You have no right to judge me.

Ralph,
Thank you for responding to my letter. In all honesty, I thought you would be to busy to write me, and I'm willing to bet you are very busy. Thank you for taking time to write a thourough response. When I said that women didn't want to get an abortion, I meant that women wished that there was another choice. I completely agree with you that most abortions should be avoided because adoption is an option. But, adoption isn't always an option. Sometimes, a woman's health is endangered during the pregnancy. Now, surely the obvious choice is to have the baby aborted, instead of having both the mother and baby die. Also, many times a woman is not prepared emotionally to have a baby. If a 14 year old girl ended up pregnant(I know one who is now pregnant with twins), I most definitely think that adoption is the best way out. But, some teen-agers are highly emotionally sensitive, and could very possibly commit suicide if forced to continue the pregnancy. I would like to describe a scenario that likely took place many times before the process of safe abortion was discovered:

My response is in Green:

We come at this whole question from two very different positions. I believe in absolutes; such as right and wrong. From your statements I take it you don't. What I mean is that I believe that it is always wrong to take the life of an unborn child; period. If the life of the mother is in danger then I do feel that whatever can be done should be, but I also believe the baby should be given a chance to live, not just aborted. Obviously if the pregnancy is not far enough along then the baby will die, so be it. My problem with this whole thing is that the health of the mother is a very subjective thing. What does it mean? Does it mean her mental health too, just because she has decided she does not want the child? In many cases that is exactly what it means. That is what most partial birth abortions are all about.

A very, very poor woman is left at home with 4 little children to care for. She has no husband to support her, and is now carrying a fifth child in her womb. She has such a hard time feeding her children, and takes only enough food for herself to survive. She knows her current pregnancy will require more food for herself, but she can't stand the thought of feeding her living children any less than they are getting. She knows that if she takes the food to help the fetus within her womb grow strong, her chidren will starve. If she does not, then her malnourished fetus will become a baby born

of birth defects. There is no possible way for her support her family now. Desperately wanting to save her children, she tries to perform an abortion on herself with sticks because there is no more humane way to do it. She ends up killing herself unintentionally.

At the risk of insulting you again, I have to tell you that I find this argument hardly worth responding to. The reason I say that is you are assuming that a woman would have this choice. What country do you live in? There is plenty of help out there for people in this type of situation. This is emotional warfare that liberals use to make people look at things their way. I don't think the argument holds water. But just for the sake of fairness I will answer it anyway. Of course it would be okay to give the food to her children. Having to make this kind of choice is not the same as deciding to take your own life or abort the baby. The second part about here attempting to perform a self abortion is again not worthy of an answer, but yet I will answer it; it would be wrong! Again I see absolutes, killing a baby whether before birth or after birth is wrong!

Now, this woman might've been able to apply for welfare. But not every person that is suffering financially as a woman like this might have can be helped by welfare. There is always a margin of exclusion for the populace, and people like this woman are left alone, to slip through the cracks of society. Perhaps she could've given up the baby for adoption. But not every unwanted baby can be accepted by orphanages. Most of them can, but as I mentioned earlier, there is always a margin of excusion. But, on the brighter side, with modern day abortion policies and processes, this woman could have gotten an abortion and continued supporting her family.

Your own argument speaks against you. How is a women who can't get money to feed her children going to pay for an abortion? Secondly, if a person is truly in need, I don't know of any true Christian church that would turn their backs on her if she asked for help. It is a sad statement about our society if a person cannot get help feeding their children but can get help paying for an abortion. Plus this takes me back to personal responsibility; another area I believe we disagree; pregnancy does not just happen. People need to take responsibility before they get to this point.

I understand that didn't want to offend me in your e-mail, but I have to politely say that I feel sincerely provoked and violated. You can judge my views on abortion, but you have neither the right nor the power to judge my faith. "Him/herself"-I did use this in my e-mail. I believe that God trancends gender and is both male and female. To be just male would be tantamount to saying men are more holy than women. And as far as believing everything in the Bible, I don't. Do know how many different languages the Bible was translated through? There is currently 26 different versions of the Bible known to the populace. So, if your going to question my belief in the word of the Bible, I would ask that you be more specific and tell me which one you are referring to. Now, about the issue of "satan". These are my reasons for not believing in such an evil entity:

I was sure I would upset you and as I said I am sorry that I did, however, I stand by what I said. So we both remember exactly what I said let me quote it here: At this point I want to address something else you said. You said that you are a Christian, yet you said you don't believe in a Satan. And when speaking about God you said: "him/herself". That makes me believe that although you claim to be a Christian you are not really. See the reason I say that is because what we believe about the Bible and about God determines if we are truly Christians or not. To be a Christian you need to have accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior, but to do so you must have faith in the fact that He is who He said He is. He said He was God, and He said many more things which are in the Bible. He even spoke about a being He called Satan. So if you don't believe what Jesus said, then it is doubtful that you have ever accepted Him as your Savior.

