About Abortion

Right & Wrong
User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: About Abortion

Post by Paidion » Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:02 pm

If this is the case (the baby is an unwanted stowaway) where a pregnancy results from rape, and a woman has the moral right to get rid of this "stowaway", then there should be no problem WHEN she chooses to get rid of it. If she chooses to kill it AFTER it is born, why is she charged with murder?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: About Abortion

Post by psimmond » Thu Apr 07, 2016 3:13 pm

Paidion, after the child is born, the mother could give him or her up for adoption. Timing makes a big difference here.

Could the trauma of carrying and delivering the child of a rapist outweigh the trauma associated with getting rid of the fetus in the early stages? It seems to me it could and should be taken into account.

Since the rapist is the one responsible for forcing this new life to live in a woman, maybe the rapist should be responsible for the death of the child if the mother decides to abort. :?:

Edit: The easy answer is nothing justifies killing an innocent child, but it does seem we place a higher value on life than the Bible does. It also seems like having no rape exception could be a punishment for the rape victim. I'm not sure...
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: About Abortion

Post by thrombomodulin » Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:51 pm

Paidion wrote:If this is the case (the baby is an unwanted stowaway) where a pregnancy results from rape, and a woman has the moral right to get rid of this "stowaway", then there should be no problem WHEN she chooses to get rid of it. If she chooses to kill it AFTER it is born, why is she charged with murder?
Walter Block had never argued for a right to kill, even for the unborn, but rather only a right to evict. Consequently, he would affirm it is not permissible for the mother to kill a child who is born. In his view, it is only permissible to send the child away in a manner "as gentle as possible".
psimmond wrote:Could the trauma of carrying and delivering the child of a rapist outweigh the trauma associated with getting rid of the fetus in the early stages? It seems to me it could and should be taken into account.
I'm not inclined to base my own reasoning about what is ethical on the magnitude of trauma experienced by the mother. However, for the sake of argument, let us consider otherwise. Should we not then also take into account the trauma of the unborn child who experiences his body being torn apart? Trauma is a subjective experience that cannot be compared absolutely, however, I can say with confidence that I would rather experience such emotional burdens as the mother might have than endure the fate of the aborted child.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: About Abortion

Post by Paidion » Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:26 pm

Throm wrote:Walter Block had never argued for a right to kill, even for the unborn, but rather only a right to evict. Consequently, he would affirm it is not permissible for the mother to kill a child who is born. In his view, it is only permissible to send the child away in a manner "as gentle as possible".
Does Walter Block explain how a mother could "send away" her pre-born child without killing it?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: About Abortion

Post by thrombomodulin » Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:18 pm

Of course he recognizes that the child will die when removed from the mother, as no other environment can sustain his life. Walter's view is that the mother can remove the child, and the child is on its own to survive (i.e. the mother has no obligations to keep the child inside).

User avatar
Candlepower
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:26 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: About Abortion

Post by Candlepower » Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:08 am

Thank you for the clarification, Paidion. It was as I had assumed, but wasn't sure.

I agree with you that abortion is murder, but I respectfully disagree with about all of the rest of your comments, especially this one:
I do not believe anyone should be penalized for wrongdoing of any kind—including murder. For what does it accomplish except to cause pain and/or death to the wrongdoer?
Honestly, I find your perception of the criminal mind and your theory for remedying crime to be pollyannish. Both Testaments provide clear teaching that God imposes penalties/punishments on lawbreakers, with hell (regardless of one's view of its purpose) being the ultimate. I am not aware that Jesus abrogated punishments/penalties for violating God's civil laws.

You pointed out that some innocent people have been mistakenly executed, and you feel that abolishing the death penalty is therefore justified. I disagree. I don't think society's imperfect handling of God's civil law provides an excuse for replacing it with a humanistic one in which a murderer is basically taught to be good. What if your murderer refuses to attend classes? I bet Charles Manson would play hooky, and not go fishing. Would you force him to go to school? Wouldn't that impinge on his movements and schedule? Wouldn't such forced indoctrination be a penalty/punishment, of a sort?

You claim that capital punishment does not deter murder, but you seem to agree that executing a murderer would prevent him from "repeating his crime." I think that is a very significant preventive that should not be marginalized. Besides that, the claim that capital punishment should be abolished because it does not deter murder is certainly not a slam-dunk argument. Other evaluations indicate otherwise. Such as these:

http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/04/capit ... ers-crime/#

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... G2-W4V2mgg

The issue of deterrence, however, is a diversion from understanding God's purpose for capital punishment, which is justice, not deterrence. Deterrence may be a big deal for a sociologist with a worldly worldview, but it's not with God.

