toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?

[oldhermit]

Exactly. And, IMO, it should also be a capital offense for those mothers who participate in the murder of their children and the doctors who assist them.

AMEN!!!

 

[Buzzword]

I think parents should have the right to murder their children until age 18.

Call it a "late-term abortion," and put it on the table as soon as the little brat starts acting up.

"Let's go home."
"I don't waaaannaaa!" (starts flopping on the ground and screaming)
"Remember, you still have ten more years." (*chick-chick*) (<--expertly described shotgun sound)
(gasps, stands up) "Okay daddy."

As for rape victims, doctors should include morning-after pills in their rape kits.
The MOMENT it comes back positive, the pill should be in the girl's hand.
Then let her decide, and stay out of her way.

I love how all the "NO EXCEPTIONS RAAARRR!" people have yet to address at least one common circumstance for rape victims:
BEING UNDERAGE.

You'd really force a teenager (a child who hasn't finished maturing physically or neurologically and who hasn't finished securing long-term employment) to take on the responsibility of raising, nurturing, and PAYING FOR a child?

In addition to suffering the shame of her rape for nine months, plus labor?

Overall, it's a good thing ya'll don't make laws around here.
We'd have an even larger permanent underclass, welfare would be drained dry, and the streets would be crowded with even more homeless, all because "life is life."

 

[Quincy]

I can't really comment on it in a definite way. I can't imagine what it would be like to be a woman who has been raped and impregnated because of. In most all other cases I would give a general "pro-life" answer but this one doesn't seem black and white to me. If a woman kept the child and went through raising it, I would certainly admire her strength. Can't say I would blame the woman for not wanting it either.

 

[vegascowboy]

I'm not. You see, we disagree on WHEN the unborn becomes a child (person).

It always comes back to a matter of cells. Exactly how many cells or life processes must be manifest before you would consider life life?

If an unborn child has 1,000,000,000,000 cells, is it ok to abort? What if they have 1,000,000,000,001 cells? Is it then wrong? Where do you draw the line, and how do you justify it in your own mind?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Yep ... only nine months ... and no, she isn't *raising* her child. She is physically allowing the child to live until the child can survive without her. The raising doesn't begin until the child is born, and at that time she can decide if she wants the responsibility of raising the child or allowing another responsible person to be gifted with the honor.

We're on a slippery slope Rusha. Some women aren't willing to give emotionally or physically . . . even for nine months.

Well ... I am not a Christian, and do not believe with any such standard as you noted above. My view is that we are all responsible for our own actions ... which ties in very well with cases of rape and abortion.

Good. Let's give the woman that choice too then.

The rapist is responsible for his sexual assault towards the mother. As you know, I do not take this lightly and feel that rape should be a capital offense.

:thumb:

The mother is responsible for the life and welfare of her unborn baby in the same way she would be if she was accidentally impregnated by her spouse or significant other.

. . . including, in my opinion, to terminate her pregnancy in a reasonable timeframe.

Life is not perfect and traumatic and bad things happen to good, decent people. No woman EVER deserves to be raped and no child (born or unborn) ever deserves to be intentionally killed.

I support your opinion 100% Rusha.

It is entirely possible to support the mother and offer support after her rape, during her pregnancy and AFTER her pregnancy.

As I would given her choice.

 

[oldhermit]

It is my opinion that if your deity allows a "punishment" to proceed then your deity is de facto approving of the punishment, thus, doing the punishing.

I'm not. You see, we disagree on WHEN the unborn becomes a child (person).

This does not suprise me. It has been my experience in listening to athiests that almost all regard ethics as a contest dependant anomoly. You may prefer to call this situation ethics. Scripture is disregarded as a absolute standard because it holds men accountable to a revealed standard.

 

[Doormat]

Well, that's one of the many instances where the sons pay for the sins of their fathers . . .

It goes to your objection to punish the child, an innocent, for doing nothing wrong.

You've misunderstood the scripture, brother. It basically means that if you teach your children that something sinful is not a sin, they will do that something, and so will their children for several generations. And they will reap what they sow.

The Bible is crystal clear in numerous places that every person will die for his own sins, that the sons will not die for the sins of the father, etc. Look it up.

 

[vegascowboy]

I can't really comment on it in a definite way. I can't imagine what it would be like to be a woman who has been raped and impregnated because of. In most all other cases I would give a general "pro-life" answer but this one doesn't seem black and white to me.

Herein lies the issue.

Liberals often (though not all Liberals) like to (purposefully) confuse the matter.

Just because someone such as myself does NOT believe that there is ever a case to justify the murder of a child, born or unborn, this does NOT mean that we do not feel that the rape itself was a horrific, disgusting, life-changing, event for the woman.

It is horrible. It is vile. It should not go without severe and swift punishment for the perpetrator.

I would be crazy to think that I could ever understand the physical and emotional implications that a woman experiences when she has been violated in this way.

The two issues, however, are not the same.

(I do not mean to imply that you are one of the Liberals that I mention above, because I know you are not...your post simply brought to mind this issue.)

This issue IS black and white when it comes to the sanctity of life.

 

[Silent Hunter]

It's great to see that you still support the murder of children.

I don't. Our disagreement is WHEN does a few cells in a puddle of water become a child.

 

[vegascowboy]

I don't. Our disagreement is WHEN does a few cells in a puddle of water become a child.

Already beat you to this...

 

[bybee]

Herein lies the issue.

Liberals often (though not all Liberals) like to (purposefully) confuse the matter.

Just because someone such as myself does NOT believe that there is ever a case to justify the murder of a child, born or unborn, this does NOT mean that we do not feel that the rape itself was a horrific, disgusting, life-changing, event for the woman.