I stand by my statement. You don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, you don't believe in hell, you don't believe in God the Father (as you said Him/Herself). Here is my point. To be a Christian you should believe that Jesus Christ was God, came to earth as a human, lived a sinless life, died for all mankind's sins, and was raised from the dead on the third day. Since you don't believe that God will punish anyone, why would you need a Savior? With out Jesus as your Savior you are not a Christian in the strictest sense of the word. I am not judging you, I am saying that you can call yourself a Christian all you want, but by definition you are not.

1. God is love in the purest and most sincere sense of the word. Some people are delt a very bad lot in life, and God understands that. God is far too loving to subject a young girl who became a whore because her drunkard father was too poor to support her to an eternity of torment. God would never, ever create such a place as hell or an entity as "satan" to punish those which he loves boundlessly and endlessly, no matter what their crime.

2. The concept of satan was created by corrupted church leaders. They thought, "Oh, a loving God would never sell. We'll have to scare the people into coming. When they're faced with the prospect of eternal torment, their pockets will soon be emptied into the collection plates."

3. "satan" is man's ultimate excuse. Because "satan" put evil into the world, I'm sinning. All evil that exists comes from us.

Your three reasons for not believing what I believe are hard to answer, because you don't believe in the Bible as the Word of God, and I do. God says there is a hell, He says that there is a Satan, He says that no man has an excuse but yet that there is a devil who is a personal being created by God who wars against us and often temps us to do wrong.

Every person has sinned, there are no exceptions and every sin is an offense against God. God demands death as the punishment for all sin. Does that mean He does not love us? Not if you take into account that He sent His Son to die for our sins so that we would not have to die.

As to your theory that all people aren't in essence good, that is blasphemy in itself. All people come from god. We screw up a lot, sometimes really big, but that doesn't mean that the divine spark that God has imbued us all with is any less brighter. God lets us have free-will, and sometimes we turn away from Him/Her, but in the end, no one is beyond God's love. Not even someone who has aborted a child.

We disagree here too, but I can agree with you on one point. No one is beyond God's love, but that does not mean that God will accept you just as your are. You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior in order to be accepted by God. I did not say that Jesus did: (John 14:6 NIV) Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Your point about my theory being blasphemy is very telling. Blasphemy against man would mean that you worship man. Man is not to be worshiped. The Bible; which I know you don't believe; says that all men are born sinful, only God is pure and holy. We were created in God's image, but after the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, we were all born with evil hearts. Once more, to deny this is to reject Christ's teaching. How can you be a Christian if you don't believe what Christ taught?

I'm very curious as to what version of the Bible you're referring to. If it's the King James version, you should know that it was written by Shakespeare, who was bi-sexual. I have no qualms with gays or lesbians, but you seem to lean heavily towards fundamentalism.

I use several different translations. I seldom use the King James version, but I will tell you that if you really believe that Shakespeare wrote it you are not doing your homework. Ever hear of the Dead Sea scrolls? Yes I would classify myself as a fundamentalist, meaning I believe in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Which I know you don't and again I say that means you are not a true Christian. The good news is that God loves you and wants to have a personal relationship with you. I am not surprised you have no problem with gays and lesbians and for that matter neither do I, but I do have a problem with the sin of homosexuality. I take it that you don't believe in sin either, but again the Bible clearly teaches against it and says anyone who does not repent will spend eternity separated from God.

Ok, now my bottom line is: Abortion isn't the ultimate fixer-upper- it is just a way out for the margin of people that have no other way out. If we take away the right to do this, then we are beginning to recede back towards the medieval ages(also the time period where the concept of satan was concieved). Although, I think the choice should be limited and restricted. But nonetheless, it should not be abolished. About my faith, you cannot criticize my beliefs just because they are not the same as yours. That is biggotry, and very intolerant. I may disagree with your blunt, literal, tunnel vision views on messages conveyed through the Bible, but I do not condemn you for it or question your Christianity. I request that you show me the same respect.

If you want to tell me I am intolerant for telling you the truth, then so be it. You are right you can call yourself anything you choose and it is none of my business, but you don't fit the common definition of what a Christian is:

Chris·tian
adj.

  1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
  2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
  3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
  4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
  5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n. Abbr. Chr.
  1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
  2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

I did not mean to offend you, sir, but I felt the need to re-instate my values on the topic of abortion, and defend my right to call myself a Christian. God bless you.

You have not offended me. I am also sorry if I have offended you, but I have to speak the truth. Without Jesus Christ as your Savior you will go to that place prepared for Satan and the rest of the fallen angels when you die. That place is commonly called hell. You can deny it all you want, but God says it exists and everyone who does not believe in Jesus Christ will spend eternity there. Don't take the chance. Get to know God; read His Word.

I could quote many passages to you from the Bible but I decided not to since you don't believe in it anyway.

Ralph

Home

E-Mail Ralph (whose comments are in green)

MENU
911 - God's Help Line Articles Apologetics Book Reviews
Contemplating Suicide? Discipleship Eternal Security How to know Jesus
Help for the Cutter In Memory Marine Bloodstripes Police Humor
Police Memorial SiteMap Statement of Faith Testimonies
Thoughts to Ponder True Life Stories Vet's Memorial Why I Have a Page
Home
eXTReMe Tracker