toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?

[Butterfly]

Don't be stupid.

We don't have the authority or the right to do any of those things. Hence people don't run around doing them all the time. In all those cases these actions were commanded by God, who does have the authority and the right.

God once flooded the whole world. So would you suggest that, if I came into possession of a magic button that would flood the world, I'd have the right or authority to use it? Or would that be, you know, mass murder?

You are arguing for the right to murder our babies. This is why you're making dumb arguments. Because that's insane.

I never said that we should go around today recreating the Old Testament killings. That is a strawman you created. I am also not arguing that we should murder babies. As I previously stated, I am pro-life.

Here, I will spell out the points to make it easier to understand:

1 - The Bible makes it clear that children, including unborn children, are NOT innocent. All are guilty in the eyes of God.

2 - The Bible makes it clear that children were punished for the sins of their parents, this punishment was death. (see above verses)

3 - The Bible is clear that a test for unfaithfulness was done by OT priests by administering an abortifacient of "bitter water" that would show if a woman had intimate relations. This resulted in termination of the possible fetus and life-long infertility. (See Numbers 5)

4 - Mosaic Law called for death by stoning for the women caught in adultery. Whether or not she was pregnant with child did not matter, both her and the unborn child were put to death.

So what does all this mean?

It means that when you argue by claiming the Bible shows that you don't punish the innocent child for the sins of the parent by aborting it, your argument can be disproved Biblically because the Bible has many examples were children were shown not to be innocent and they were punished for the sins of the parent by being killed. In addition, one can show that even abortifacients were used in the Bible to show infidelity.


It's quite easy to debate pro-choice people who use human philosophy to prove their points because as Christians we dismiss human wisdom/logic by using God's Word. Now it is very difficult to debate someone who is using the Bible to prove certain points.

After sitting in on that debate I have never seen a pro-lifer get so destroyed in their arguments. The reason was simple, the pro-choice person was using Scripture to combat the pro-lifer, something that is almost never heard of before. Look at what is happening here on the forum, those who are advocating the pro-choice position are using human wisdom to back their points. It's easy to combat that but when Scripture is proving you wrong, then things are not as easy.

 

[Stripe]

It should be the woman's choice whether she wants to mingle her genes with someone else or not.

This is her choice! OP is asking what should happen when that freedom is violated. You think it's then OK for the mother to murder her child.

To have the choice to either prevent a pregnancy resulting from a rape or end one from a rape is not the radical position you make it out to be. If you want to call stopping a zygote from implanting murder, so be it.

Irrelevant. You advocate the choice for a mother to murder her child at nine weeks. Turning the argument into one about when personhood is conferred is just a means for you to hide from your real position.

I think it is important to give deference to women rather than assume every stage of human development is equivalent to an adult human being who has been severely wronged.

Right. You think a woman should be able to murder her child.

Nothing I say is going to sway you. Your mind is already made up.

Excuse me, moron. It's your words that convinced me you prefer women to be allowed the option to murder their children.

At least you admit stupidity. Says the guy wanting to force women to bear a rapist's child.

Liar and liar.

No argument sways you. You're a waste of time.

Are you now going to argue that a nine-week-old child is not a person? Or are you going to retract your idea that a woman should be allowed to murder him?

It's your words that convict you of advocating murder:

Is abortion after 9 weeks of pregnancy in the case of rape okay? Maybe, especially if you tried other methods and failed or didn't know etc.

But even someone did end up in that position [six weeks pregnant after being raped] I don't think it is right to tell a woman who has been violated in such a profound way that she must carry the rapist's child. If any woman should have a choice, it is that one.

This is a tiny person:

That's a six-week-old person.

Quit pretending that it is me advocating something evil.

 

[Lighthouse]

toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?

No.

As for why we should not is a hard argument for me to make; I cannot fathom any viewpoint that doesn't think abortion isn't murder. I cannot understand why I would have to explain this fact to anyone. What kind of brain damage leaves a person unable to see the truth?

 

[MaryContrary]

1 - The Bible makes it clear that children, including unborn children, are NOT innocent. All are guilty in the eyes of God.

Yes, we're all corrupt and are even born corrupt...

Psalm 51:5
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

But we are not held accountable for sin as children and considered innocent.

2 Samuel 12:21-23
21 Then his servants said to him, “What is this that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive, but when the child died, you arose and ate food.”
22 And he said, “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23 But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.”

And, further, God highly values children for that innocence.

Matthew 18:5-7
5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

2 - The Bible makes it clear that children were punished for the sins of their parents, this punishment was death. (see above verses)

That is in no way "made clear". It's not even suggested. Or hinted at. In fact, there's no way to get that idea at all from those verses.

