high school in the Midwest.
Oh, btw, she finished 3/600 in high school; graduated from college AND seminary (summa cum laude) in 4.5 years; and her husband sure thinks that she is beautiful. She teaches at a Christian high school in the Midwest.
BobVigneault
Bawberator
You've misquoted me slightly here. I didn't say "they really, really wanted to kill that baby", I said "they really, really, really wanted to kill that baby". You left out a 'really'. I placed one 'really' for each attempt to kill the baby. First attempt, the determination he should die; second attempt, trying to severe the umbilical chord; third attempt, dividing the placenta. They really, really, REALLY wanted to kill that baby.
euthanasia - sounds like a duck,
cutting off life support - walks like a duck,
abortion - looks like a duck,
It's a duck!
euthanasia - sounds like a duck,
cutting off life support - walks like a duck,
abortion - looks like a duck,
It's a duck!
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I have often heard people say that abortion is legitimate only if the pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life.
How can such a view be justified? Is there any Biblical support for such an argument? To me, I can't see how there is. And this is a matter which we need to be right on as people's lives are at stake.
How can such a view be justified? Is there any Biblical support for such an argument? To me, I can't see how there is. And this is a matter which we need to be right on as people's lives are at stake.
I think what Scott was getting at was that while the doctors did want to kill the baby, they from what we can tell from the article did so in an attempt to protect the life of the other baby, and to ensure at least one child was safely born.
Is that a sinful lack of faith and taking things into our own hands instead of trusting God (if they were christian)? Yes. Does that necessarily lump the doctors in with the baby hating abortion mentality? From the information we have from that article, I would say not necessarily.
From what I can tell, they had to chose between losing one child, and potentially losing both. The fact that the baby eventually survived does not by itself affect our judgment of their decision, because God can work miracles, but we can only act on the inputs we have at the time.
I agree it was a rotten decision, but it was one that even a person with regard for life my make, even if in weakness. It does not necessarily make these doctors baby-hating abortionists.
VaughanRSmith
Puritan Board Sophomore
Mark, from the article, I can tell that the doctors tried to end the baby's life before they took measures to protect the other baby from his natural death. Euthanasia was on the cards, not protection. If they just wanted to protect the other baby, why not just split the placenta?
historyb
Puritan Board Junior
Weather they try to justify it by making a case of both babies dying or not, abortion is murder plain and simple. That's the danger here letting our emotions take over the rational. All Docs who provide murder are baby hating abortionists In my humble opinion. The thing is to pray and leave it up to God, not modern man.
BobVigneault
Bawberator
Hold it, time out. For the most part, 'baby hating abortionist' is a myth. Remember, to the pro-abortion side we are facists you are against the rights of privacy and free choice. To them, it's really not about the baby it's about rights and freedom and mother's choice. We all know that in effect they might as well BE 'baby hating' but that's really not what they are. We argue for life, they argue for rights, we aren't on the same page and that's what makes dialog nearly impossible. An abortionist is an abortionist regardless of the LANGUAGE used to justify what he does, or why he does it, to the baby.
I have never met a baby-hating abortionist. What is at issue is Genesis 9:6 and the 'image of God, and the sixth commandment - you shall not kill without just cause. The issue is NOT the intentions for why killing is done but should the killing be considered in the first place.
I have never met a baby-hating abortionist. What is at issue is Genesis 9:6 and the 'image of God, and the sixth commandment - you shall not kill without just cause. The issue is NOT the intentions for why killing is done but should the killing be considered in the first place.
I agree that ‘baby hating abortionist’ is perhaps an unhelpful stereotype which I should not have used. I also agree that the fundamental issue is not so much the attitude towards babies per se, but a respect for life.
I would still say that – FROM WHAT WE KNOW FROM THE ARTICLE ALONE – the issue is not quite as simple as some make it out to be. If I am wrong I would like to see where.
I have already said that I think the decision the doctors (and mother) made was perhaps not in faith.
However, as Bob said above, the issue is killing without just cause. As a general statement, I believe the preservation of life constitutes a just cause. I am not saying I would go so far as to say such a principle can be applied to the case at hand. But I do not believe it is blindingly obvious from the bible that it cannot. Again, if I am wrong I would be grateful to be shown how.
Here are some quotes I took from the article;
If we were faced in a situation where one of the twins was certainly or very likely to die, and his death might endanger the other child, would the doctors really be wrong to take the action they attempted to do? If one child was very likely to die, is it wrong to abort it to save the life of the other? I am very happy to admit the answer might well be yes. But I want to see the biblical reasoning why.
My question is perhaps a little similar in intent (I think) to the one posted by Daniel Ritchie in this thread:
I used to be pretty sure that I was acceptable in the sight of God to abort a baby if the mother’s life was in danger. After giving the matter some thought I have retracted somewhat from that position and agree with Daniel that I find it hard to find biblical support for such a position. However, the situation in the article deals with a situation where, from at least what I can see, the child was not likely to survive. As it turned out, this was not true. However, as I said in my earlier post, we can only make decisions on the information we have at the time. We are to protect life where we can, and although it is a horrendous decision, ending one life to avoid losing both is, on my current understanding, not necessarily an evil decision, especially if that life was likely to fail naturally.
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
Are you saying that cutting off life support is morally equivalent to euthanasia?
- Status
Similar threads
