toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?

[oldhermit]

Thank you for taking it under consideration.
I'll add that I am against abortion because I consider that fertilized egg to be someones son, grandson, nephew, brother, cousin, so on.
But, we mus'nt let our humanity turn us into monsters worse than the rapist.

You are right. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Eeset]

It is hard for us to see death the way God sees death and we should never hold God accountable to any human concept of morality or ethics.

I couldn't agree more. That is why I said I would turn to God and have no regard for the laws of men.

 

[fool]

:thumb:
First, let's remember how far to the extreme you're carrying this point.

That said,...so what? It's just a sperm. It's not a rapist sperm, it's just a sperm. At this extreme, does the rapist's guilt carry over to this sperm? So whether or not it's a rapist's sperm is irrelevant.
Well, that's just it. In your scenario we don't know if there's a child. You say here if there is no child. Since we can't know that in your scenario, how can we be said to "have a rape victim become pregnant"? We don't know yet is she is. We don't know if we're aiding her in becoming pregnant. We don't know anything. Hence, erring on the side of life being the obvious moral choice here.

This boils down to taking the chance of killing a baby for the sake of a chance at avoiding pregnancy. I don't see how this is any different from the root question of whether or not it's right to abort in the first place.

Your risking killing a baby for the chance of not being pregnant in the first place...what's the difference between that and having an abortion? I don't see one. You merely introducing the element of chance into things. :idunno:

Huge difference, a choice to take action or not. The choice to deny her the spermicide could result in an outcome that could have been avoided without having killed a baby.

 

[Cruciform]

If she's pregnant...she already has the rapist's baby.

THE point, thank you. :thumb:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[MaryContrary]

Huge difference, a choice to take action or not. The choice to deny her the spermicide could result in an outcome that could have been avoided without having killed a baby.

She may or may not get pregnant if you do or do not take the risk of killing the baby.

Fool, all you've done is introduce an unknowable chance into things. You haven't changed anything.

 

[fool]

She may or may not get pregnant if you do or do not take the risk of killing the baby.

She may get pregnant if you don't kill the sperm.
She may get pregnant days later because you didn't and that would have been avoidable.

Fool, all you've done is introduce an unknowable chance into things. You haven't changed anything.

I've backed it up one step.
Look, you and I are on the same page that if we have a confirmed pregnancy that we have a child that should be protected.
What I've done here is backed up one step to where we have a dilema where we could actually be doing the rape victim more harm because we want to assuage our conscience.

Are you comfortable with that?
Are you gonna tell the Doctor at the Hospital not to irrigate the rapist sperm out of the victim because "sperm is sperm"?

 

[Tambora]

I would say a zygote is entirely different from an egg or a sperm before conception. A zygote only seems insignificant when isolate in that instant, but a zygote naturally develops into a human being, that is not the case of an egg or a sperm.

It is a form of reductionism to speak of it as "just a cluster of cells", it is overly reductionistic because you isolate what it is at a specific point of time from its natural goal and what it will be if allowed to naturally develop according to its nature. The natural end of a thing is part of its nature.

I agree.
Not only is the natural end of a thing part of it's nature, but it's natural beginning is also part of it's nature.
A cluster of cells was the natural beginning of each of us.

 

[Cruciform]

A cluster of cells was the natural beginning of each of us.

Indeed, that's basically what we are over the entire course of our lives as well...

"A person's a person, no matter how small." ~ Dr. Seuss, Horton Hears a Who​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[MaryContrary]

What I've done here is backed up one step to where we have a dilema where we could actually be doing the rape victim more harm because we want to assuage our conscience.

Or we could be killing a baby.

From your scenario we have four possible outcomes.

A) If the egg has been fertilized and we apply the spermicide: we kill the baby.
B) If the egg has been fertilized and we do not apply the spermicide: we do not kill the baby.
C) If the egg hasn't been fertilized and we apply the spermicide: we do not kill the baby.
D) If the egg hasn't been fertilized and we do not apply the spermicide: we do not kill the baby.

