Rape, Incest, and Abortion

Mike-

As to your analogy, negligent homicide is still homicide. I think Jesus made a similar point regarding a traveler on the road to Jerusalem... the temple officials were under no obligation to help, but Jesus clearly intended that they not be the example we live by.



"she does not bear any responsibility for the pregnancy and should not be legally required to carry the baby to term."

Just because the woman didn't consent to the conception does not alter the equation. The fact is, the child is still an innocent, and deserving of protection. To suggest that it's acceptable to kill the child because the conception occurred involuntarily is to say that God himself was not intimately involved with the creation of that child, knitting him/her together in the womb, as David said. Each life is precious to God, regardless of who the parents are, or how the mother gets pregnant.

"However, I wouldn't force a woman to make that decision."

In this instance, it would not be you that would have made the choice, but rather the rapist. (Involuntary incest is rape, no?) The child is still innocent, and worthy of protection.

Under your scheme, at what point would the authorities accept that a rape had occurred?

When a trial jury enters a verict of 'guilty'?
When a grand jury hands down an indictment?
When DNA testing proves paternity of a suspect?
When the woman files a rape complaint against an unknown assailant?

TY: That's a good question, since proving rape can take longer than pregnancy. Ideally we'd go with a jury verdict, but maybe we could instead allow rape to be an affirmative defense against charges of illegal abortion.

gaw: The non-Samaritans on the road that passed the injured man were not "negligent", and the laws we don't have are in fact called "Good Samaritan laws". It's not a crime to stand by and watch something bad happen. It may be morally reprehensible, but it's not a crime, and probably shouldn't be. And yes, it's tragic that the rapist brought a baby into being, but by refusing a rape victim the choice of an abortion you're essentially forcing the crime against her to continue, painfully and dangerously, for 9 months or more. It's as if a kidnapper takes two people hostage and you refuse to allow one to escape because the kidnapper will then kill the one left behind. Yes, it sucks, but the one hostage has a right to escape if she wants to, even if it dooms the other.

As any good law professor would tell you, the first step in any crime is a slip in ethics. This is where the law and ethics should truly be aligned. Your point is that while you think abortion in the case of rape or incest may not be moral, you believe it should be legal. I would strongly contend otherwise. If our laws are not bound to ethics and moral restraint then the laws that govern us will only last until the next relative determinate comes along to change them. However if our laws are based upon a moral code, they won't sway in the wind of every change. You claim to be a Christian not by upraising but by choice, yet you seem to want to pick and choose what to believe out of the Bible. As “gaw” aptly pointed out, negligent homicide is still homicide. And further more, what type of person with any moral code would allow for a person tied to the rail tracks to be left without attempting to give aid? We have the law and we have morality, and it is true the two are sometimes different matters, but should they be? What law reigns utmost in a person who follows Christ? The Bible is very clear on the matters of abortion and murder. The manner of conception doesn’t change the nature of this issue. If we decide where this line should be drawn based on convenience even in the tragic cases of rape and incest, we are taking lives into our hands. Laws should be tied to overarching morality, and when our laws are not tied something of a moral nature they lead to a slippery slope. Lying legal reasoning aside for a moment, I hope we can both agree that the life of a child, however conceived, is still a precious life.

Cowboy: I don't know what most good law professors would tell me, and I don't think it's relevant to this discussion since we're talking about what the law should be, not what it is.

Binding laws to morality would be nice in a theoretical ideal world, but reality is generally much messier. For instance, many obviously guilty people go free because their guilt cannot be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", and yet morality may still demand that they be shunned and rejected from society (such as OJ).

Similarly, it would be nice if everyone had free health care, but it isn't a good idea to have a law that forces one group to buy health care for another group. Why not? Because the first group doesn't bear any responsibility for the health of the second group. It would be charitable for the first group to donate money or services -- and morality may even require it -- but it wouldn't be a good law.

So it goes with the hypothetical raped woman, but her case is even more clear-cut in my opinion. She's the only one capable of providing a rather demanding service to another person and no one else can really do much to share the burden with her. Is it fair for society to force her to do so, against her will? I don't think so, just as it wouldn't be fair for the police to grab you arbitrarily, take your wallet, and hand it over to the nearest homeless man.

I would have to say yeehaw to the Cowboy's post on this one. Still, you communicated your stance in a clear and eloquent manner. Props.

DD: Well thanks, but make sure you see my most recent comment and update to the post. I think they're entirely convincing to any rational person.

Does nobody realize that the raped woman is a victim here? Would any of you who would have her carry the fetus - the product of a violent violation of her body and security and sense of self - adopt the child? Is the rape victim's life worth less than the unborn child's? By her being a rape victim are you saying it was her destiny to be attacked and have an illegitimate child and the associated depression and stigmas?

Only when you are willing to accept some of the burden you are willing to force on her do you sound more reasonable.

Just for future reference, since I am not as well-versed in the bible as some of the other posters here are, what exactly does the bible say about abortion and when life begins, and where?

Thanks.

Michelle-


How do you know that I would not be willing to adopt the child? Indeed, the woman is a victim of a horrendous act... no one is disputing that. How's this for a non-biblical answer to killing the innocent child- Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing the child does not undo the rape. It only increases the tragedy.



I feel for the mother, and will do what I can to help her through the trauma and do what I can to help foster the healing she needs... but killing her child is still wrong. As tragic as the case is, the woman still has her life. What has the child done to deserve death?



Mike-

I don't quite follow your leap from train tracks to socialized medicine to dead children... You seem to be trying to find justification for an unjustifiable act without reasoning from the source of wisdom given us by God. Where does scripture teach that killing an innocent child is acceptable? I think you are not approaching this subject from a biblically based world view. To counter that, and perhaps to help address Michelle's question, I offer this;



God created mankind in His image (Genesis 1:26)
That doesn't mean that we all look like God, but we do bear the reflection of His character in our being. Granted, it's distorted by our sinful nature, but it is there nonetheless.

Bearing the image of God within ourselves gives each individual great intrinsic value. We are each special, and our lives are to be treated with great value. (Genesis 9:6)

we are not born because of mere happenstance, or because of a chance meeting of sperm and egg, but each of us is individually concieved and personally crafted by the Creator of the Universe. (Psalm 139:13-18)

Sometimes bad things happen to good people. Sometimes, it even seems that death would be preferrable to life. (Job 1:1-3:26). As difficult as it may be, we are not in a position to "play God" to try to make it right. Only God is God. (Job 38-41)

There is no such thing as being a little bit guilty. (James 2:10-13). If it is wrong to murder an innocent child, it is not made less wrong because of the tragedy the mother has endured.



This is just off the top of my head. I know it doesn't address specifically the issue of when life begins, other than in the broad sense of "life begins when God causes it to be. Who am I to argue with God?"

michelle: Here's an earlier post of mine on abortion and the Bible.

gaw: Fine and good, but the issue here is that not everything which is moral should be legally required. Would you favor a law prohibiting all lies? Laws against premarital sex? Laws against using God's name as a curse word? They'd all be moral, but you must admit that some moral issues are best kept out of the government's hands.

Mike-

I wasn't making the point that all laws should be based on biblical morality (although there is merit to the idea}. I was responding to your contention that it would be preferable to allow the killing of an innocent child because of the circumstances regarding it's conception.



I did not try to argue that all moral issues should be given the full weight of civil authority, as you are implying. Rather, I am saying that given the difficult circumstances of a pregnancy by rape, it is preferable, and biblically supportable, to protect the innocent life of the child.



Here's another biblical concept... the purpose of civil government is to protect the innocent and punish the wicked. 1 Peter 2:13-16



By that standard, the rapist would be punished, the crisis pregnancy centers and adoption organizations would be supported, and the mother would recieve whatever assistance a victim of crime needs... short of killing the child. That's my take on it, and it's based on what we as brothers in Christ should agree on... the inerrant Word of God. Do you find scripture that contradicts this view? I'll read the post you cite above about abortion and the bible, but in the meantime I'm wondering... what is your biblical basis for terminating the pregnancy?



By the way, (OT) I like the changes you've made to the site. Much improved commenting. My one caveat is that the comment form doesn't seem to capture line breaks. In order to keep my comments from running as one big paragraph, I've got to insert html breaks. Is this a bug, or a feature?

