If you would agree that, at the very least abortion is a very GREAT evil, and one that needs to be outlawed, and penalized, in someway, at first: Then a compassionate and merciful people, can work on the hard cases, and life threatening issues, from inside the law, and not outside of it.
Before abortion was legalized, women were NOT forced to have their babies, or die in midterm. People made rational, and life saving decisions to try to save both, or if necessary, just the mother. That argument is a red herring.
If with modern technology you are promoting the abortion of severly malformed human beings in the womb. Then I am left to assume that Jewish rabbis and culture permitted the infanticide of these newborns, in both the recent, and long ago past, when birth alone, led to these discoveries. I must also assume that it would then be "allright", for mothers to wait and see if the ultrasounds and diagnosis were correct, and even today, such infanticide would be permitted by the rabbis, post-birth.
If the reason for allowing for abortion, is severe "birth" defects, then it seems to me to be the most logical and moral time to kill the baby. When you see him-her then you would know that you made the right "choice."
Otherwise the premature decision might haunt you forever. See my point? :shocked:
This is complete nonsense. Do you truly see no difference at all between infanticide and abortion in extreme cases, such as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-eclampsia
?
Chair
First of all you misunderstood my point. Of course I was making a nonsensical case for infanticide. You then switched my example for it, which I got from YOUR OP, from 'severe birth defects,' to Pre-eclampsia.
I will restate my case for infanticide based upon your OP.
According to it, it may be permissable to perform an abortion, in the case where a woman is carrying a baby with "severe" birth defects. Rabbis might give permission to a woman based upon evidence and circumstances, I am presuming.
This "begs" this question. Before the recent advancements in medical technology, it was impossible to determine, with any accuracy and certainty, the birth defects of an unborn baby. Therefore, was it ever, or is it now, permissable to kill a baby after it is born, if he-she clearly has these severe birth defects, which would have allowed for an abortion, if that technology was available?
That is the "implication" of allowing for the abortion of a baby in the womb. Do you understand "that" implication, and-or my question?
I am making a "sick" case for the eventuality, that if this particular baby somehow gets born, and everyone's diagnosis, and prognosis, is then seen to have been correct. That would be the best time to kill the baby. Wouldn't it? You would not be guessing. You would know for sure that you did the right thing!!!!
If it was the right, or best, or "whatever" thing to do, while the baby was in the womb; what would suddenly, or ethically, make it the wrong thing to do, outside the womb?
That is the question you have to answer, if you hold to that view. IMO Defend your view, of the rabbis teaching, in light of my objection to it.
You then switched from my oppostion to your birth defect argument to the Pre-eclampsia condition.
I will now give my view on Pre-eclampsia. My wife had Pre-eclampsia with our first born son. The doctor did everything possible to keep her blood pressure down, in order to get her into the ninth month. He, and she, were successful. About two weeks before her due date, he determined that the risk of waiting till full term, was greater than inducing labor.
She was induced and the labor was extremely difficult. I saw my son come out. He was very blue, and not breathing. They worked quickly and expertly on him, and within a short time, we heard his first cry of life.
If abortion were illegal, then every man woman and child would do everything possible to bring the baby to birth while saving the mother's life. It is the only "natural" thing that any caring people would do. If the Pre eclampsia condition, not the baby, is threatening the mother's life, the baby may have to be induced to birth, and may not survive.
If it is very early in the pregnancy, an "abortion" may have to be performed, and the baby will "not" survive. This is not an act of murder. It is the act of saving one life, when the only other option is letting two lives end. That IMHO would be murder, or manslaughter, if you did nothing to try to save either person's life, but simply let them both die.
While abortion is legal. People simply do not have this mindset. They do not make every effort to bring the child, and mother, safely through a challenging pregnancy.
They look at charts, and statistics, probabilities and "professional" diagnosis. {Best Guesses} Many people then try to cooly and calmly, make the "best" decision for themselves and their lifestyle, and oh yeah, the baby. That is how humans think, trust me I know, I am one.
We desperately need a law to say abortion is wrong, and a crime. God was unsuccessful, and putting these kinds of laws on our hearts. That is why He had to put just ten of them, on tablets of stone, because that is what our hearts our like.
When the 'New Covenant' from Deuteronomy is fulfilled in its completeness, then we will have no need to write laws that say, to kill your baby in the womb, is wrong, unless and until, it becomes absolutely necessary, to save one person's life.
Until that happens, we need that law back here in this country, the USA, as it used to be.
We are witnessing 4000 babies killed a day, legally{at least 3900? totally unnecessarily} partly because people want to keep it legal, for the hard cases.