This is no different in the end than:

A) The egg is fertilized and we abort it: we kill the baby.
B) The egg is fertilized and we do not abort it: we do not kill the baby.
C) The egg is not fertilized and we abort it: we do not kill the baby.
D) The egg is not fertilized and we do not abort it: we do not kill the baby.

Even if you add the unavoidable outcome of pregnancy as a result of no action, you still have:

A) If the egg has been fertilized and we apply the spermicide: we kill the baby, no pregnancy results.
B) If the egg has been fertilized and we do not apply the spermicide: we do not kill the baby, pregnancy results.
C) If the egg hasn't been fertilized and we apply the spermicide: we do not kill the baby, no pregnancy results.
D) If the egg hasn't been fertilized and we do not apply the spermicide: we do not kill the baby, pregnancy results.

This is no different in the end than:

A) The egg is fertilized and we abort it: we kill the baby, no pregnancy results.
B) The egg is fertilized and we do not abort it: we do not kill the baby, pregnancy results.
C) The egg is not fertilized and we abort it: we do not kill the baby, no pregnancy results.
D) The egg is not fertilized and we do not abort it: we do not kill the baby, pregnancy results.

You haven't changed anything by introducing the chance of a fertilized egg. It either is or is not fertilized. In all cases you either do or do not kill a baby, that doesn't change. What you have changed is that in some cases of not killing the baby, pregnancy results. In all cases of killing the baby...you still kill the baby.

Are you comfortable with that?
Are you gonna tell the Doctor at the Hospital not to irrigate the rapist sperm out of the victim because "sperm is sperm"?

Assuming it's my place to tell the doctor what to do here, then I would tell the doctor not to risk murder for the chance of avoiding pregnancy.

 

[MaryContrary]

What I've done here is backed up one step to where we have a dilema where we could actually be doing the rape victim more harm because we want to assuage our conscience.

As a separate point, I'd argue this as well. I don't think letting the baby live could possibly do the victim more harm than killing it. I'd argue that the healthy, healing thing for a rape victim to do is to love and bring that baby to term. Killing the child would, in fact, cause more harm to this victim. Encouraging her to kill the child all the more harm than that. And merely stepping back and allowing her to kill it, nothing more than allowing her to harm herself in addition to the harm the rapist has done.

As I said elsewhere, allowing a rape victim to respond to her violation by murdering an innocent child, especially her own innocent child, would be worse (for her, even) than allowing her to respond by committing suicide.

 

[alwight]

I would say a zygote is entirely different from an egg or a sperm before conception. A zygote only seems insignificant when isolate in that instant, but a zygote naturally develops into a human being, that is not the case of an egg or a sperm.

It is a form of reductionism to speak of it as "just a cluster of cells", it is overly reductionistic because you isolate what it is at a specific point of time from its natural goal and what it will be if allowed to naturally develop according to its nature. The natural end of a thing is part of its nature.

Nevertheless it is for me still a small cluster of cells without a nervous system to which we must imo balance against the lives of existing people and the effects on them, and on a case by case basis not dogma. A possible least worst case scenario which remains in favour of the raped woman and perhaps her chosen partner to choose.
There is nothing in that zygote imo, any more than in the egg and sperm, that you could point to which makes it currently a person. It is potentially a person yes perhaps, but not yet one, unless you believe in souls which I don't.

 

[fool]

Or we could be killing a baby.

From your scenario we have four possible outcomes.

A) If the egg has been fertilized and we apply the spermicide: we kill the baby.
B) If the egg has been fertilized and we do not apply the spermicide: we do not kill the baby.
C) If the egg hasn't been fertilized and we apply the spermicide: we do not kill the baby.
D) If the egg hasn't been fertilized and we do not apply the spermicide: we do not kill the baby.

This is no different in the end than:

A) The egg is fertilized and we abort it: we kill the baby.
B) The egg is fertilized and we do not abort it: we do not kill the baby.
C) The egg is not fertilized and we abort it: we do not kill the baby.
D) The egg is not fertilized and we do not abort it: we do not kill the baby.