It is horrible. It is vile. It should not go without severe and swift punishment for the perpetrator.

I would be crazy to think that I could ever understand the physical and emotional implications that a woman experiences when she has been violated in this way.

The two issues, however, are not the same.

(I do not mean to imply that you are one of the Liberals that I mention above, btw, your post simply brought to mind this issue.)

I know that, had I been raped and had I become pregnant, I could not possibly have had an abortion. Every fiber of my being rebels against the thought. Yet, I would never be free of the act. Very likely, though, knowing myself, I would slowly come to love the developing child. Would I keep the child? I don't know.

 

[Silent Hunter]

It always comes back to a matter of cells. Exactly how many cells or life processes must be manifest before you would consider life life?

If an unborn child has 1,000,000,000,000 cells, is it ok to abort? What if they have 1,000,000,000,001 cells? Is it then wrong? Where do you draw the line, and how do you justify it in your own mind?

It's a dilemma alright . . . isn't it?

 

[The Barbarian]

If the child is conceived by rape or incest, it is not the child's fault, and killing the child is not the answer.

I have a difficult time understanding the moral stance of those who say "only in case of rape or incest." Those who don't believe the unborn are persons with rights are tragically wrong, but they are consistent with their moral stance in allowing abortion on demand for any reason.

Those who say the unborn are persons, but it's O.K. to kill them if they are conceived in appalling circumstances don't seem to realize the moral implications.

Just my opinion.

 

[Silent Hunter]

This does not suprise me. It has been my experience in listening to athiests that almost all regard ethics as a contest dependant anomoly. You may prefer to call this situation ethics. Scripture is disregarded as a absolute standard because it holds men accountable to a revealed standard.

Ethics is, and forever will be, based on someone's . . . opinion . . . even for those who think (or rather, "believe") they have the "absolute" standard.

 

[Quincy]

Herein lies the issue.

Liberals often (though not all Liberals) like to (purposefully) confuse the matter.

Just because someone such as myself does NOT believe that there is ever a case to justify the murder of a child, born or unborn, this does NOT mean that we do not feel that the rape itself was a horrific, disgusting, life-changing, event for the woman.

It is horrible. It is vile. It should not go without severe and swift punishment for the perpetrator.

I would be crazy to think that I could ever understand the physical and emotional implications that a woman experiences when she has been violated in this way.

The two issues, however, are not the same.

(I do not mean to imply that you are one of the Liberals that I mention above, btw, your post simply brought to mind this issue.)

This issue IS black and white when it comes to the sanctity of life.

Very interesting post Vegas. I do agree with you on the sanctity of life and I do believe most if not all conservatives understand what a tough situation it is. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, a possibly sick fetus or even a case of incest I would give a pro-life answer. It's not the child's fault and we shouldn't take anyone's life into our own hands.

There is just something about inserting rape into the picture that makes me stand back. I don't know why but there is just something about the idea that I don't feel right about. Almost like you can't escape it being a true tragedy.

 

[Doormat]

Consider this folks ...

Southern Baptist Convention Resolutions on Abortion
Resolution On Abortion, adopted at the SBC convention, June 1971:

WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion; and
WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor; and
WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened;
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.

The attorney that represented Jane Roe, was a Southern Baptist. (So were the Chick-Fil-A owners at that time, fyi) They got what they wanted, and they were not the only Christian denominations that wanted it. The SBC press reported the Roe v. Wade decision as a good thing.

While the SBC has since changed it's position, there are Christians today who still want a woman to be able to kill her baby if the child was conceived in rape. For example Seventh Day Adventist's hold that position.

Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.

Add to that the vast majority of abortions in the United States are performed on innocent children whose mothers identify themselves as Christian.

Anyone sick to their stomach yet?

In answer to the OP: NO WAY! A child shouldn't die for the sins of his father.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You've misunderstood the scripture, brother. It basically means that if you teach your children that something sinful is not a sin, they will do that something, and so will their children for several generations. And they will reap what they sow.

The Bible is crystal clear in numerous places that every person will die for his own sins, that the sons will not die for the sins of the father, etc. Look it up.

As I've pointed out prior (though not in our discussion) the question is, when does personhood begin? Does a woman have a right to determine what happens to and within her own body?

 

[oldhermit]

Ethics is, and forever will be, based on someone's . . . opinion . . . even for those who think (or rather, "believe") they have the "absolute" standard.

So you see ethics as nothing more than context dependant and taking the life of the child is justified on the basis of the cirmumstances.

 

[Silent Hunter]

So you see ethics as nothing more than context dependant . . .

In many, dare I say most, instances, yes. You, yourself, make daily ethical choices based clearly and completely on the context of your daily encounters. Is lying (bearing false witness) always wrong? Your basic, infallible, ethical guidebook says it is, yet, I'm certain you lie daily to some degree.

. . . and taking the life of the child is justified on the basis of the cirmumstances.

A child? No. You have yet to make your case that a few cells in a puddle of water is a child.

 

[vegascowboy]

There is just something about inserting rape into the picture that makes me stand back. I don't know why but there is just something about the idea that I don't feel right about. Almost like you can't escape it being a true tragedy.

I understand, and I agree.

The sheer horror and emotion and life-long (in many cases) remembering and suffering add an extra component to the issue.

The destruction of a child, however, even in the shadow of something so vile, is equally responsible for my standing back, as you mentioned.

The woman was violated in a reprehensible way. Whether or not the child's life is terminated will not change this. As you also mentioned, you cannot escape the tragedy of it on the part of the woman.

You can, however, escape the horror that is abortion.