by goddess_baal 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I always wondered (even when I was still in the organization), but never had the guts to ask.
If a woman becomes pregnant, but the egg has implanted in the falopian tube....will the JW's condone an abortion to save the life of the mother? Or does it boil down to their usual pansy-ass, "matter of conscience" excuse.
*goddess_baal*
I don't know what the "official" word is on this, but around 20 years ago this happened to a good friend. When she told me she was going to the hospital to have the tube removed I inadvertently gave her a look of horror. (really embarrassed now thinking how stupid that was) She simply replied "well, the baby can't live anyway." That was the end of the conversation. It really is that simple. I really would be intested in hearing what the WTS says about this.
I was always told that it was "a matter of concience".
A tubal pregnancy is the one time the WTBS will allow an abortion because the chance of the baby dying is 100%.
It was in a QFR a while back. I don't have the reference, but it will be on the CD-ROM.
It makes me wonder what bigwig in Bethel had a wife who needed an abortion...
*** w75 3/15 pp. 191-192 Questions from Readers
Does a substantial health danger justify having an abortion?
While this is a problem involving very deep human feelings and concerns, the perfect counsel of God shows that a potential risk to mother or child does not justify inducing an abortion.
Human views on this question are varied and often conflicting. But fundamental to the Bible view is life and respect for it. Human life has both a divine origin and a divine purpose. (Gen. 1:27; Job 33:4; Ps. 100:3-5) Throughout the Bible we see reflected God?s deep respect for life. He lovingly urged humans to treasure their lives and to respect as sacred the lives of others. One who, without regard for divine law, took the life of another human, even a babe in the womb, was both guilty and accountable.?Gen. 9:5, 6; Ex. 21:14, 22-25.
It cannot be denied that sometimes a pregnant woman faces a considerable danger. A health problem, such as diabetes, hypertension or other cardio-vascular diseases, may lead sincerely concerned doctors to conclude that her life is in jeopardy. She may be told, ?Either have an abortion, or you will die.? Or abortion may be recommended when it seems that the child may be born blind or deformed, such as when the mother contracts rubella (measles) during the pregnancy. Some might reason in such cases that having an abortion is actually showing respect for life. Though in no way minimizing the seriousness of such problems or the sincerity of those recommending the abortion, one should have in mind the life of both the mother and the child.
There is no such thing today as a perfect pregnancy, for all humans are imperfect. (Rom. 5:12) Thus every pregnant woman faces a certain risk; the sad fact is that some women, even healthy women, die during pregnancy and childbirth. (Gen. 35:16-19) Is every pregnancy to be aborted just because a risk to the mother?s life or health exists? Obviously not. True, in some instances the danger is greater than normal because of the woman?s age or health. Still, do not most women, including many who face unusual risks, survive childbirth? And it must be admitted that however well meant it is, a medical diagnosis can be wrong. So how could one who accepts God?s view of the sacredness of life conclude that a potential danger would justify an abortion? Is the developing child?s life to be cut off simply because of what might occur?
Similarly, with every pregnancy there is the possibility that the child will be born with a defect or deformity. "About one in 14 babies is born with a genetic disorder; the afflicted range from the diabetic . . . to the hopeless cripple who may live only a few days." (New York Times Magazine, Sept. 8, 1974, p. 100) Should this potential risk lead to the conclusion that all pregnancies should be ended by abortion? Not at all.
Here too in some instances the risk of the child?s having a defect may be above normal. This seems to be so, for example, when the woman is over forty years of age or in cases where she took certain potent medicines or contracted a potentially damaging disease in the early stages of pregnancy. About 10 to 15 percent of infants born to mothers infected with rubella during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy have some harmful effects of the disease that are recognizable in the first year of life. (Of course, this also means that 85 to 90 percent of such children are not thus affected.) But how can one having deep respect for life say that a mere potential risk of damage to a child justifies ending the developing child?s life?
Illustrating that such dangers must be viewed as still only possibilities is the case of a woman in South Africa. Before she was aware of her pregnancy she received an injection for a kidney ailment. Later her doctor said that, as a result, her child would be either an imbecile or horribly deformed; he urged her to have an abortion. When she learned from Jehovah?s witnesses what the Bible says about respect for life, she declined the abortion. She realized that, even if her child was damaged, Jehovah could undo the damage in the coming New Order. (Compare Isaiah 35:5, 6; Revelation 21:4.) What was the outcome? She gave birth to a healthy baby girl. But even if her daughter had been affected and needed extra care and treatment, would that change the rightness of deciding to let the girl live, with the prospect of eternal life?
Consequently, a woman who has been urged to have a therapeutic abortion because of a danger to her health or life, or to her child, needs to fix in mind the Bible?s view. A possible or potential danger, even a grave one, does not justify taking matters into one?s own hands and deliberately cutting off the life of the child in the womb. Deciding according to the Scriptural view will take real faith and courage, but it assuredly will be the proper decision, and one that Jehovah will approve of forever.
[Footnotes]
Sometimes the treatment of a diseased condition, such as cancer of the cervix, causes the death of the developing embryo. But this may be an unavoidable side effect of the treatment; abortion is neither the treatment itself nor the objective. Similarly, in some cases a fertilized ovum implants and begins to grow in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. Such a tubal ectopic pregnancy cannot develop fully in this small tube; in time it will terminate with the rupture of the tube and the death of the embryo. If this condition is detected in advance, doctors usually treat it by removing the affected fallopian tube before it ruptures. A Christian woman with a tubal pregnancy can decide whether to accept this operation. Normally she undoubtedly would be willing to face any risks of pregnancy so that her child could live. But with a tubal pregnancy she faces a grave risk while there is no possibility that the embryo can continue to live and a child be born.
also claim that unless an infant breaths through its nostrils s/he will not be resurected
wow..that is such a good point. I never really thought of that...if the fetus is not entitled to resurrection, they how can they claim it is as valuable as a born child when it comes to abortion? Apparantly to the WTBS it isn't to God.
