toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?

[oldhermit]

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

Of course. This does not however disanul the absolute standard. All this does is reveal my own shortcomings in trying to uphold that standard. We are all confronted with the choice each day of choosing to abide by that standard or to violate it. This is why we sin. I do not presume to be perfect in this. I only presume to attempt to uphold the standard.

 

[oldhermit]

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.

VERY GOOD!

 

[Silent Hunter]

Indeed, it is only my opinion.

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

Did you consult the book first?

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?

You took her; you didn't make the decision to have a abortion for her. I once knew a girl (not my girlfriend) who used abortion as another form of birth control beyond the usual contraceptives. While each abortion was her decision to make, I found the practice objectionable to my own moral standard.

 

[Silent Hunter]

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!!!

:chuckle: . . . yeah, women and their shoes for sure.

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.

Exactly. I differentiate between what is a few cells with no form or structure from what is obviously a baby.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Of course. This does not however disanul the absolute standard. All this does is reveal my own shortcomings in trying to uphold that standard. We are all confronted with the choice each day of choosing to abide by that standard or to violate it. This is why we sin. I do not presume to be perfect in this. I only presume to attempt to uphold the standard.

Meh. Then what loss is there to a few cells if you can't follow even the simplest of the "rules"?

 

[Doormat]

Did you consult the book first?

I would believe what I believe now regarding abortion even if the Bible didn't exist, brother.

 

[oldhermit]

:chuckle: . . . yeah, women and their shoes for sure.

Exactly. I differentiate between what is a few cells with no form or structure from what is obviously a baby.

Only a distortred logic could assume that it is anything else. It is interesting that atheism does not apply this same quantum leep of illogic in all areas accross the board.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I would believe what I believe now regarding abortion even if the Bible didn't exist, brother.

Very good. So you didn't need some supposed standard to arrive at your own decision regarding abortion. Imagine that?

 

[MaryContrary]

Aborting a child has to be the epitomy of a selfish mind. "I will kill this child because I am inconvenienced or ashamed." It is all centered around MY need and what I want.

It's an understandable reaction. But I'd no more condone or stand passively by if a rape victim reacted to that violation by deciding to murder her own baby than I would if she decided to take her own life.

Understandable but not in any way a sane reaction. Less than 1% of abortions occur due to rape or incest, and roughly 1% of rape victims chose to abort. Because even your average rape victim isn't so insane as to react to that by murdering an innocent child.

This question is and always has been a ruse. It practically never happens and is presented by pro-choicers as common enough to warrant the question in order to elicit sympathy.

 

[ebenz47037]

toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?

No. When I was younger, I was raped by a "friend." I thought I was pregnant (a pregnancy test came up positive). I was scared and alone and didn't know what to do. Of course, being in southern California, my doctor suggested that I abort the child. I couldn't do it. A day later, a friend of mine who had been counseling me since the rape asked me not to abort the child. She asked if I decided not to keep the child if I would let her and her husband adopt because they couldn't have children. I told her that I would, if I decided not to keep it. I ended up not pregnant. She was happy for me and sad at the same time. I was happy not to be pregnant and sad that I couldn't give her the child she wanted so desperately.

Now that I've grown older (twenty + years later), I don't believe that it is right to punish the child for the crime of the father. If you cannot see yourself raising the child of the man who raped you, give that child to someone who will love it unconditionally.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Only a distortred logic could assume that it is anything else.

Distorted logic? A blastocyst hardly looks like a baby young fellow.

It is interesting that atheism does not apply this same quantum leep of illogic in all areas accross the board.

It would seem many christians (you included) fail that test quite regularly, oh, he who lies as reason and situation dictate . . .

 

[oldhermit]

Meh. Then what loss is there to a few cells if you can't follow even the simplest of the "rules"?

Because if one aborts these "few cells" a life is taken. Surely, someone of even moderate intellegence can figure out that life does not spring out of lifelessness in a woman's womb. Everything connected to conception comes from life, not benign matter. Benign matter is not self producing nor self replicating.

