toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?

[Nathon Detroit]

There is no excuse for abortion. Not in the case of rape. Not in the case of incest. Not ever.

That sweet child living inside its mother, though perhaps brought about by evil and undesireable methods and circumstances, is INNOCENT and alive. It deserves a chance. It is a human being. It is a child of God.

To deny him or her that chance to grow and become something in this life because of convenience or guilt or trauma or fear is to embrace murder. It is among the most vile of acts we, as humans, are capable of committing.

It is wrong. There is no excuse that can justify the taking of an unborn child's life.

Ever.

:first: POTD

 

[Rusha]

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

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

:thumb:

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

I support your opinion 100% Rusha.

As I would given her choice.

In most cases (excluding abortion), I would agree about adults making their own choice when it is only *their* health and welfare at risk.

However, this *choice* isn't just affecting the mother's life. She IS intentionally killing the unborn baby and thereby, denying the child (who is incapable of speaking for themselves at this point) of making a choice to live or die.

Also, there is another option ... and that option would be to choose to protect the life inside of her.

In this current day and age, motherhood does not equal slavery or oppression. Women can choose to give their child up for adoption or find suitable care if she wishes to pursue a career. The mother's only loss is that for nine months, her activities or diet may be limited.

As compared to the sentence of death she has chosen to give her unborn child should she abort ...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

A child should never be punished for the sin of their father.

 

[oldhermit]

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.

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

You presume too much about how I make ethical decisions. I know you will not agree with this, but for the sake of the others who are reading this post, if we assume that ethical decisions are at the descretion of human intelligence and are determined by individual circumstances, this places human intellegence over and above the intellegence of God and renders scripture itself as context dependant. This is very convenient for the non-believer because it places man in the position to justify whatever he determines to be right in his own eyes.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

I am astonished and disappointed.

 

[Silent Hunter]

In most cases (excluding abortion), I would agree about adults making their own choice when it is only *their* health and welfare at risk.

Yes, we've discussed this before. What if the woman's health (life) is in jeopardy to continue the pregnancy? The slope is not only slippery, it is steep too.

However, this *choice* isn't just affecting the mother's life. She IS intentionally killing the unborn baby and thereby, denying the child (who is incapable of speaking for themselves at this point) of making a choice to live or die.

Again, something we've discussed. We disagree on when that which we agree is "life" becomes a baby (person).

Also, there is another option ... and that option would be to choose protect the life inside her.

As my friend Mr. Spock likes to say, "There are always alternatives".

In this current day and age, motherhood does not equal slavery or oppression. Women can choose to give their child up for adoption or find suitable care if she wishes to pursue a career. The mother's only loss is that for nine months, her activities or diet may be limited.

Decisions . . . decisions.

As compared to the sentence of death she has chosen to give her unborn child should she abort ...

Did I already rep you today? Good post!

 

[Silent Hunter]

A child should never be punished for the sin of their father.

No, absolutely, never a child.

 

[Doormat]

As I've pointed out prior (though not in our discussion) the question is, when does personhood begin?

I have been convinced personhood begins at conception.

Does a woman have a right to determine what happens to and within her own body?

I can only answer as a theist with a personal conviction, brother. My answer is that God opens and closes the womb, so in that sense, the answer is no. It would be hard for us to continue this dialogue without first solving the problem of evil, so I'll just leave you with my stated opinion.

:e4e:

 

[Doormat]

I am astonished and disappointed.

In order to win the personhood fight, Christians should try to understand how that happened, and why it's still happening. Perhaps there is a root cause nobody has considered that relates to one's understanding (or lack) of the gospel.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You presume too much about how I make ethical decisions.

Right, I don't know how you make your ethical decision, I simply know that you do make them and you make them based on circumstances.

I know you will not agree with this, but for the sake of the others who are reading this post, if we assume that ethical decisions are at the descretion of human intelligence and are determined by individual circumstances, this places human intellegence over and above the intellegence of God and renders scripture itself as context dependant. This is very convenient for the non-believer because it places man in the position to justify whatever he determines to be right in his own eyes.

Yep . . . and it will always be that way too . . . even for people who believe they possess an "abolute" standard of morality.

 

[Tambora]

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."

As a woman this is a very touchy subject for me. When I was a teenager I felt that if I were raped I would have to kill myself because I would be damaged beyond repair. Often, females who are raped are functionally destroyed. I'm thankful that such a thing didn't happen to me.
Each of my five children were intensely precious to me the minute I first felt the flutterings of life. Each time I felt slightly insulated from the rest of the world, me and my growing child were a private unity.
I don't know how I would have felt had I become pregnant by an act of violence and aggression?

I have a hard time telling a woman she has to have a rapists baby.

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.

So, would you suggest that MURDERING a child would be an acceptable solution?????????

 

[Silent Hunter]

I have been convinced personhood begins at conception.

I respect your opinion. Do you have the rhetorical skill to convince me that your opinion should be mine as well?

I can only answer as a theist with a personal conviction, brother. My answer is that God opens and closes the womb, so in that sense, the answer is no. It would be hard for us to continue this dialogue without first solving the problem of evil, so I'll just leave you with my stated opinion.

I respect that. Thank you, my friend.

 

[alwight]

This is very convenient for the non-believer because it places man in the position to justify whatever he determines to be right in his own eyes.

I wouldn't say convenient, no one is using it as an argument for or against theism, but I would accept that if you are a non-believer it is perhaps an easier choice if you can restrict yourself to the physical facts. A small cluster of cells (zygote) is no more a child than were the egg and sperm shortly before conception imo.

 

[Silent Hunter]

So, would you suggest that MURDERING a child would be an acceptable solution?????????

Convince me that a few cells in a puddle of water is a child first.

 

[oldhermit]

Right, I don't know how you make your ethical decision, I simply know that you do make them and you make them based on circumstances.

Yep . . . and it will always be that way too . . . even for people who believe they possess an "abolute" standard of morality.

No. I do not make them based upon the merits of circumstance. I make them based on the absolute standard of scripture. Every decision we make must be made on the over riding principle "What does scripture have to say about this matter," NOT what do my cercumstances dictate.

 

[Tambora]

A child should never be punished for the sin of their father.

Right.

 

[oldhermit]

I wouldn't say convenient, no one is using it as an argument for or against theism, but I would accept that if you are a non-believer it is perhaps an easier choice if you can restrict yourself to the physical facts. A small cluster of cells is no more a child than were the egg and sperm shortly before conception imo.

Yes! If we can dismiss any obligation to a revealed standard of ethics, we feell we can also dismiss any consequences that standard may impose.

 

[Silent Hunter]

No. I do not make them based upon the merits of circumstance. I make them based on the absolute standard of scripture. Every decision we make must be made on the over riding principle "What does scripture have to say about this matter," NOT what do my cercumstances dictate.

Really? Have you ever lied? I understand your moral guidebook is quite against fibbery . . . :shocked:.

 

[Doormat]

I respect your opinion.

Indeed, it is only my opinion.

Do you have the rhetorical skill to convince me that your opinion should be mine as well?

Probably not. But I think you are being convinced by the things you find self-evident, and that's how I was convinced.

And, considering I once took a girlfriend to have an abortion for no other reason than a selfish heart, am I really qualified to convince you in these matters without seeming somewhat like a hypocrite?

 

[Tambora]

Convince me that a few cells in a puddle of water is a child first.

What else would those "few cells in a puddle of water" be; a pair of shoes???
If that were the case, no woman would ever have an abortion!!!

The only reason a woman would abort those "few cells in a puddle of water" is because she does not want to have a CHILD.