Michael:

I read your comments above. However, the fundamental debate raging is the right of the child to live. As another commentator mentioned before, does that right dissipate due to the means of conception? I hardly think so. Either the life of a child reigns supreme in all instances or none at all. I believe it futile to argue that the life of a child is only supreme in certain cases (i.e., non-rape/incest cases).

As your argument puts it, the comfort and convenience of the mother in certain cases can, in fact, override the right of the child to live.

I used to hold exactly your stance. That was before I saw pictures of abortions. Now, I am staunchly against abortion in all instances.

Gaw is representing my beliefs on the issue well with his comments. I, too, am interested on a Biblical basis supporting "selective termination."

I believe you made your point clearly that it is morally wrong to have an abortion in all circumstances (except self-defense), but it should not be illegal in all circumstances.

I would go along with your law, but the problem of proving rape as a defense against illegal abortion is too tricky. The rapist could get off (as you stated OJ did) which would make the woman guilty of illegal abortion even if she was actually raped. Or if a conviction was not needed, all abortions are suddenly legal.

There are thousands and thousands of healthy two-parent families willing to adopt babies, my family is one of them. No woman needs to have an illegitimate child, even a raped woman, because families are lined up to take newborns. More would line up too, if it did not cost 10K to adopt.

gaw: I never said terminating the pregnancy was preferable! In the original post I wrote: "I think abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest, but I don't necessarily think such abortions are desirable or morally acceptable. That's a more difficult question, and in general I think it would be best to tolerate the unasked-for inconvenience (and risk) of pregnancy in order to protect the life of the baby."

There are other instances where we tolerate killing even though it may not be morally acceptable. For instance, if someone breaks into my house I can kill him if I feel my life is in danger, even if the burglar turns out to be a child and no real threat. The law won't prosecute, even though I may have over-reacted. The law defers to the moral judgement of the person in the situation in questionable circumstances.

As for the site, I'm glad you like the changes, thanks. I don't have problems putting breaks between comments... just use two carriage-returns between paragraphs.

DD: The life of the child most certainly does not "reign supreme" in every case. For instance, if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother then the law is compelled to allow for an abortion on self-defense grounds. No person can be legally required to give up their life for another, no matter how morally good such an action might be. No life is more valuable than any other, and just as there are circumstances in which it's ok to kill adults, there are circumstances in which it's ok to kill unborn children. That doesn't mean it's a good thing, it's just a sad reality of life. I don't know why you're setting up straw man arguments, expecting me to defend "selective reduction" and so forth.

No one has responded to the analogy of taking a random person's wallet by force and handing it over to a homeless man. Forcing a woman to carry a baby she bears no responsibility for producing does exactly that.

Michael –

I must admit that I also don’t follow your logical train comparing the taking of a life with a codependent health care system or the rather odd analogy of a policeman handing my wallet to a homeless person. As you pointed out very well though, there are distinct differences between morality and the laws that govern our country today. While my expertise lies in the law and economics, I have also been a Christian for many years, so I would like to address my comment from a strict morality point of view first. This is why to begin I would like to reiterate what “deoduce” and “gaw” questioned since you didn’t answer it in your response (also Deo’s comment had strong basis and represented her opinion of what you said correctly, thus not a straw man fallacy assuming you intended the term in its rhetorical meaning). Regardless, the question is, what is your Biblical basis for the selective termination of a child? If it’s wrong in your mind in one case, why then is it not wrong in all? While we as humans find it entirely convenient to select and choose what is comfortable for us to believe, as Christians we simply cannot act in this manner. Christ gave us a higher calling. One of my good friends was conceived as the product of rape. His mother decided to keep him and raise him. I have no doubt it was the hardest decision of her life, and I cannot imagine the torment and anguish that she went though not only because of what was done to her, but the decision she made. But this boy, the product of rape, has grown into such a man of God. There’s no way to describe how mightily God as anointed his life to touch others with the Gospel. If his mother had chosen her own comfort, literally thousands of people’s lives would not have been touched and change because of this precious life. That is the power of the decision we’re talking about. One life can make a difference. Every life has a purpose, however conceived. And I mean this in respect to the mother as well. Her life has a purpose just as the child’s, and while we see only the present and the past, God knows the future. He gave us the free will to decide what we do. It’s in our power to take a life, and it’s in our power to save one.

I presume we are talking about, in an ideal world, what would our laws permit with regards to abortion. Right now there are essentially no restrictions on what the law permits. The point of the thread was, I thought, at what point SHOULD the line be drawn. Why should the line be drawn on one side or the other, unless that side is PREFERABLE? And if you are willing to allow termination of pregnancy in instances where a woman alleges rape, are you not allowing selective termination? If a rape allegation is the only legal means to secure an abortion, don't you think false claims of rape would increase? And at what point would consensual sex become rape? If a girl becomes pregnant, does her "hook-up" at the bar last month suddenly result in a young man going to jail? How about the woman with multiple partners? How should we determine that her child was actually the product of rape, and not some one night fling?

Your intent to protect the innocent woman is admirable, and I share your concern for her plight. Killing the innocent child cannot be an acceptable premise, however.

As to the wallet analogy... the government takes property from one person and gives it to another. No one dies. How is that analogous to preventing a woman from killing her child?

Here's another analogy- While swimming off the coast of Florida, my son and I are attacked by a shark. We both survive, and are both severely iunjured. My injuries prevent me from earning enough money to provide adequate medical care to both of us. I can care for my own injuries sufficiently, but I am unable to attend to his. In this hypothetical libertarian utopia, there is no one "capable of providing a rather demanding service to another person and no one else can really do much to share the burden" with me. Would I have your permission to kill my son?

MW: "Forcing a woman to carry a baby she bears no responsibility for producing does exactly that."

I happen to agree with you here, and on the issue of legal abortion in the case of rape. However, I don't think we've adequately addressed the issue of incest. Suppose a woman becomes pregnant through a consensual incestuous act (say, with a sibling or cousin), and all involved parties are above the age of consent. Do you believe an abortion would be justified in that case?

LT: Yes, adoptions should be cheaper. I don't know much about the process, but it appears that adoptions are essentially controlled by cartels that work to jack of the price for profit. Also yes, rapes are hard to prove, and for the purpose of abortion law the standard would probably have to less than "beyond reasonable doubt".

Cowboy: DD and gaw have both been arguing against a position I did not take, which is the standard meaning of a "straw man".

If it's wrong in one case then why not in all? Because that's not how morality works, and I'm not sure why you assume it is. For instance, a cursory read through the Bible will reveal many instances in which God commanded people to be killed, and many other instances where killing is reviled and evil. Circumstances are essentially for understanding why one act of killing is acceptable (or even required) while another act of killing is not. This should all be pretty obvious, and I'm not at all sure why you think abortions are a special case of killing that are automatically wrong with no exceptions.

As for your friend, I certainly don't doubt that people born from rape can turn out to be Godly. In fact, I'd agree with you that it's morally best for such a child to be carried to term and born. But you've given no reason to make the leap from moral goodness to legal requirement in this circumstance. My analogies -- which you said you don't understand -- were designed to illustrate that there are situations in which moral goodness should not be enforced at gunpoint. This is another such case.

gaw: The difficulty you're having is that you seem to think laws are designed to get people to act in certain "preferable" ways. That is not the case. Laws are meant to produce order and peace. Many immoral things are beyond the reach of the law. Men are moral creatures, and God entrusts us with moral decisions. Sometimes we make wrong decisions, but that doesn't mean the law should be used to prescribe our every act. In the case of a pregnancy for which a woman bears no responsibility, the law should not force her at gunpoint to bear the child.

Your shark analogy is flawed because someone else could take care of the son -- after all, he's not embedded in anyone's womb and could be adopted immediately.

WH: I don't think abortion should be legal in cases of consensual adult incest.

Let rephrase the analogy then... Our boat sinks, as we swim towards a deserted island we are attacked. Now there is noone to care for my son and I am incapable of providing enough food for the both of us. May I kill my son now?

I never said that laws are intended to cause preferable behavior. I said the purpose of governments (and laws) is to protect the innocent while punishing the wicked. It is wicked to kill an innocent child.

Do you and I agree that the child is innocent? I think that may be the crux here... If the fact is that the child causes hardship the mother was not prepared to deal with, and therefore causes emotional distress, perhaps the child is guilty of causing harm to the mother. In such a case, you might be able to argue that the child is not then "innocent." I would disagree with you, but how else could the child not be viewed as innocent? How else could you justify the laws not offering protection to him/her?

