I am so surprised that there are no comments. I appreciate the concept that it is suffering that needs to be addressed as the primary determination of whether or not to perform the procedure. If I may point to the passage in Isaiah 49: 15-17 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me. KJV There is a scene in the movie, The Inn of the Sixth Happiness", where a Chinese woman is exposing her newborn baby to the elements in order to unalive her. (Thus fulfilling God's observation about the human condition) In this case, an elective abortion would be the merciful procedure. (If medical abortions were available in the 1940's)
Thank you offering this perplexing question. "What if" scenarios are always a challenge to imagine. If medical abortions were available in 3 B.C. as they are now, then I propose that a medical abortion at week 10 is more humane than abandoning a newborn in a manger, naked, uncared for, left to expire to the elements. (Though I am sure that if that were the case, that the Father would intervene and take His only begotten Son back to heaven to be with Him)
@@stevenreichert5539 Well, we will all have to stand at the judgment seat of Christ, and he says as you did it to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.
@@earlysda There is no controversy about this, as it is written in scripture: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. II Corinthians 5:10 NKJV And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matthew 25:40 NKJV As we are both engaged in thought experiments. Let us assume that we are both army medics, with modern anesthetics in our medical kits, and that we are assigned to the army of Israel during the battle of King Saul and the Philistines. (I Samuel 31--II Samuel 1) And we come across King Saul, mortally wounded, as he has been shot by arrows, and has fallen on his own sword. If Saul had asked me to run him through with a sword, I would be hesitant to touch the Lord's anointed in such a manner. But with a clear conscience I would give him a lethal dose of anesthetic to ease his pain and suffering. For God declares of Himself: ...“The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, Exodus 34:6 So that even technically putting the Lord's anointed to death by an overdose of anesthetic is a violation of the Sixth Commandment, "Though shalt not kill" Exodus 20:13 Yet because the only intent is to relieve mental and physical suffering , I would have no qualms in saying, "Your Majesty, I will give you something to relieve your suffering, and I will be by your side until your last breath." I will let Heaven judge me, and if I am condemned, then I am condemned.
@@earlysdaThank you for posing this question: "So you are for the right of Mary to do away with the baby Jesus?" Fortunately for the entire human race, God knew Mary's heart. And our Redeemer was born and cared for by loving parents. Let us, (as a thought experiment) assume that Mary did not want to become pregnant, did not want a child, did not want to become a mother, would not then God be guilty of rape? If that was the case, then Mary would have the absolute right to refuse to carry to term the child growing within her. As previously pointed out in Isaiah 49:15, motherhood is a choice, and to force a woman to carry a child against her will is the ultimate cruelty.
