toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?

[WoundedEgo]

It seems that in the morality of the scriptures, God is not all gushy and sentimental about a fetus, or even about women and their rights. What's important is the man, and what is important to him is his son and his property.

For example, in a familiar passage that is often used to indicate that God considers killing a fetus to be "murder" we see that if the fetus of a slave girl is killed in a brawl, the brawler just has to compensate the *man* with the economic value of the lost slave.

Exo 21:18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
Exo 21:19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
Exo 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Exo 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

These are the rules that governed slavery in the US, in the Christian South, until the Civil War.

The God of the scriptures is probably not impressed with the Religious Right's new-found rush to the moral upper ground, claiming this is a "Jesus loves the little babies, all the babies of the world; red and yellow, black and white, they're all precious in his sight" thing. It's just an opportunity to be holier than the rest of the world.

I mean, really...

Psa 137:7 Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
Psa 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
Psa 137:9 Happy shall he be,

that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

That's talking about Jesus, right? The terrorist from the sky? The heavenly Bin Laden?:

Rev 18:16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!
Rev 18:17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
Rev 18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
Rev 18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
Rev 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
Rev 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
Rev 18:22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;
Rev 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.
Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

There is no "age of accountability" in scripture for the children of the wicked. They are destroyed in the fire along with their parents.

Just some observations...

 

[Lon]

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.

That doesn't mean, when asked, that we shouldn't say what we believe is right, right?

As Spitfire said, the 'rape' issue is often brought up against anti-abortion legislature and sentiment. However, in most of our minds, it doesn't matter, the answer is still "no."

Another guy: "But, but, but..."

Me: "I know. Still No."

 

[PureX]

That doesn't mean, when asked, that we shouldn't say what we believe is right, right?

As Spitfire said, the 'rape' issue is often brought up against anti-abortion legislature and sentiment. However, in most of our minds, it doesn't matter, the answer is still "no."

Another guy: "But, but, but..."

Me: "I know. Still No."

I'm here, too, so I'm certainly not trying to be accusatory. But I did get to thinking that I am not a woman. I have not been raped. And I have no children. So, really, I have very little to base any opinion on, one way or another. And so I couldn't help asking myself why I'm busy forming or expressing opinions on this at all. I didn't really have any answer (so I asked you, instead ).

 

[alwight]

Living existing people/persons are surely more important than a zygote?

Good people currently living their own lives who have a past history with memories, perhaps sadly of rape for some, who are not simply a possible potential life/person of the future, but who are real currently living persons, should not be quite so easily disregarded and ignored in all this.

Clearly such people's needs and wants are not served by a rapists forced input of his own particular potential new life/person. Something which possibly was, until the rapist intervened, being prevented, perhaps until it became the right time for them rather than an opportunist's.

Potentially new personages are being routinely prevented every day everywhere in order that life itself has a better quality for existing people. If the rapist's potentially new person happens to be currently in the form of a zygote, because of the rape, rather than in a couple's egg and sperm then neither scenarios adds up to a person currently existing.
Until a new person actually exists (imo with at least some degree of functioning nervous system) what reason is there to make life more difficult than it already is for raped women and perhaps their partners too by not allowing a choice to abort and let them decide when to produce their own children rather than a rapist's?

 

[Alate_One]

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

I didn't say it did, but it's father did implicitly.

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

It isn't that simple. You have a person that has been violated and a potential child that's part of that violation, by no act of it's own. But yet it's very presence *could* be seen as a continuation of that act of violence. Many raped women may not see it that way, and that's fine. But for those that do . . . you have two individuals and their rights to balance.

I think that what should be decided should be dependent on the stage of the potential offspring. A woman's rights vs. a zygote's is a no-brainer. A raped woman's rights vs. an early embryo's maybe more complex depending on the stage in question. When you think, or more importantly what society thinks (in a democracy) life begins will inform that decision.