And by the way, all those people slayed in the bible? Not one of them was "innocent." We all stand guilty before God, and worthy of nothing but death... It is only the grace of God and His son's blood that stands between us and His judgement.

The real question here seems to be a prioritization of rights. If we agree that a fetus is, in fact, a child (and we all seem to agree on that, for the purposes of this discussion), and we agree that human beings have a fundamental moral (and legal) right to not have their life forcibly taken from them, then the question is, "what trumps that right?"

It seems, Michael, that you are arguing that forcing the mother to bear a child she has no responsibility for is an undue imposition on her "rights of self-determination," because only she can carry the child, and to punish her for aborting it is to, in effect, compel her to do so by force of arms. The question is, which right is more important? The child's right to live, or the mother's right to self-determination?

Personally, I don't think there is any such thing as a right of self-determination. Freedom of choice is a side effect of other rights, not a right in and of itself, and when it conflicts with true rights -- such as the right to life -- it loses by default.

Moreover, this case is very unlike any in which you may be forced to take responsibility for another person's life (such as the hypothetical captured-by-murderer scenario), in that it usually requires intentional action to end the life of the baby, rather than simple inaction.

Remember that most "survival" analogies do NOT fit the abortion situation because the mother's life is not at stake, only her comfort and convenience.

The best analogy I can come up with is to imagine two people balancing on a precarious, crumbling ledge over a cliff, while another ledge sits below them. The ledge they're doesn't have enough support to hold both their weights; it's likely to collapse soon, sending both falling to the ledge below, taking a punishing (but not fatal) injury in the process. Either one can save himself a fall by throwing the other off, sending that person past the ledge below and to his death.

In this situation, would the law consider it murder to throw your companion off the side? Almost undoubtedly, since the prospect of the fall, while painful, wasn't likely to be fatal, while throwing the person off was undoubtedly so.

In my mind, a mother who knowingly chooses to end the life of her child -- regardless of whether she chose to have the child, or whether it was forced upon her -- is guilty of murder.

gaw: Can't your son fend for himself? Besides, even if you do nothing, your son isn't an inconvenience to you because he isn't inside you waiting to spring forth.

And of course the child is not "innocent", not in a spiritual sense. We sin because we are sinners, not vice versa. However, that's completely immaterial to my point. It doesn't matter if the child is innocent or not, because the mother is not responsible for him and should not be forced to take responsibility by the law.

Cypren: It's not about a right to self-determination, it's about a right to private property, namely the woman's body. Would you favor a law requiring a person to share his food if he comes upon a starving man? If he doesn't should he be prosecuted for murder?

Further, of course the mother's life is at stake, as is her health. Women still die in childbirth. Plus, it's expensive and will certain have effects on the lives of her family and so forth. Maybe the cost of having the baby would prevent her from buying medical care for another one of her children. Who knows, there are innumerable hypotheticals.

The point is that she bears no more responsiblity for the child than any other random person does, the child just happens to be inside her. Forcing her to carry the child would be no more fair than forcing you to adopt the child afterwards. If you come home and there's a starving guy eating your food, is it murder to kick him out of the house if he then starves to death? I don't think so. It may be immoral, but it shouldn't be against the law.

Protecting innocent life is morally good, but in some circumstances it shouldn't be compelled by force. Do you agree with that, or should the law always require an observer to become involved in every dangerous circumstance he sees? Should the law require a person to perform CPR? Should the law require a person to intervene in a fight? Should the law require a person to pick up an abandoned baby he finds in a shopping mall? It's all absurd.

Babies should be protected, and in circumstances where someone is responsible for creating a baby they can be forced to take care of him. But when a baby is conceived by rape, the only person responsible for his creation is the rapist (right?); the mother is no more responsible than any random stranger.

I'll be honest and say that my position appears to be incredibly obvious to me, and I'm astounded that there's so much disagreement. The law should only compel you to make right situations in which you had a part in making wrong.

Mike-
Where does scripture support the idea that the law should allow you to leave an abandoned child to die? Your reasoning is sound... if you are a secularist that does not view the world through the lense of God's word.

Cain asked... Am I my brother's keeper? To which God replied "His blood cries out to me." When a woman finds herself in the position of being pregnant, whether wanted or not, she becomes the child's keeper, like it or not. The blood of that child will cry out to God if she kills it.

You posted about Amy Richards earlier... Her husband only tried to get her pregnant with one child, she only tried to have one child, why should she be forced to accept responsibility for three? How is the selective abortion of two of those children different than the selective reduction of the child of rape?

It has been asked before, and I'll ask it again... What scriptural support, what biblical principles, what christian ideals lead you to conclude that a woman's right to control her body trumps the right of the unborn child to live?
Where in the Bible does it tell us that the government should not protect the unborn child in the case of a rape? Please, Mike... give me one scripture please... Just one, and I'll back off.

The difference, Michael, is in intentional action. Kicking a starving, peaceful vagrant out of your house, while certainly cruel (and, in my mind, immoral), isn't the same as shooting him and dumping his body out the door. Moreover, he has a number of other places he can turn to for help. Show me an abortion provider who removes the baby without killing it, or a baby that has the ability to solicit help from others while inside the womb.

Should we legislate that people must always become involved in any situation they pass by? No, of course not. But the mother is already involved in this situation -- through no fault of her own, but still involved -- and, whether she likes it or not, is the only thing keeping that child alive.

Put another way, if a person falls over a cliff holding onto a rope, and your car tires happen to be sitting on the end of that rope, preventing them from falling, is it murder if you decide to up and drive your car away? Hey, it's your private property, and you weren't involved in them falling, right?

I don't think there's a court in the country that wouldn't convict a person for, at the very least, negligent homicide for such a callous action.

And yes, I agree that the mother's quality of life is severely impacted by the child, but be realistic -- death in childbirth is extraordinarily rare in the modern age, and pregnancy carries very, very few actual risks that go beyond inconvenience. None of them, to me, warrant murder as a solution.

Allowing abortion in any cases is surrendering the moral argument that innocent life is sacred, which cuts at the very foundation of all law.

Okay, let me add flame to the fire.

Now imagine, guys included, that you have been brutally raped by a man. And then you're handcuffed to the guy for nine months straight. You don't get to take off the handcuff, ever, during these nine months (and if you try people get all self-righteous on you). So he's chained to you when you eat, when you sleep, when you bath, when you go out, when you work, etc. So whenever you look into a mirror, he's right there beside you. When you walk any distance you have to lug him along. You can't forget that he exists or that he raped you. For an entire nine months. Whenever people see you they see him also. That's essentially what you're asking a woman to do to bear the rapist's child. It's not just a matter of discomfort or inconvenience. It's continual psychological trauma. And the child being innocent doesn't really help either, because the woman is innocent also.

I don't support abortion. But I found an appalling lack of compassion for a rape victim in the comments here. Before anyone quotes any more from the Bible, please remember that rape was a capital offense when Moses got the law from God. Unless you start pushing for death sentences for rapists, hiding behind the Bible does not give your argument much sanctity.

I should add one note: the one case in which I can permit that abortion is justified is when it's necessary to save the life of the mother -- I see this as no different than self-defense. But from what I understand, these cases are such a small percentage of modern abortions as to be statistically nonexistent.

Chris: The reason there's an "appalling lack of compassion" for the victim is that we're talking about law and legal consequences here, not the human aspect.

I don't think anyone doubts the incredible trauma that rape victims undergo -- I've known three, myself, and played confidante to one of those during the period immediately after the incident. I've never seen a human being so utterly devastated in my life, and believe me, if I could have found the <insert a lot of censored language> who did it, I would have torn him apart piece by piece with my bare hands in the most painful away imaginable.

I understand that asking a woman to carry the child of a man who violated her in the worst way is traumatic. All I'm saying is that pain -- even terrible, awful pain -- is not worth a human life. As you said, the mother is innocent, but so is the baby -- and both are victims of the criminal.

Chris-
I don't think anyone here has denied the innocence of the woman, or would fail to acknowledge the harm done to her. What we have denied is that that harm gives her carte blanche to kill the child involved.

You want the death sentance for rapists? Power to you. Here in Texas that's a sentence that would get carried out.