3 - The Bible is clear that a test for unfaithfulness was done by OT priests by administering an abortifacient of "bitter water" that would show if a woman had intimate relations. This resulted in termination of the possible fetus and life-long infertility. (See Numbers 5)

:AMR:

It was holy water with dust sprinkled in it! Please explain how the heck that's an abortifacient. That's the most insane thing I've heard all week. Please point to anything in scripture that supports this notion of yours.

4 - Mosaic Law called for death by stoning for the women caught in adultery. Whether or not she was pregnant with child did not matter, both her and the unborn child were put to death.

Show me anywhere this is so much as addressed, where a woman's pregnancy is mentioned at all in relation to the death penalty. The best you can do is admit it isn't mentioned, one way or the other. The even better thing to do is admit you're filling in blanks with whatever you prefer and pretending scripture supports you by not mentioning it. As you do all throughout this post and the ones before.

So what does all this mean?

That you're making things up and pretending scripture supports it?

It means that when you argue by claiming the Bible shows that you don't punish the innocent child for the sins of the parent by aborting it, your argument can be disproved Biblically because the Bible has many examples were children were shown not to be innocent and they were punished for the sins of the parent by being killed. In addition, one can show that even abortifacients were used in the Bible to show infidelity.

The bible shows none of those things.

No children being killed by God for their parent's sins.
No abortifacients made of water and dust.
No pregnant women being stoned to death...or not.

None of that. You made it up.

It's quite easy to debate pro-choice people who use human philosophy to prove their points because as Christians we dismiss human wisdom/logic by using God's Word. Now it is very difficult to debate someone who is using the Bible to prove certain points.

Unless they're crazily wrong. Like you are here.

After sitting in on that debate I have never seen a pro-lifer get so destroyed in their arguments. The reason was simple, the pro-choice person was using Scripture to combat the pro-lifer, something that is almost never heard of before. Look at what is happening here on the forum, those who are advocating the pro-choice position are using human wisdom to back their points. It's easy to combat that but when Scripture is proving you wrong, then things are not as easy.

There's no point throwing scripture at baby murderers. They aren't going to care. The reason that pro-lifer you referenced lost the debate was, I'd wager, because they didn't know scripture, and so didn't know what it says about murdering babies. Kinda like you don't know what scripture says about murdering babies.

 

[Alate_One]

This is her choice! OP is asking what should happen when that freedom is violated. You think it's then OK for the mother to murder her child.

You think it's okay to force a woman to bear a child.

Irrelevant. You advocate the choice for a mother to murder her child at nine weeks. Turning the argument into one about when personhood is conferred is just a means for you to hide from your real position.

I think the case of rape/incest is at least one exception where it should be allowed. The life of the mother should be one as well.

Excuse me, moron. It's your words that convinced me you prefer women to be allowed the option to murder their children.

Only under certain circumstances. You're the one that seems to think every situation is the same.

Quit pretending that it is me advocating something evil.

Killing a human being is not always Murder. In war people kill one another. You advocate killing the rapist. Others on this site have advocated killing people for selling drugs. It's legal to shoot a trespasser or a thief in Texas.

In this case the child is a trespasser int he most intimate way since the woman did not make a voluntary choice. You can call that murder if you want. If the individual in question were not totally dependent on the woman, other options would be available.

 

[MaryContrary]

You think it's okay to force a woman to bear a child.

Let's cut to the chase. Which do you think is worse? Refusing a woman an abortion in case of rape or her murdering a baby in the womb?

Yes, there's a condition there that the fetus is a baby, a person. But that's the crux of the matter that you're ignoring.

If it is a person, then abortion is murder. If it isn't, then abortion is excising tissue.

So, on the condition that it's a person, which is worse? Refusing a woman an abortion in case of rape or her murdering a baby in the womb?

A straight, simple answer on that point from you would be great.

 

[Alate_One]

A straight, simple answer on that point from you would be great.

How about you read the rest of my post before replying like this?

If it is a person, then abortion is murder.

Killing a person is not always murder.

 

[MaryContrary]

How about you read the rest of my post before replying like this?

I did...

Killing a person is not always murder.

...and I was hoping for a more straightforward answer than this.

So forcing a woman to bear a child conceived in rape is worse than murdering a baby? Is that not what I'm supposed to gather from this, absent a straight answer?

Why are you reluctant to flatly say that rape justifies killing a baby?

 

[Stripe]

You think it's okay to force a woman to bear a child.

Liar.

I think the case of rape/incest is at least one exception where it should be allowed. The life of the mother should be one as well.

"It" being the murder of an innocent child.

Only under certain circumstances. You're the one that seems to think every situation is the same.

Every murder of a child is the murder of a child.

Killing a human being is not always Murder.

Talking to you is never rational.

