Oral contraceptives

  • Thread starter Thread starter samaritana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here’s a scenario:
A mother is confined to bedrest as she is at risk of miscarriage. She is home but has an accident that results in a fire. She rushes to extinguish the fire and save herself but the stress and activity cause her to miscarry. Knowing that her activity could result in a chance of miscarriage but not having the intent of miscarriage…does this mean this woman is guilty of sin?

According to the apologist on this website she would not be guilty as her intention was not to cause a miscarriage which is the same scenario as using the pill for medical purposes and not abstaining from sex.

However, it seems that the flip side presented in this thread would be that her having the knowledge that these actions could endanger a pregnancy would mean she is guilty of sin, or NOT abstaining from sex while using the pill for medical purposes as it could cause a pregnancy to terminate.

How would some people view miscarriages then? Miscarriages are also unintended pregnancy terminations.

God knows what is in one’s heart…we cannot escape that.
It’s ridiculous to compare abstaining from sex to being burned alive in a building.

Miscarriages are tragedies. I’m not sure how you’re even attempting to tie in what anyone has said here to a miscarriage.
 
It’s ridiculous to compare abstaining from sex to being burned alive in a building.

Miscarriages are tragedies. I’m not sure how you’re even attempting to tie in what anyone has said here to a miscarriage.
I absolutely agree with you that those are extreme. That was the whole point…to illustrate the importance of intent…not circumstances. Some people disagree that intent is unimportant and that circumstances, no matter how extreme, must dictate sin. Obviously, that can be to the point of ridiculousness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top