I would echo Cypren - My life has also been affected by a brutal rape. please don't think that us "Bible thumpers" don't care. We thump because we DO care.

gaw: Give scripture that supports the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms, or the right to freely assemble. Read Deuteronomy 22:22-29 and you'll see that OT rape laws were quite different than ours, and I like ours better. Different time, different place, different laws.

Cypren: There's no such thing as "innocent life" from a spiritual standpoint, which is what you're talking about when you use the word "sacred" right? From a legal perspective, there are all sorts of justifications for killing or allowing to die someone who is "innocent" in the sense of not having broken any laws worthy of death.

It's easy for you to say that terrible, awful pain is not worth a human life, but in other circumstances we're legally allowed to use deadly force to protect ourselves against injury and potential death. It may be immoral to choose one way or the other, but the law leaves that decision to the person taking the risk.

Michael:

It basically comes down to the fact that you view a child's life with an "If...then" approach.

If Life was conceived with comfort for all, then it can live.

If Life was conceived without comfort for all, then it can die.

How comforting!

Your Random-Man-Munching-on-Doritos-in-House analogy is, in fact, flawed. Comparing an adult (who reasoned and was able to decide for himself to enter the house) to a barely-developed human being (who cannot speak much less make decisions about their fate) is frankly startling. In your analogy, the two parties involved (homeowner and vagrant) are both thinking, independent individuals where consequences apply for their thought-out actions. With a mother, child, and rapist, it's a totally different situation. Basically, your saying that one person has to pay for the rapist's actions: the mother if she has the child, or the child.

Your argument is that the mother should not be required by law to bear the burden of a criminal's actions. So, we eliminate the burden.

The end justifies the means, right?

Besides, I'll look up the stats but isn't abortion from rape relatively rare since the conditions with in the woman during the violent act usually aren't conducive to fertilization?

DD: The say you find a guy on your couch in a coma or something. I think you understand the point, even if the analogy isn't perfect. Doritos!

I like your summation of the situation though: either the woman has to pay, or the child does. Why should the law require it to be the woman? Because the burden on the child (death) is higher? If we used that logic for everything, we'd be Communists.

And yes, the ends always justify the means.

You cite the first and second amendment, and quote a passage not directly related to the issue at hand, but don't answer the question posed... what scriptural basis do you have to support your contention that the right to abort a child of rape is paramount over the child's right to live?

At the heart of this question is another... What is the source of our rights? Are they inalienable, and granted us by our creator, or do they merely flow from the whims of those in authority? Alas, I'm still waiting for an answer to the earlier question. It's your site, avoid answering if you like.

I understand your *point* but I fail to see the logic surrounding it. Besides the flawed logic, how do you propose we go about setting up a system to determine which child lives and which dies according to rape/incest or consent? Selective termination, if you will.

If I find a guy on my couch in a coma, I would call an amubulance, not a hit man.

To answer the next question you pose:

"Why should the law require it to be the woman? Because the burden on the child (death) is higher?"

Yes, death is a larger burden then carrying the fetus to term and then giving it up for adoption. I think we can all agree on that.

A teenager is lying to her parents about her activities. She sneaks out of the house and stays out past curfew. One night, she lies to her parents about her whereabouts and ends up sneaking into a club, gets drunk (breaks the law by consuming alcohol underage), and is then raped at the club and left carrying a child. Should the child die for her lack of reason and wisdom? I think not.

gaw: I'm sorry if I was too subtle, but my point is that there is no direct scriptural basis for many of our legal rights. They are, rather, revealed through nature and through a general understanding of God's character as displayed in the Bible. I'm not avoiding the question, I'm answering it by demonstrating that it's ill-conceived. It's very irritating to be accused of evasion when that's pretty clearly not the case.

There's no "right to abort a child of rape" as you phrase it. There's just no legal basis for holding arbitrary people responsible for the consequences of the evil acts of others. You need positive justification for creating a law; rights exist in the absence of such justification. In questionable matters, the law should entrust matters of morality to the individual.

Free Speech- Acts 4:18-20

Bear Arms- Esther 8:11

Freely Assemble- Well, the Esther passage touched on that as well.

The idea is I am trying to convey is not that the bible states "If a woman is raped, and then found to be with child, she must carry the child to term or be stoned to death." That verse is not in the bible, nor is there one that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Based on principles the bible clearly teaches (life is valuable, God establishes governments to protect innocent/punish evil, etc.) I conclude that a law preserving the life of a child of rape would be a just law.

You do not agree with that conclusion. You have made many arguments and presented several analogies, but you have yet to point to one principle, idea, article of faith, or other means rooted in the bible to demonstrate that this is the correct view for a christian to have.

If you are a secularist, if you believe our rights eminate from the decrees of civil government, if you believe that seperation of church and state means our laws should not have a moral or biblical basis, then you may have a point. If you are forming your opinion based on a christian understanding of scripture, I fail to see the connection.

1. In terms of ethics, in refernce to the railroad tracks example. As a Engineer and more soe when I get my PE I have a ethical responsiblity to at the least report to the proper authorities any engineering/construction situation I observe that the average engineer with similar background and experience would also deem unsafe. If I do not then I can then be held in theory as liable for any accident. We spend a lot of time on liablity and how to limit yours, esp. when someone dies.

2. As for adoption my Uncle has adopted two children (one mixed white/black, one hispanic) he went through Christian Charities to adopt. He didn't have to pay the mothers for the children and both were teenage (high school) mothers. He avoided the public adoption agencies because the 'ethnic unions' have made it all but impossible for whites to adopt anything but white children. Unfortunatly this eliminates many children from getting homes to live in and is why you see many people going overseas for children. The process is very time consuming and very hit an miss, plus it involves a lot of luck to be slected.

3. As for Chris's example of having to lug around someone, well I can really agree with the theory because its the same reasoning the Euthansia crowd use in Holland to justify killing children (and I do mean children that have been born) because you know they are retarded and its hard to take care of them and it takes up my time.
In reference to the rape, I don't think its lack of compassion, its a issue of punishing someone who played no part in the crime.

As for the morality of abortion, the self-defense (life of the mother) is really a non-issue. Self defense is not a sin and a abortion in that case is not immoral.

But for any other abortion to be moral the baby can not be a person, because the intentional killing of a innocent person is by definition immoral. So regarldless of your religion or lack their of, the issue of abortion comes down to when you consider a human a person. Its philisophical and people disagree where the line should be set on when people should be considered a person and awarded the 'God given rights' that are associated with person-hood. The question of morality ultimatly boils down to when do we become a 'person' and going by our record of human history so far, we've been wrong everytime we set the line so far.

As for forcing people to obey a given set of morality in terms of carrying a baby to term, I'm going to have to go with a reluctant no. Its a little too much government control and my small governmentness cannot allow me to do it. However, I would say that certian barbaric procedures should be banned and that at a minimum doctors should be required to inform the patients of potential hazards, what exactly they are doing and the potiental long-term effects of having an abortion.

As for holding arbitray people responsible, it would be like killing Nicole's kids because OJ killed Nicole. After all they are a product of the person who commited the brutal act.

I love bringing OJ into everything.

gaw: I think you and I are arguing entirely different things. You seem to think that I think that God is indifferent to abortion, or abortion in the case of rape, which isn't what I think at all; I don't need to be convinced. My point is simply that not everything that displeases God should be illegal, and this is one of the things that shouldn't. The alternative is a theocracy run by imperfect humans, which doesn't work well.

tP: In this case, I don't think it's an issue of when the baby becomes a "person". I completely believe that the unborn child is a person. And yet this circumstance puts his life under the power of someone who is not responsible for him and should bear no legal reponsibility to preserve his life. It's tragic, morally, but the criminal in this case is the rapist. If the mother utterly refuses to carry the baby, then I don't think they law should force her to, thereby becoming an accomplice in the crime itself, but the rapist could then be tried for murder.

Michael –

You have still failed to answer the ultimate question myself and many others have posed. You’ve attempted to logically explain your position and that is all well and good, but Gaw, Deoduce and myself have asked you simply to justify your position based on Biblical principles. I believe you and I can both see the logical arguments for either side of the issue. I can understand yours and I’m sure you see mine as well, but logic will only take us so far without a moral founding. That’s why we’re asking you the root of the question.