Now, I am one think thinks abortion should always be the last resort...but wow, what a HUGE point!
That always bothered me. I have a sister whose child died the day before he was due. It always made me sad to think he did not have the hope of resurrection.
also claim that unless an infant breaths through its nostrils s/he will not be resurected
This is one of the things that truly disgusts me about the WTS. HOW DARE THEY presume to know who God will or will not resurrect?
I had a miscarriage a few years ago, and the f**kers still said that the baby would not be resurrected. They're so disgustingly arrogant that they even imagine they know the answers to stuff like that. Oh and....maybe think about the people they're hurting along the way? Nope they won't do that because they're not the TRUTH after all.
Sirona
(Leviticus 26:29) 29
So YOU will have to eat the flesh of YOUR sons, and YOU will eat the flesh of YOUR daughters.
(Lamentations 2:20) 20
See, O Jehovah, and do look to the one to whom you have dealt severely in this manner. Should the women keep eating their own fruitage, the children born fully formed, Or in the sanctuary of Jehovah should priest and prophet be killed?
(Lamentations 4:9-10) 9
Better have those slain with the sword proved to be than those slain by famine, Because these pine away, pierced through for lack of the produce of the open field. י [Yohdh] 10 The very hands of compassionate women have boiled their own children. They have become as bread of consolation to one during the breakdown of the daughter of my people.
(Isaiah 54:1) 54
"Cry out joyfully, you barren woman that did not give birth! Become cheerful with a joyful outcry and cry shrilly, you that had no childbirth pains, for the sons of the desolated one are more numerous than the sons of the woman with a husbandly owner," Jehovah has said. . .
(Luke 23:29) 29
because, look! days are coming in which people will say, ?Happy are the barren women, and the wombs that did not give birth and the breasts that did not nurse!?. . .
(Jeremiah 16:1-4) 16
And the word of Jehovah continued to occur to me, saying: 2 "You must not take for yourself a wife, and you must not come to have sons and daughters in this place. 3 For this is what Jehovah has said concerning the sons and concerning the daughters that are born in this place, and concerning their mothers who are giving them birth and concerning their fathers who are causing their birth in this land, 4 ?With deaths from maladies they will die. They will not be bewailed, neither will they be buried. As manure upon the surface of the ground they will become; and by the sword and by famine they will come to an end, and their dead bodies will actually serve as food for the flying creatures of the heavens and for the beasts of the earth.?
g82 3/8 p. 18 Would You Have an Abortion? ******
Properly viewed, the fruitage of the womb is a blessing from Jehovah God. (Psalm 127:3) The Bible shows that the Creator himself is lovingly aware of the developing human embryo or fetus. (Psalm 139:13-16) And for the protection of both the mother and her unborn child, he stated in his law to ancient Israel: "In case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul."?Exodus 21:22, 23.
(Exodus 21:22-25) 22"And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.
In context this can't apply to Christians and Jehovah does not care because he forces people to eat babies. If I had to apply a scripture to a teenager that wanted an abortion. I would apply Luke 23:29 instead of the nonsensical code of hammarabi domestic dispute eddition in Exodus 21:22, 23 which is not if you struggle with a woman, but if two guys get into a fight and he beats the other guys pregnant wive for punching him in the nuts. It also commands you maim the the perpetrator equivalent to the vicitim if neither mother or child dies. Since the argument is Jehovah cares about infant life therefore abortion are wrong. I Believe I have proven he does not value infant life and abortions are not wrong.
w99 6/15 p. 28 Questions From Readers ******
We know that Christians are not under Israel?s Law, so the regulation at Deuteronomy 25:11, 12 is not binding on them.
(Deuteronomy 25:11-12) 11"In case men struggle together with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the hand of the one striking him, and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of him by his privates, 12 you must then amputate her hand. Your eye must feel no sorrow.
A Christian woman with a tubal pregnancy can decide whether to accept this operation. Normally she undoubtedly would be willing to face any risks of pregnancy so that her child could live. But with a tubal pregnancy she faces a grave risk while there is no possibility that the embryo can continue to live and a child be born.
I'm sorry but even this would have to be a no-brainer. Yet I wonder how many women, from years of WTS conditioning, had to ask their elders for the ok for this operation? I suppose that even if they asked their own husbands, it's what the elders decides is what counts. After all, the elders are just a few steps down the command chain from Jehovah!
Illustrating that such dangers must be viewed as still only possibilities is the case of a woman in South Africa. Before she was aware of her pregnancy she received an injection for a kidney ailment. Later her doctor said that, as a result, her child would be either an imbecile or horribly deformed; he urged her to have an abortion. When she learned from Jehovah?s witnesses what the Bible says about respect for life, she declined the abortion.
Hmm, sounds self-serving to me. Like the WT recognized that an imbecile baby would have some future potential as a member of the GB or could write articles to be printed in the WT magazines! Yep, sounds self-serving to me...
I suppose the child care facilities supplied by the WTS would be utilized .... oh, that's right, they don't have any. Nevermind.
Robert