In war people kill one another. You advocate killing the rapist. Others on this site have advocated killing people for selling drugs. It's legal to shoot a trespasser or a thief in Texas.

And you think it's OK to murder innocent children.

In this case the child is a trespasser int he most intimate way since the woman did not make a voluntary choice.

You think it's OK to murder tresspassers.

If the individual in question were not totally dependent on the woman, other options would be available.

Yeah, reality. Sorry, but you have to stick with it.

In order to appease your discomfort you must necessarily murder a child. That's the path that you've chosen.

Good luck with it facing your maker. :wave2:

 

[Alate_One]

Why are you reluctant to flatly say that rape justifies killing a baby?

Not past the first trimester, but before, yes. But using the term "baby" with your sort is ambiguous.

Liar.

It's the logical alternative to denying choice: forcing a woman to bear a child against her will. You can call it a lie all you like. It's not going to change reality.

"It" being the murder of an innocent child.

Is it innocent? By its very position it's a violation of the woman. It had no choice in the matter, but one parent responsible for it placed it in that position. He is responsible for placing it in harm's way.

Every murder of a child is the murder of a child.

You're blanketing huge areas of development, calling it "child". There's a difference between a zygote, an implanted embryo, a 9 week old embryo, a 6 month old fetus and a born child. They are not all morally equivalent.

You think it's OK to murder tresspassers.Yeah, reality. Sorry, but you have to stick with it.

Actually no. In the case of an adult trespasser it is not necessary to kill in order to remedy the situation. In the case of an embryo inside of a woman, death is the ultimate result when the invader is removed, until technology is developed to change that. That's simply biology.

Good luck with it facing your maker.

All of this is idle conversation. Nothing we've said is going to change policy. Personhood is dead in the USA. The American populace will never accept your position on rape. I am for more restrictions on abortion than we currently have, which is a policy that is far more likely to be implemented. It is better to save some lives through compromise than none by rigid adherence to a black and white moral system.

 

[MaryContrary]

Let's cut to the chase. Which do you think is worse? Refusing a woman an abortion in case of rape or her murdering a baby in the womb?

Yes, there's a condition there that the fetus is a baby, a person. But that's the crux of the matter that you're ignoring.

If it is a person, then abortion is murder. If it isn't, then abortion is excising tissue.

So, on the condition that it's a person, which is worse? Refusing a woman an abortion in case of rape or her murdering a baby in the womb?

A straight, simple answer on that point from you would be great.

Not past the first trimester, but before, yes. But using the term "baby" with your sort is ambiguous.

Three posts and you still won't answer the question.

Never mind. :idunno:

But, you know what?

If it is a person, then abortion is murder. If it isn't, then abortion is excising tissue.

I already admitted quite comfortably that if it isn't murder...if it isn't a person...then it's just excising tissue. You, meanwhile, can't even entertain the reverse long enough to answer it.

That you can't plainly say it's better to kill a baby conceived in rape than not says it all, I think. It betrays that you know very well that would be murder and all these arguments you're throwing out there are designed entirely to avoiding confronting that.

 

[Alate_One]

Three posts and you still won't answer the question.

Never mind. :idunno:

But, you know what? I already admitted quite comfortably that if it isn't murder...if it isn't a person...then it's just excising tissue. You, meanwhile, can't even entertain the reverse long enough to answer it.

That you can't plainly say it's better to kill a baby conceived in rape than not says it all, I think. It betrays that you know very well that would be murder and all these arguments you're throwing out there are designed entirely to avoiding confronting that.

That's because my position is nuanced, and not black and white.

I don't think it's okay to kill a "baby" as in something that's born or very close to being born in any circumstance.

However it should be fine to prevent implantation (morning after pill) in any situation at all.

And I think it is okay end a pregnancy up to perhaps 9 weeks in the case of rape. Even though the embryo at that point is a "tiny person". But even that stage is not directly equivalent to a baby.

But under normal circumstances (outside of rape) I don't think it would be proper to end that life. That said, I doubt policy will ever protect life before the first trimester.

 

[MaryContrary]

That's because my position is nuanced, and not black and white.

I don't think it's okay to kill a "baby" as in something that's born or very close to being born in any circumstance.

However it should be fine to prevent implantation (morning after pill) in any situation at all.

And I think it is okay end a pregnancy up to perhaps 9 weeks in the case of rape. Even though the embryo at that point is a "tiny person". But even that stage is not directly equivalent to a baby.

But under normal circumstances (outside of rape) I don't think it would be proper to end that life. That said, I doubt policy will ever protect life before the first trimester.

Crazy how one has to practically beat it out of you but there it finally is. Plainly stated. Or at least as close as you're ever going to come, for fear of confronting what it is you hold to.