I don’t know how well you understand the Bible or the differences between the “old covenant” of the Old Testament and the “new covenant” of the New Testament, but I will assume the best of your understanding. The passage that you pointed to in Deuteronomy is part of the old covenant God made with His people. The manner in which we act now as followers of Christ covered under the new covenant is far different then the manner God required of those under the old. Of course this doesn’t mean that “the law” (in the Biblical sense) has changed, but rather the manner in which we interact with God and His calling for the body has changed as has the physical penalty placed on us for sinning. You may be thinking, and allow me to suppose this of you for a moment, that I am putting too much theology into this matter we’re discussing. But I would ask; if we don’t bring God into this, using His precepts, what good would any decision, or conclusion, we make be?

On a side note, both Gaw and Deo have stated their opinions with eloquence and biblical significance; I admire them both for their writing and logic. I don’t think it’s fair to call their argument straw man so you can simply write off what they have to say. From my understanding of your original post, the comments they made in response to you directly followed what was communicated to me, and obviously others, by your writing. While it’s an easy way out to say they are using rhetorical straw men or to say that their analogies don’t apply, I would commend you not to write them off so easily.

To end this, if you are able, would you please explain to us your Biblical basis for believing in the selective killing of a child?

I think Cowboy sums up the debate with that last question.

Michael -- you say that we shouldn't force the woman to take responsibility for the child.

Here's a hypothetical for you, then:

Say a woman is raped while in a coma. She's kept alive through extraordinary means (feeding tubes, etc) and the baby develops in a normal and healthy manner. During childbirth, she snaps out of the coma, due to the physical changes, intense pain, whatever.

She now has a child sitting on her lap that she didn't ask for, and didn't have any responsibility in producing.

According to your logic, as I understand it, she should be able to throw the baby out in the street and let it die with no legal repercussions whatsoever. After all, it's just exercising her legal right to an abortion -- she never had the opportunity to do it while the baby was in the womb, but she can make that choice now.

What makes this situation quantitatively any different from allowing abortion before birth? We've agreed that birth doesn't change personhood -- why should it change the child's legal rights? Just because she *could* give the child up for adoption? That procedure, too, is a big hassle, you know -- and that's a lot of inconvenience she didn't ask for, and has no responsibility for.

For that matter, why not allow a child of a rape to be killed any time? I mean, if a woman can elect not to abort in the first trimester, but still abort in the second, why impose some arbitrary deadline of birth as any sort of cut-off? The kid was never her responsibility, it's just there. She should be able to kill it any time, right?

How much trouble is a human life worth?

Think on that for a while.

Our founding fathers recognized the biblical principle that men are sinful by nature (and hence, greedy, corrupt). For that reason, they established the system of government we have whereby one branch of government is held in check by the others.

Since most of these men were christian, and biblical reasoning informed most of their decisions, and they established this form of government in recognition of the biblical principle that men are sinful, does that make America a theocracy?

Why have any law that attempts to preserve the moral good (such as not stealing, not murdering, even not raping) if there is not a moral foundation for that law? Because we outlaw rape, does that make us a theocracy? You rail against communism (rightly so, but I wonder now why), yet that form of government was based upon the same flawed reasoning you have as yet displayed in this thread. In their rejection of biblical reasoning as a basis for their lawmaking, they established a system of government that ended up killing millions... yet, it was all justifiable and good under their reasoning.

Your thinking seems to be strongly influenced by libertarian ideas, but there seems to be no biblical rational for holding to those ideas. As a brother in Christ, I would encourage you to seek truth in scripture, not Neal Boortz.

gaw: The point is that a government that has the power to enforce Christian laws also has the power to enforce unChristian laws. I'd prefer a government with as little power as possible. I have no doubt that in a society in which people are free to choose, Christian values and morals can win the day in a free market of ideas.

People don't live Godly lives because the law says so, people live Godly lives because the Holy Spirit lives inside them. The key to building a Godly society isn't to make a bunch of laws, it's to turn the sinner towards God.

Cowboy: You people are driving me nuts with your refusal to understand the difference between morality and law. Understanding the Bible and the characteristics of God leads us to a right understanding of morality, but the Bible is not a political document. The only place it deals with laws is in the OT, which is why I pointed to a relevant passage. The NT is almost entirely devoid of legal principles; it is a treastise on morality.

Where is Biblical support for speed limits? There's none? Then speed limits are unbiblical and must be eliminated! Nonsense, right? Similarly, the Bible condemns lying and hypocrisy all over the place -- would you be in favor of laws against those? Of course not. This is why your oft-repeated question is a straw man. We don't disagree about the morality of the issue, we only disagree on what the law should do about it, and on that issue the Bible is silent.

Cypren: Your analogy is useless because the women doesn't have to do anything to give the child up. If she sets him out on the street the authorities will take him and provide for him. Once the child is out of the womb (or even by the third trimester) he can live on his own or with the support of any person willing to take him in. The important point isn't what happens to the child, it's that the mother has the right to decide that she doesn't want to be the one to take care of him. If someone else is able and willing, then fantastic. But just because no one else is able or willing doesn't mean the mother has to herself.

The woman very much has to do something to give the child up -- at least, she does if she wants to avoid jail time for child abuse.

So are you saying that this shouldn't be the case, and that all of our laws regarding child neglect/abuse should be invalidated, because "someone else can take care of the children?" Because that's essentially the argument you just made -- that if parents default, the State automatically steps in and picks up the burden.

So should parents only be punished for throwing their children on the street if it can be proven that they willingly engaged in sex knowing the consequences of having such children, and therefore accepting the responsibility?

The "safety net" we have in place to take children and put them in foster homes is to prevent abuse to the children, not to remove the burden from parents who want to shirk responsibility. Adoption agencies can place children, true, but it usually requires some effort on the part of their parents to put them up for adoption -- it's far from an automatic procedure.

So again, the question is, how much effort is a human life worth?

Where is Biblical support for speed limits? There's none? Then speed limits are unbiblical and must be eliminated! Nonsense, right?

Allow me to respond to this question by the same standard I have been trying to apply to your argument;
* The Bible, in the NEW TESTAMENT teaches that the God given role of government is to protect the innocent and punish the wicked. (I think I've said that already, please pardon my redundancy.)
* Driving excessively fast needlesly endangers the lives of others.
* Speed limit laws comply with biblical principles of loving ones neighbor, protecting the innocent, and punishing the wicked.

Now, let's apply that process to your argument;
* The bible teaches that the unborn life is a human with intrinsic value to God and society.
* A victim of rape does not deserve the consequences of that rape.
* Murdering the child is an acceptable option according to biblical principles of loving ones neighbor and protecting the innocent while punishing the wicked.

Did those pieces not fit? Why?

we only disagree on what the law should do about it, and on that issue the Bible is silent.
The bible is not silent, you are not hearing; The proper function of government, according to the NEW TESTAMENT is to protect the innocent while punishing the wicked. That horse is not dead yet, so I will continue to beat it.

This is such a headache. The more I listen to you fight so valiantly for the "child" and against the rape victim, the more convinced I am that a 7-day old blastocyst is no more than just that - a blastocyst, a ball of cells, and even at three weeks isn't very convincing. You are talking about this "child" the way divorcing parents do - the "child" becomes a soulless, trite entity on paper over which adults will argue to no end - just to make a point! Cypren, if this is what a human life is, it is very easy to believe that the chance to live without it, normally, as if one had not been raped, is worth it!

Michael –

Perhaps I should explain myself a bit further now that I have furthered my comments on morality. I am a lawyer by training and thus believe myself to be capable in my understanding of the law and how laws are formed. The difference between morality and the law is an unfortunate void that exists even in a society such as ours. I am glad that we finally agree on the morality of the issue, but we are also talking about how the law should be, not what it currently is. You’re a proponent of at least limitations on abortion. I’m a proponent of the saving of all life, regardless the means of conception. That is our difference in this. I must admit I’m disappointed in your dismissal of the question posed by others and myself because I had hoped to understand the reasoning behind your arguments as a Christian. Having debated this issue before even in Christian circles, my wondering is how one would come to a belief such as yours while still holding on to one’s moral grounding. My curiosity aside though, laws have always been created for a reason. Often that purpose, in moral societies, is for the protection of the states’ citizens. But the laws created must originate from a moral belief. That is the basis of our legal system here in the United States. Thus, this is also why if we believe that it is immoral to kill a child conceived by rape, we should be proponents of making it illegal. Otherwise we are compromising our beliefs for the sake of convenience alone.