There is no bright line between "person" and "non-person" in development. All attempts to make one are arbitrary, even "conception". We should understand that and make an informed determination as a society based on criteria, heartbeat brainwaves etc.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Doesn't the argument for determining when an abortion is illegal/immoral boil down to the "moment" personhood begins? Theological objections are irrelevant as Rusha's involvement in this discussion attest. Or does the issue come from the right of a woman to determine what happens to/within her own body?

 

[MaryContrary]

I continue to find it absolutely stunning that you folks can't see, or just don't care, that you're making the exact same arguments used to justify every horror in history. :nono:

 

[Alate_One]

I continue to find it absolutely stunning that you folks can't see, or just don't care, that you're making the exact same arguments used to justify every horror in history. :nono:

You're going to have to clarify exactly what you're talking about.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I continue to find it absolutely stunning that you folks can't see, or just don't care, that you're making the exact same arguments used to justify every horror in history.

I gave two viable options . . . do you have another?

 

[Alate_One]

Doesn't the argument for determining when an abortion is illegal/immoral boil down to the "moment" personhood begins? Theological objections are irrelevant as Rusha's involvement in this discussion attest. Or does the issue come from the right of a woman to determine what happens to/within her own body?

What I now see is the underlying source of the issue is that the Pro-Life camp only see the rights of the zygote/unborn child and ignore or mostly discount the rights of the woman. The pro-choice camp does the opposite and ignores the rights of unborn children at even a late stage and asserts it's a woman's body the entire time.

An appropriately moral response, especially in the case of rape, is probably between the two positions. Early on, it's almost impossible to distinguish between a zygote and the woman's body, later on the second individual becomes distinguishable.

As you say, I think the argument comes down to when the two individuals can be separated morally. Physical separation i.e. viability is sometimes used because it is convenient but that's a sliding scale as well.

 

[Lon]

What I now see is the underlying source of the issue is that the Pro-Life camp only see the rights of the zygote/unborn child and ignore or mostly discount the[convenience]of the woman.

A rape does not a right to abort, make. That's a hang-up, that's not a good many of ours.

The pro-choice camp does the opposite and ignores the rights of unborn children at even a late stage and asserts it's a woman's body the entire time.

Yep

An appropriately moral response, especially in the case of rape, is probably between the two positions. Early on, it's almost impossible to distinguish between a zygote and the woman's body, later on the second individual becomes distinguishable.

Just because 'you' can't distinguish, doesn't mean God or a DNA profile can't.

As you say, I think the argument comes down to when the two individuals can be separated morally. Physical separation i.e. viability is sometimes used because it is convenient but that's a sliding scale as well.

I don't think God's scale slides.

 

[Butterfly]

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

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

So then you are making the claim that God commanded the killing of innocent and sinless children?

1 Samuel 15:3 "Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

Hosea 13:16 "Their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

Ezekiel 9:6 "Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children."

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.

:shocked:

Exodus 12:29 "It came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle"

The parents sinned by disobeying God and not putting the blood of the lamb on their doors. Who suffered the wrath of that disobedience? Was it the parents? No, it was their firstborn children.

That is one of dozens examples where children were punished for the sins of their parents, this punishment was death.

How about when David and Bathsheba's first child dies as a judgment for their sin?

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.

Number 5:22 "May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

No children being killed by God for their parent's sins.

2 Samuel 12:14-18 "But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.” 15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.18 On the seventh day the child died. "


and there are countless other Bible passages that deal with children being killed by God for their parent's sins. :think: I'm sorry but your not studying your Bible, you are following some man and his philosophy.

 

[Dena]

Dena, do you recognize that it would be a person you'd be pregnant with? I ask because I can't help but think that's the dividing point. I can't imagine any rape victim who recognized it as a child would ever think to have an abortion. I mean, there may be some who would but they'd have to be pretty insanely cold blooded.

No, I don't feel that a couple weeks after conception it would be a person. Three weeks ago I had a miscarriage. I thought I was 11 weeks along but I had actually miscarried quite early. It was my second and we do not have any children. It can be pretty awful and miserable. It's emotionally and physically painful. I'm hurt and angry. However, I do not feel like I lost a person. I am not as devastated as I would be had I been further along or if heaven forbid, I lost a child to cancer or a car accident. It isn't the same.