And your justification for killing what you acknowledge is a person is that it's not directly equivalent to a baby, that it was conceived in rape and, I assume, it hasn't managed to get itself born yet.

I'm not going to bother pointing out how that's murder, and poorly rationalized at that. Nor bother pointing at all the atrocities committed throughout human history with exactly the same poor argument. Because you don't care, just as all the people involved in those things at the time likewise didn't care. They, like you, had an excuse they were comfortable with.

People wonder in amazement how things like Holocaust happened? Well, like this, Alate. You just illustrated it perfectly. It requires nothing more than a flimsy rationalization and the will to cling to it.

 

[PureX]

Crazy how one has to practically beat it out of you but there it finally is. Plainly stated. Or at least as close as you're ever going to come, for fear of confronting what it is you hold to.

And your justification for killing what you acknowledge is a person is that it's not directly equivalent to a baby, that it was conceived in rape and, I assume, it hasn't managed to get itself born yet.

I'm not going to bother pointing out how that's murder, and poorly rationalized at that. Nor bother pointing at all the atrocities committed throughout human history with exactly the same poor argument. Because you don't care, just as all the people involved in those things at the time likewise didn't care. They, like you, had an excuse they were comfortable with.

People wonder in amazement how things like Holocaust happened? Well, like this, Alate. You just illustrated it perfectly. It requires nothing more than a flimsy rationalization and the will to cling to it.

I think that's an unfair assessment. All that was really stated is that the embryo is a "tiny person", but is not "directly equivalent to a baby". To be fair, the obvious question to be asked here is, "How are they not the same, and why do you think so?"

You say you're not going to point out how this would be "murder", but why not? You seem to be quite happy pointing out how "poorly rationalized" you think Alate_one's argument is, and yet you aren't willing to share your own rational for the accusation? How fair is that?

 

[Rusha]

In this case the child is a trespasser int he most intimate way since the woman did not make a voluntary choice. You can call that murder if you want. If the individual in question were not totally dependent on the woman, other options would be available.

Nonsense ... trespass is willful. The unborn baby did not willfully make a decision to be created.

Besides, the issue is about the life of the unborn baby. IF one truly believes that the unborn is innocent and deserving of life, then how the child was conceived makes no difference.

Either the unborn are innocent, evolving babies deserving of protection or they are not. Which is it?

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Besides, the issue is about the life of the unborn baby. IF one truly believes that the unborn is innocent and deserving of life, then how the child was conceived makes no difference.

Preach it Sis!

 

[Lon]

That's because my position is nuanced, and not black and white.

Exactly: Relative ethics vs universal - Only natural there would be a disagreement here.

I don't care if two humans disagree, I care what God says and thinks; we will both stand before Him with our answers. Regardless if I am right or wrong about it, my goal is to be obedient. If I understand correctly, then I'd be right and anyone who disagrees would naturally be wrong. End of story.

 

[MaryContrary]

I think that's an unfair assessment. All that was really stated is that the embryo is a "tiny person", but is not "directly equivalent to a baby". To be fair, the obvious question to be asked here is, "How are they not the same, and why do you think so?"

You say you're not going to point out how this would be "murder", but why not? You seem to be quite happy pointing out how "poorly rationalized" you think Alate_one's argument is, and yet you aren't willing to share your own rational for the accusation? How fair is that?

Alate has already made clear that he will deny reason in this. Even when pressed to admit a human life is involved he simply denies it has any right to exist.

I'm not going to bother arguing that. The discussion is over at that point, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see anything that can be gained here.

 

[PureX]

Alate has already made clear that he will deny reason in this. Even when pressed to admit a human life is involved he simply denies it has any right to exist.

But he didn't admit that. He only admitted that it was a "tiny person" and he immediately qualified it with, "it's not the equivalent of a baby". And he never said anything about it's having no, "right to exist". I think you're unfairly mischaracterizing what he actually posted.

I'm not going to bother arguing that. The discussion is over at that point, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see anything that can be gained here.

It's hard to "see" anything when you just close your mind like that. Are you actually interested in understanding his point of view? Or are you just angry because it doesn't agree with your own?

 

[PureX]

Exactly: Relative ethics vs universal - Only natural there would be a disagreement here.

I don't care if two humans disagree, I care what God says and thinks; we will both stand before Him with our answers. Regardless if I am right or wrong about it, my goal is to be obedient. If I understand correctly, then I'd be right and anyone who disagrees would naturally be wrong. End of story.

But Lon, you will never even have to confront the question. You are never going to become pregnant due to a rape. So you will never stand before God and have to answer for your decision regarding this issue. The closest you might come would be if your partner were raped and became pregnant. Then you would be somewhat responsible, perhaps, for whatever decision she made.