Cypren: You sure are jumping around a lot. I said that a woman doesn't have the right to KILL her child once he's born because if she merely stops caring for him then someone else will start; if she stops caring for him before he's born then he'll die as a side effect.

gaw: Dude, I get it. You just don't seem to agree that a law such as you propose would do more harm than good, so fine.

michelle: I don't see how arguing over a child makes him less valuable.

Cowboy: We don't "finally" agree on the morality, we've always agreed on it I think.

As for protecting "citizens", an unborn child isn't a citizen... but I suppose that's a technicality. (Children conceived in America to a non-citizen but born elsewhere are not granted citizenship upon birth.)

I've explained my beliefs as far as the law and morality goes, and I'm sorry if they disappoint you. However, I think it's rather unreasonable and disingenuous of you to say that I've "dismissed" any argument without addressing it.

It's crazy to argue that just because something is immoral it should be illegal. You may -- and apparently do -- think that aborting a baby conceived through abortion is immoral (as do I), but you have failed to explain how that immorality leads you to think it should be illegal, whereas lying and premarital sex are also immoral and you're not advocating laws against them. Similarly, the NT teaches that men shouldn't have hsort hair -- should that be another law? I doubt it. Therefore, your repeated assertion that rape-abortions are immoral ergo they should be illegal is a non sequitur, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

You must somehow explain why immorality requires rape-abortions to be illegal but not long hair for men. To God, sin is sin, and any sin is sufficient to seperate us from him, so shouldn't we outlaw them all? A society based on pure morality couldn't function, because we'd all be in jail.

You just don't seem to agree that a law such as you propose would do more harm than good, so fine.
I don't recall ever addressing the issue of which law would do more harm, although it is obvious that your position would do infinitely more harm to the child.

I echo cowboy's disappointment from a previous post... I was hoping you would give a biblically reasoned answer as to how a christian should hold your position. You have not even tried, and the only conclusion I can draw is that you have none.

Michael –

From the wording of your last comment, it sounds like I’ve frustrated you. I’m afraid my argument is extremely simple. I believe laws should be moral and based on morality. Indeed, I take this much deeper than you do. The reason I’ve tried to push you to further answer my single question, was to gain insight into your argument and the reasoning behind it. I enjoy intelligent debate and have enjoyed our chat on this subject even though I believe we may have reached our end in this if we cannot move onward in our understanding of the others contention.

Different people hold different moralities. That is why your specific agenda is not the law. You have to convince people that an embryo is worth calling a person. That is why we don't live in a theocracy. It's a democracy. Many people agree that murder is immoral, that is why that is illegal. Not everyone agrees that abortion is immoral. The law is the common ground of people's different moralities.

Michelle-
Actually, a true democracy doesn't care for finding the common ground of differing moralities... it only cares for the morality of the majority. That is why we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

You raise a very valid point... not everyone agrees that abortion is immoral. I think the question has been, if it IS considered immoral in one instance, why not in another?

As to addressing the issue of at what point does an embryo become a person worthy of protection, well I think that would take a whole new discussion. I think one of the difficulties in such a discussion is the obvious difference in views on what the true source of life is, i.e. theistic vs. nontheistic views. Everyone comes to the table with their own presuppositions, which determine where they are most likely going to logically come out at the end. (at least if they can tie their conclusions to their basic presuppositions consistently. I won't go there again.)

gaw: Likewise you have not given a biblically reasoned answer as to why the law should be as you state. "Babies dying is bad" is true, but that alone doesn't justify a law.

Cowboy: The reason I refuse to answer your question is because you have not convinced me that it's relevant. The whole point of my position is that the question you're pushing isn't important to this discussion. Yes, it's bad for babies to die, but that alone doesn't create a positive claim on any one arbitarry person to act to preserve a baby's life. All sorts of things are bad, even as bad as babies dying, but no one specific individual is required to take responsibility.

michelle: As to michelle's point, she's right on a legal level and she's also right on a moral level. Our job as Christians (which she isn't, right?) is to turn people towards God -- only then will they be able to act in a morally proper manner.

gaw said: "if it IS considered immoral in one instance, why not in another?"

Because the circumstances determine who should be held legally responsible for the baby.

MW said you have not given a biblically reasoned answer as to why the law should be as you state.

gaw said The Bible... teaches that the God given role of government is to protect the innocent and punish the wicked.

gaw: Fine, so naturally the law should protect the innocent from gossip and punish the wicked gossipers, right?

I think your implication is that, if my position is correct, then government ought to outlaw every behavior that could be construed as harmful, offensive, or immoral. That is not what I am arguing, and I can demonstrate other biblical principles and ideas at work with regards to your question.

However- In the case that an unborn child is;
a) Innocent,
b) Facing death for no fault of it's own, and
c) Unable to defend him/herself,
then the government would be fulfilling a God given mandate to protect the innocent by acting to preserve the child's life.

Is what I am saying inconsistent with the teachings of scripture?

gaw: Lots of things lead to death. Do you think free speech has had no price in blood, even of the innocent? Freedom isn't free, but history has shown that it's the cheapest of the alternatives. If you want to minimize bloodshed then you have to look past merely the first order effects of your decisions.

In this case, the woman is also facing many negative effects through no fault of her own, and you would render her unable to defend herself. Sure, she probably isn't risking death, but doesn't she have the right to protect herself from harm that she didn't cause? Or do you trust the government to make these decisions more than individuals? If you want God-pleasing results, I'd suggest you'll do better empowering people rather than bureaucracies.

You lost me on that last one... I'm just trying to find out if what I have been saying is inconsistant with scripture?

gaw,
I think the question has been, even if abortion is immoral in some cases, is there nothing worse than abortion? For me personally, having to go through with a pregnancy for nine months with the thing that is the result of a rape and only of a rape - a rape I did not want, a rape that would devastate me regardless of any resulting pregnancy - would be much much worse. It is among the worst things that I could imagine could happen to a woman. Don't talk to me about it being my duty or whatever. You obviously have no empathy with a woman in that situation. All you can talk about is the power the bible gives you to lord over everyone else this inhuman so-called morality. Maybe some people have it in their hearts to swallow the entire rape and put it behind them, but unfortunately we are not all that strong. Can you just imagine rape? Just for a second? A violent, violent invasion of your person, a defeat above all defeats. Who are you to tell me that I must live with this? The answer is, there are degrees of badness, and getting past a rape to be the healthy person you were before it is less bad than abortion.

Mw:
I suppose I am not a Christian in your sense of the word. I would like to believe, but it is inconsistencies like these that make it hard.

MW: It's selective termination. Bringing other issues such as gossip and malicious speech are far different than the issue of the sanctity of life.

A woman impregnated by a rape is then forced to deal with an issue. However, God gave that issue life and the baby is God's creation. Destroying that for the convenience of the mother should be outlawed.

To that, you will respond with your usual morality/law argument. I suppose any further debate is useless since we drawn our boundaries and you have drawn yours, and they are quite different.

"Destroying that for the convenience of the mother should be outlawed."

It is not convenience, quit calling it convenience! Abortion is not something people like doing! Abortions leave women in pain and nausea - it is not an easy thing to go through! If a woman has an abortion she is doing it for her health and well-being, not for this cracked-up convenience you keep calling it.

Why would God want the woman to have to endure so much pain and shame?? Why did he let her be raped?

If she has the baby, she is doing it for YOUR convenience, so you can sleep well at night. Do not condemn a woman for choosing the lesser (or even the worse) of two evils.

Michelle-
Do not condemn a woman for choosing the lesser (or even the worse) of two evils.

After all the talk of biblical principles I've given, here is one more principle; Christ did not come to bring condemnation, but rather redemption. In that light, I don't think anyone here believes a woman should be damned for having an abortion, anymore than they should be damned for gossipping. If I have given you that impression, I'm sorry.

Abortion is not something people like doing! Abortions leave women in pain and nausea - it is not an easy thing to go through!

Sadly, too many women use abortion for matters of convenience. They've been told the lie that there is little/no pain, and the emotional issues are minimal. Often, they are not prepared for the guilt and shame they experience afterwards. Here the condemnation vs. redemption thing can help... With the redemption that comes by the forgiveness of sins through Christ, emotional healing can come. I'm not trying to say it is an easy formula, that if someone just does what I say everything will be ok, because that is not the case. What I am saying though, is that Jesus Christ has the power to heal a broken heart, no matter how badly ruptured it is.