 

[alwight]

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.

In this one life that we know we have I think we must include and consider all the possible effects to currently living people with lives to lead perhaps before those of a potential life.
A husband whose wife had been raped would presumably simply have to stand by while the rapist's child developed in his wife probably destroying their relationship. The already wronged woman not only would have the lasting reminder of rape but perhaps to a greater or lesser extent lose her chosen potential father of her children.

What of the potential life that could have been created by this couple but which now cannot be, does that count for nothing?
For me there are so many other reasons too why at least some abortions are not wrong and where dogmatic beliefs are simply not good enough, but I don't want to drone on here.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Because if one aborts these "few cells" a life is taken.

Life is prevented. Remember, we aren't in agreement on when what can be a baby . . . is a baby.

Surely, someone of even moderate intellegence can figure out that life does not spring out of lifelessness in a woman's womb. Everything connected to conception comes from life, not benign matter. Benign matter is not self producing nor self replicating.

Yeah, I learned where babies come from years ago . . . .

 

[oldhermit]

In this one life that we know we have I think we must include and consider all the possible effects to currently living people with lives to lead perhaps before those of a potential life.
A husband whose wife had been raped would presumably simply have to stand by while the rapist's child developed in his wife probably destroying their relationship. The already wronged woman not only would have the lasting reminder of rape but perhaps to a greater or lesser extent lose her chosen potential father of her children.

What of the potential life that could have been created by this couple but which now cannot be, does that count for nothing?
For me there are so many other reasons too why at least some abortions are not wrong and where dogmatic beliefs are simply not good enough, but I don't want to drone on here.

This is human based logic attempting to overturn the revealed logic. While these considerations are quite real and hard to cope with they are not valid determinates for killing the child.

 

[Silent Hunter]

In this one life that we know we have I think we must include and consider all the possible effects to currently living people with lives to lead perhaps before those of a potential life.
A husband whose wife had been raped would presumably simply have to stand by while the rapist's child developed in his wife probably destroying their relationship. The already wronged woman not only would have the lasting reminder of rape but perhaps to a greater or lesser extent lose her chosen potential father of her children.

What of the potential life that could have been created by this couple but which now cannot be, does that count for nothing?
For me there are so many other reasons too why at least some abortions are not wrong and where dogmatic beliefs are simply not good enough, but I don't want to drone on here.

Yes, this is an extreme case of the ethical dilemma and one that makes this topic so interesting and unsolvable for most everyone.

 

[vegascowboy]

A husband whose wife had been raped would presumably simply have to stand by while the rapist's child developed in his wife probably destroying their relationship. The already wronged woman not only would have the lasting reminder of rape but perhaps to a greater or lesser extent lose her chosen potential father of her children.

Why does it have to destroy their relationship?

 

[oldhermit]

Yes, this is an extreme case of the ethical dilemma and one that makes this topic so interesting and unsolvable for most everyone.

No. Only for those who reject the absolute standard of revealed ethics.

 

[alwight]

This is human based logic attempting to overturn the revealed logic. While these considerations are quite real and hard to cope with they are not valid determinates for killing the child.

What child? I was talking about a cluster of cells without any specific human features or nervous system.
A child is a different matter and at what point I might deem it a child/person is when I too would have much greater resistance to abortion.
I simply argue that least worst case choices can be sound and ethical choices that sometimes require greater courage than just leaving it to a presumed higher authority perhaps.

 

[oldhermit]

What child? I was talking about a cluster of cells without any specific human features or nervous system.
A child is a different matter and at what point I might deem it a child/person is when I too would have much greater resistance to abortion.
I simply argue that least worst case choices can be sound and ethical choices that sometimes require greater courage than just leaving it to a presumed higher authority perhaps.

The fact that you cannot see this cluster of cells as a child noes not make it any less a child.