 

[Paulos]

In Israel, abortion is legal under the following circumstances:

1. The woman is younger than seventeen (the legal marriage age in Israel) or older than forty.
2. The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape etc.), an incestuous relationship, or outside of marriage.
3. The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defect.
4. Continued pregnancy may put the woman's life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel#Circumstances_under_which_abortion_is_legal

 

[Dena]

In Israel, abortion is legal under the following circumstances:

1. The woman is younger than seventeen (the legal marriage age in Israel) or older than forty.
2. The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape etc.), an incestuous relationship, or outside of marriage.
3. The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defect.
4. Continued pregnancy may put the woman's life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel#Circumstances_under_which_abortion_is_legal

Yes, Jewish Law does permit abortion for a multitude of reasons but I'm not sure how that is relevant to the topic? I didn't point it out because though I'm Jewish I didn't feel it was quite on topic. Are you saying you agree? Just mentioning it?

 

[Paulos]

Yes, Jewish Law does permit abortion for a multitude of reasons but I'm not sure how that is relevant to the topic? I didn't point it out because though I'm Jewish I didn't feel it was quite on topic. Are you saying you agree? Just mentioning it?

Just thought I'd point it out. The topic is "What about abortion in cases of rape?", and I was interested to see that Israel does allow for abortion in cases of rape, and a number of other circumstances. Interestingly, Islam also allows for abortion under similar circumstances:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion

 

[Alate_One]

A rape does not a right to abort, make. That's a hang-up, that's not a good many of ours.

Why, because you say so? That's not exactly a reason.

Just because 'you' can't distinguish, doesn't mean God or a DNA profile can't.

I don't think God's scale slides.

I think you're speaking for God without support of scripture. There's no scripture that indicates life beginning at conception. There's indications it's before birth, but when exactly, no.

 

[Layla]

I never really understand this debate, to be honest.

If you don't believe a zygote/early foetus is a person, then it makes no difference whether the pregnancy was caused by rape or not.

If you believe a zygote/early foetus is a person, then killing it is surely murder, and it should make no difference whether the pregnancy was caused by rape or not.

I am interested by, but do not understand, Alate_One's position.

 

[MaryContrary]

You're going to have to clarify exactly what you're talking about.

You devalue life, with no reasonable basis, for no other purpose than to justify ending it. You look to things beyond the child's control and, in fact, beyond the child entirely, to determine the value of that child's life. Pick any attempted genocide in history. They all did exactly what you do here to justify their actions.

 

[MaryContrary]

So then you are making the claim that God commanded the killing of innocent and sinless children?

1 Samuel 15:3 "Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

Hosea 13:16 "Their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

Ezekiel 9:6 "Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children."

:shocked:

Exodus 12:29 "It came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle"

The parents sinned by disobeying God and not putting the blood of the lamb on their doors. Who suffered the wrath of that disobedience? Was it the parents? No, it was their firstborn children.

That is one of dozens examples where children were punished for the sins of their parents, this punishment was death.

How about when David and Bathsheba's first child dies as a judgment for their sin?

Number 5:22 "May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

2 Samuel 12:14-18 "But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.” 15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.18 On the seventh day the child died. "


and there are countless other Bible passages that deal with children being killed by God for their parent's sins. :think: I'm sorry but your not studying your Bible, you are following some man and his philosophy.

Sorry, but you can't get away with twisting what "killed for their parent's sin" means. That means the child is guilty of their parent's sins and killed for that guilt. You don't show that anywhere in any verse you've thrown out yet. Because there is no scripture to support that warped notion. Quite the opposite. I've shown where that idea is specifically condemned.

All you've established is that God has killed. That He's even killed children and the elderly. Even the unborn. Which matters not at all because the question isn't whether God can abort in the case of rape but rather whether or not we can.

We cannot. That's murder.