Can Jesus heal a heart broken by the trauma of rape? And an abortion on top of that? I believe the answer is yes, based on those biblical principles I've been harping about.

Now, I know that not all rape victims are going to be christian, and I am not proposing a law that all rape victims go to church. What I am saying is, in an imperfect world, when great evil has been done, why should more evil be placed on top of the first evil?

Our disagreement is in our assessment of which of the two is the greater evil- Ending the life of an innocent child, or causing an innocent woman to continue her pregnancy to term.

I may be wrong about my position. If I am wrong, it is not because I am a sadistic jerk that likes to make women suffer. If I am wrong, it is because I base my position on what I believe; That the bible holds timeless truths that affect our lives, and that the bible teaches that my position is lined up with those truths.

You may be wrong about your position. If you are wrong, I think it may be because your position is based primarily upon an emotional empathy for the rape victim. That is understandable, and I only wish that I was able to have the depth of empathy you have. The downside to basing decisions upon emotional empathy, however, is that emotions are fickle and unreliable, and can cloud clear judgement.

You and I aren't likely to agree anytime soon on this issue, but please don't think it is because I don't care.

gaw,
That may be the most comprehensible thing I've heard you say.

Michelle: That was a mature response to an eloquent retort. I'm impressed, really. As to your opinion of convenience in our ongoing abortion discussion, I am frankly appalled at your extreme statement that if

"she has the baby she's doing it for YOUR convenience."

That's a factless, emotional statement with no basis in our discussion. We aren't talking about my convenience; we're talking about a child's fate in legal standing.

I agree that abortions aren't something that people "enjoy" doing (stating the obvious).

Perhaps we disagree on this issue, but my primary argument is for the child's life, your argument is for the mother's convenience. Do you deny this? Change the wording if you like, but it's still the same.

Deoduce,
I don't need you to be impressed and I could care less if you are frankly appalled.

If we are talking about a child's life, then don't worry – we agree on this. I think children are fabulous (as long as they are not mine), and I don't think they should be killed. But my problem is that I don't think an embryo is a child, and so here we are at an impasse. Just because an embryo might become a child later on doesn't mean we need to treat it as a child right now. Banning abortion by calling an embryo a child is a tool that theocrats use to try to make sex look like a higher crime than it actually is. You want to help a woman who's pregnant by way of rape? Fine. But don't call her a murderer if she decides that the best thing for her is to not go through with this pregnancy. It doesn't help anybody for you to do that.

Another perspective. It is not rare for women to have miscarriages, either through malnutrition or genetic defect or whatever – should those who do not do everything in their power to bring their ill-fated embryos and fetuses to term be charged with neglect and manslaughter? Should older women who conceive when they know they are at a high-risk age be charged with negligence?

Legal standing? Laws are artificial, created by people who, above all, are emotional. There is no fact in morality. There is no absolute morality. If there were, trials wouldn't be so complicated. We wouldn't need juries to weigh the reasons that someone committed a crime. Laws would be static. Just because most people agree that it's bad to kill someone doesn't mean it's absolutely wrong. I mean, look at the reasons people give to support capital punishment. There, we have made an exception, we have overcome our distaste for killing people. Same with the questionable situation of the womb. The health and freedom from the effects of rape and well-being of a woman trump the fate of an embryo in utero.

My name is DJ. I am twenty years old, male and a centrist. I have tended to vote more conservative in past elections. I am a Christian and I try to live a good life in the eyes of God and Jesus.

However, I want to be involved in politics at some point in my life. I will continue to hold my morals, but I will not govern by them alone. If I governed by my morals, those committing adultery would be up there with murderers and rapists. However, that is not what this country want. (Just ask our former President!) This country is arguably split on abortion. I do believe more people are pro choice based on actions by anti abortionists including bombing clinics and murdering doctors who have performed the procedure. Let's say the country is 55-45 in favor of abortion. Then the country will probably be very close to that in a case of rape or incest.

Yes Gaw, that does create a case of "preferred method of birth control" for some women, and that is horrible. But it is not always the case. There are a lot of people who live good lives, and have a slip like this. Even if sex is consensual, it is not necessarily an acceptance of consequences such as pregnancy. Sex is seen by mankind as a form of passion. Being fruitful and multiplying comes second. If a condom only works 99% of the time, than that means that a girl could become pregnant the 100th time they have sex. She took the precaution and got screwed. (no pun intended) Does her life get messed up in order of morality? Yes it is being selfish. And they have to live with it for their entire life. But to say they cannot do it because it will be a moral burden? How will your life change? If I was aborted would you have ever known? How about cared?

I was talking with a friend who had an abortion when she was 16. I am going to put in an excerpt from her live journal, than mention our conversation on it. {EDIT} and i ended up hanging out because {EDIT} wanted to hang out tonight instead. rented butterfly effect. been told i shouldnt watch it, but i can usually zone out during parts that bother me. the problem was the movie didnt bother me until the end when it all came together and all the little parts that made me cringe came back full force and just overwhelmed me. I just sat there in complete shock. {EDIT} knew something was up, tried to hold me but i just had to be alone. collapsed in the bathroom and just cried in horror. just rocked holding my belly, remembering what it felt like to be pregnant, to sing a lullabye to my girl, to have this vain delusional hope of seeing her born, even though i knew what i was going to do. somehow the movie...made it all so vivid. to have this whole life, this whole person laid out before you, all these possiblities of what could have been. and then ended before he was even born. just the shock of seeing what could've been for my girl, better or for worse. maybe she would've wanted to end her life too when i made that choice for her, but i could've given her the chance. the choice. life is just so strong, such a pull. it gets you through the worst of times, the desire to see better. i miss her with the fiercest love i've ever known. i would kill for her. in a heartbeat. i can't even eat vegetables sometimes because i feel bad for killing them. okay. and i would kill hundreds of human beings to protect her. weird what you do for your flesh and blood. even when you don't know what they look like. came back last night too, only image i have of her is pieces floating in a jar, streaked with blood. it's not even real, because your brain can't process that as a substitute for a human being. wish i hadn't been so out of it from the pain to say goodbye. wish i could've had the courage to even touch the jar, say goodbye. but i couldn't, couldn't deal with the reality of what i had done, and left her there.

Names have been edited. Here is the conversation.

Me: i read your journal...
Me: i'm so sorry {EDIT}...
{EDIT}: its okay
{EDIT}: im better now
Me: still... i didnt know... i'm so sorry
{EDIT}: thanks
{EDIT}: you didnt know what?
Me: that you were ever pregnant...
{EDIT}: oh
{EDIT}: yeah
{EDIT}: when i was 16
{EDIT}: and again 2 years ago, but i miscarried very early on, like in the first month
Me: i'm very pro choise, but that just made me want to cry... i never saw it like that, how hard it must be later on
{EDIT}: its very hard
{EDIT}: i miss her very much
{EDIT}: it may be the best choice i made
{EDIT}: but it will never be the right one
Me: the best and the worst
{EDIT}: *nods*
{EDIT}: i only started getting better about it when i saw her as a real person, and that was hard to do because it made it no longer a medical decison, but murder
{EDIT}: but then i could regret and greive, and begin to heal
Me: are you still pro choice?
{EDIT}: i dont know
{EDIT}: i mean i totally believe that is only the woman's choice
{EDIT}: and that it should be legal and available to any woman who wants one
{EDIT}: but i also believe that it is killing a human being
{EDIT}: no matter how scientific you describe it
{EDIT}: so, im not sure where that puts me
Me: pro choice, but no longer for you?
{EDIT}: i dont know
{EDIT}: i honestly have no idea what i would do if i were pregnant again
Me: it would prolly depend on your circumstances at the time
{EDIT}: exactly

The feelings of regret never go away. Yet even the EXPERIENCED in such things as abortion even in a non rape/incest experience still think the right to choose should exist. As do I. And I apologize if that means you won't vote for me when I run for political office. But these are not my decisions to make. And I apologize even more if this kicks me out of any conservative leaning groups. But this is my view. And thanks for reading.

DJ Pace: You can't both "try to live a good life in the eyes of God and Jesus" and also believe that killing babies should be legal. Sorry buddy.