But I return to the point from which this thread began. I believe that a woman who seeks and undergoes an abortion is not an innocent victim of an abortionist. She is at least an accomplice to the murder. The woman, the abortionist, and anyone else involved in such an undertaking are, in God's mind, guilty of a ghastly crime for which He says they should be punished. I agree with God.

Jeremiah 2:34-35 describes God's view of what some commentators say is the legalized murder of babies during part of Israel's history.

34 Also on your skirts is found
The blood of the lives of the poor innocents.
I have not found it by secret search,
But plainly on all these things.
35 Yet you say, ‘Because I am innocent,
Surely His anger shall turn from me.’
Behold, I will plead My case against you,
Because you say, ‘I have not sinned.’

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: About Abortion

Post by steve » Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:01 pm

Getting back to the "stowaway" fetus who intrudes upon the woman's "property," I would say there are certain considerations missing from the analogy.

First, a woman's body is not her property. Nor is a man's body his property. She and he have not created nor purchased their bodies, and they are therefore not natural owners. There is, however, a real Owner, whose rights of possession are both by creation and purchase (see 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Psalm 100:3). As tenants, we obviously have an interest in the well-being of the bodies we inhabit, but those bodies belongs to the Maker/Owner, not the tenants.

Second, an unwanted baby in the womb may be a stowaway, but it is also a refugee, whose presence in the womb is an appeal for sanctuary. The question of his or her continued presence in the woman's body is a matter for the Owner, not the first tenant, to decide. God has allowed the woman to inhabit her body, and now He has allowed another person also to inhabit it, temporarily. The eviction of a refugee from the property would be at the prerogative of the Owner, not of the tenant.

A woman who has been raped and finds herself pregnant is like a man who is flying his plane and finds a stowaway with him, who is fleeing a wrongful death sentence from a murderous dictator. Even if we would argue that the owner of the plane could evict the intruder in mid-air, without concern for his or her fate (a decision no humane individual would approve), no Christian, or civilized human, would find it ethical to evict an innocent and desperate refugee from the premises, if such would mean the wrongful death of that victim.

The finding of a stranger in your home would be a traumatic and unpleasant experience, to be sure, but upon finding that person to be helpless and benign, one would be nothing short of monstrous to deliver the intruder over to an undeserved execution. Trauma is, unfortunately, an unavoidable part of every life; committing murder is not.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: About Abortion

Post by Paidion » Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:40 pm

Image
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: About Abortion

Post by psimmond » Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:58 pm

steve,
I'm not sure I agree with assigning the unborn baby refugee status since they didn't come to the womb to escape persecution. In a rape scenario, they were unknowingly placed in a person's body against this person's will. The body of the victim belongs to God, but are there property rights that can be exercised by the tenant?

Old Testament law recognized private property and repeatedly prohibited stealing. So you might be able to make a case that since the baby came uninvited and is taking resources without permission, you have the legal right to evict. (This could be done via C-section.)

I'm not stating my beliefs here, just looking at this from different angles.
Last edited by psimmond on Fri Apr 08, 2016 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: About Abortion

Post by mattrose » Fri Apr 08, 2016 3:16 pm

steve7150 wrote:What if the response were that its "my body" and I can't be forced to carry the fetus whether its' a human being and even if its' not a part of my body. In other words if the response is that no matter what, you can't force the women to give up 9 or so months of her life to carry a fetus/baby if she doesn't "choose" to, what would your response be?
I see there has already been some good responses to this type of argument, but since the question was originally directed at me I'll share my thoughts too.

First, if we're not talking about rape, then the woman voluntarily chose to use 'her body' in a way that created the potential for a baby to be conceived within her. Actions carry consequences that come with responsibilities. Nobody (in non-rape cases) 'forces' a woman to give up 9 months of her life to carry a baby. She chooses this possibility. To deny the consequences and responsibilities is not only to deny the humanity of the child, but to deny your own humanity.

Second, cases of rape are incredibly fallen, broken, sad situations. There are no perfect solutions when rape is involved. Perhaps the worst solution would be for a raped woman to then have to live with the guilt of a second 'wrong' (aborting the innocent child), especially when so many people would love to adopt an unwanted child. Suffering a very difficult year, but being able to then bless another couple, would seemingly be a much better option. Of course, I wouldn't expect all people to share these sorts of values (willingness to suffer, other-oriented-ness, etc.).

Post Reply

Return to “Ethics”