Michael,
Protecting the innocent does not refer only to the unborn child. Abortion will happen whether or not it is made legal. Would you rather have your daughter be in a sterile office with a trained professional or in a back corner alley having to walk by heroin dealers to make it to a filthy back room where proper equipment is not guarenteed? Doesn't her life matter too?

DJP: So-called "back alley abortions" are a myth; they hardly ever happened. But anyway, why should I care to make murder more safe and comfortable for the murderers? You say abortions will just "happen" (as opposed to being committed or even performed) and by your choice of words you betray your passive, fatalistic nature. We as a society can take steps to reduce and nearly eliminate abortion, and the first step to take is to make nearly all abortions illegal.

Sooo... according to the article, which generally agrees with my understanding of abortion outside of Roe v Wade, women DO have abortions whether or not they are legal, but they are not the back-alley coat-hanger operations advertised by some protesters.

That brings me to the effect of illegalization. If abortions were illegal, and if, as the article purports, most illegal abortions are performed by good doctors who do in fact do them safely, then the first thing that comes to mind is that illegalization did not do much to curtail the number of abortions performed, and the second thing that comes to mind is, if there are women who would be desperate enough to have an abortion when it is legal, and there are doctors who are willing to perform abortions even when they are not legal, who's to say this symbiosis wouldn't continue into the illegalization of abortion? When you have doctors who care about making abortion available to women, that is not going to go away when you A) make abortion illegal, and B) make it illegal even for victims of rape, in which case sympathy for the victim will further bring into question the credibility of the ban. Furthermore, however fewer the doctors available to perform abortions, the higher the demand for them will be, increasing the price of the thing as a black-market commodity. As can be seen in the case of marijuana, by making it illegal, you only serve to deregulate it, drive up the price, and sometimes create an actual criminal atmosphere for its traffic.

There is nothing that makes it illegal for a woman to give her child up for adoption. To all you people who want to make women have babies and claim you would adopt the unwanted ones, would you still be clamoring to adopt the estimated 1 million babies that would have come to fruition had they not been aborted? If so, why is there currently a surplus of adoptable children out there? Why not adopt one of these (and make a child happy in the process) and then we'll talk.

Michael, you said it yourself. Your best hope for actually decreasing abortions is to change the people's minds. Not to make it something people feel they need to fight for. No wait, actually, the best way to decrease the number of abortions is by decreasing the number of unwanted conceptions, i.e. making sex ed and birth control more widely available. But that's another discussion altogether.

michelle: Illegal abortions were generally safe, but there were far fewer abortions when it was illegal than after Roe v. Wade (I've seen claims for 100,000 a year, as opposed to the 1.5 million per year now, but I'll have to find reliable sources). Plus, again, it doesn't matter how safe abortions are for the mother... they're 100% fatal for the child.

There isn't a surplus of children out there waiting to be adopted, by my understanding, other than that caused by our screwed up adoption industry (see some of the comments further up).

The best way to decrease the number of conceptions is for people to exercise self control and wait to have sex until they're married. Ta da! Problem solved.

There ARE many children waiting to be adopted. While they wait they are put on the foster home circuit, and not in some tawdry orphanage, which is probably why you don't hear about them. The fact that they are not the most desirable children for adoption - i.e. white infants - and their mothers (or the state) decided they could not handle being mothers past the prime age for adoption doesn't mean that they are not part of the surplus of adoptable children.

The best way to decrease the number of conceptions is for people to exercise self control and wait to have sex until they're married. Ta da! Problem solved.

Yeah but if they don't (or if they're not planning on getting married at all) then it's none of the government's business what transpires in the course of those relationships. Hormones, and thus sex drives, are built into people. You should not plan for the (perhaps) best case scenario (one in which no one is having any sex), but rather plan for the most probable scenario (while doing what you can to work toward your ideal scenario) - which is that people do have sex, might as well educate them on it and realize birth control can prevent a possible abortion. But, like I said, that's little to do with the rape victim's abortion, so that's another discussion.

I'm assuming those that are against abortion would consider themselves to be conservative. Well, a real conservative would not want the government to say what they can do to their body. That include such things as drugs, prostitution, and yes, abortion. You can argue that an unborn child is still a person, but when it is within a persons body, it is a part of that person. Therefore, it is up to that person what to do with their body and all things connected to it. The founding fathers of this country wanted a government that did not interfer in the lives of citizens. Especially if it was based on biblical beliefs. That is what we broke away from if I'm not mistaken? Seperation of church and state? But to quote Michelle, "that's another discussion."

DJ-
...a real conservative would not want the government to say what they can do to their body. That include such things as drugs, prostitution, and yes, abortion.
You confuse libertarianism for conservativism. Ronald Reagan was as conservative as they come, yet I don't recall him proposing legalizing prostitution and durgs.

The founding fathers of this country wanted a government that did not interfer in the lives of citizens.
In my brief review of the Declaration of Independence, I noticed grievences of unfair taxation, mis-administered justice, lack of representation, military occupation, and other complaints against the king. I missed the part about the colonists just wanting the government to "not interfer in their lives." I truly doubt the founding fathers would have been "pro-choice" on regarding abortion.

That is what we broke away from if I'm not mistaken? Seperation of church and state?
We broke away from the king being the head of the church... not from the church influencing the direction of the state. I truly doubt, however, that the founding fathers would have been pro abortion.

One of the main points in this thread has been the basis on which abortion may or may not be acceptable... Here's what I understand your position to be;
If I governed by my morals, those committing adultery would be up there with murderers and rapists.
and
You can argue that an unborn child is still a person, but when it is within a persons body, it is a part of that person. Therefore, it is up to that person what to do with their body and all things connected to it.
You seem to be saying that abortion is wrong, comparable to such acts as murder and rape, but that it's perfectly acceptable for the law to prohibit murder and rape, but not abortion. Why do you draw the distinction? Because the child is not yet born?

You seem to be saying that so long as the unborn child is unborn, it should be legally acceptable to kill it. Are there no limits you would place on this "right" to kill? Would it be legally acceptable for a licensed doctor to force a pair of forceps into the back of the childs skull, and then remove his brains through a suction device? If that procedure would not be acceptable, where would you draw the line?

My wife says I don't know when to let an argument drop. In that light, I've opened this subject as a post over at Unite Later.

i think abortionshould be strictly limited. because of my reasons of rape, under age, and the babys heath.

hi, im terter and im 16 years old (I'm from the Philippines and the majority here is against the killing of innocent babies). Yes, I am only 16 and I too have my own insights about abortion.

I am against abortion because all it does is take away life, may it be the life of the baby or the mother.

The fetus should not be punished because of the stupidity of the father(in cases of rape or incest) or of both parents (in cases of promiscuity, premarital sex or unwanted pregnancies).

In Deut. 24:16 it is written that "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for their own sin."

The baby is innocent and it should not be punished. The father is the one who committed the sin therefore he should suffer the consequences.

To tell you the truth, abortion inflicts greater trauma to the mother than that of rape. It aggravates the situation by adding evil to the already evil situation. Two wrongs dont make a right. If the mother will choose the life of the baby rather than to abort it, it just shows that she has the courage and strength to face the public. Abortion is one way of hiding the fault done.. of hiding the evidence (which is the baby). When women commit abortion they refuse to face the consequences of their evil act. Abortion does not give back what the rape has taken away from the woman, it takes away one of the things that will be able to help the woman in recovering from the assault.

God didnt make life just to destroy it, God made life for it to be cherished and used for the better good.

I'm sorry, I want to write to you more about my insights but my mom is calling me already. It's late and I have to sleep. Thank You very much!

It is unfortunant that a woman is raped. But the child is a living being, completly innocent.

It is a bit sickening for any mother to consider killing her child[to me at least, it is a part of you inside!!!]. In extreme cases it might even be a wise decision to commit the women to a care facilty to ensure a safe birth.

Even if you think that rape is a reason to abort, how can you be sure the woman is telling the truth? I think the need for certainty out weighs the potential of killing someone. Doing things the right way is not always easy. If it later proves to be rape, then the woman should be allowed to choose raising it, or putting the child up for adoption, there are lots of people who would love to adopt a blessing.

IMO, the fact of the matter is the woman would not have become pregnant if god had not intended it. Life is a blessing.