Even if you add the unavoidable outcome of pregnancy as a result of no action, you still have:

A) If the egg has been fertilized and we apply the spermicide: we kill the baby, no pregnancy results.
B) If the egg has been fertilized and we do not apply the spermicide: we do not kill the baby, pregnancy results.
C) If the egg hasn't been fertilized and we apply the spermicide: we do not kill the baby, no pregnancy results.
D) If the egg hasn't been fertilized and we do not apply the spermicide: we do not kill the baby, pregnancy results.

This is no different in the end than:

A) The egg is fertilized and we abort it: we kill the baby, no pregnancy results.
B) The egg is fertilized and we do not abort it: we do not kill the baby, pregnancy results.
C) The egg is not fertilized and we abort it: we do not kill the baby, no pregnancy results.
D) The egg is not fertilized and we do not abort it: we do not kill the baby, pregnancy results.

You haven't changed anything by introducing the chance of a fertilized egg. It either is or is not fertilized. In all cases you either do or do not kill a baby, that doesn't change. What you have changed is that in some cases of not killing the baby, pregnancy results. In all cases of killing the baby...you still kill the baby.

Assuming it's my place to tell the doctor what to do here, then I would tell the doctor not to risk murder for the chance of avoiding pregnancy.

You got the math wrong.
In a case where you don't use the spermicide and there is no baby so you don't kill the baby then a day later the egg drops and gets fertilized and you then have a baby and then she aborts the baby.

Your lists seem to want to take the rapist culpability and extend it to the final outcome, but when you make that decision with the spermicide you pick up a tier of culpability yourself.

You could have all your rape victims abort babies that wouldn't have been conceived if you had applied the spermicide.
Babies that could have been kept if the rapist sperm was removed and her husbands was introduced before the egg dropped days later.

This goes on and on.
Can the rape victim at least get the rapist "material" flushed out with some water before she is sent home?

 

[Selaphiel]

Nevertheless it is for me still a small cluster of cells without a nervous system to which we must imo balance against the lives of existing people and the effects on them, and on a case by case basis not dogma. A possible least worst case scenario which remains in favour of the raped woman and perhaps her chosen partner to choose.
There is nothing in that zygote imo, any more than in the egg and sperm, that you could point to which makes it currently a person. It is potentially a person yes perhaps, but not yet one, unless you believe in souls which I don't.

At that time it is a cluster of cells. Of course there is something in a zygote that is not in an egg or a sperm respectively, a zygote will develop into a human being if natural progression is not hindered. You do not need an idea about souls to claim that a zygote is qualitatively different from a sperm or an egg.
Destroy a cluster of sperm cells and you would have destroyed a cluster of sperm cells that would not have developed into anything unless it got fused with an egg, but that is remote possibility that presupposes a whole lot of preconditions. Destroy a zygote, and you have destroyed what most certainly would have developed into a human being if it was allowed to follow its natural progression.

The question is whether it is appropriate to destroy this developing human organism for the sake of convenience and the prevention of negative feelings (they are of course very serious in the case of rape) because the development is at an early stage? Not saying it is an easy question, it is probably one of the toughest moral dilemmas out there. However, it should not be answered based on the error of saying that a zygote is "just a cluster of cells" that are similar to any cluster of cells, because it is not.

 

[vnctblzn]

here is my next question maybe for a topic of the day:

do aborted babies automatically go to heaven without a repentance requirement?

1. many believe that aborted babies don't require the grace gospel of jesus christ to get to heaven. aborted babies have a free ticket to heaven without a repentance requirement, because babies are innocent and pure, not sinful.

2. others believe that unborn babies are sinful from the womb, instead being sent to some purgatorial mid-realm, but not heaven. they are only allowed an opportunity of repentance upon physical maturity in the millennial reign of christ in the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. they will have opportunity to accept or reject the gospel at some future date after death.

 

[serpentdove]

I have a hard time telling a woman she has to have a rapists baby.

The baby would have a harder time being murdered (Eze 18:17).

 

[bybee]

At that time it is a cluster of cells. Of course there is something in a zygote that is not in an egg or a sperm respectively, a zygote will develop into a human being if natural progression is not hindered. You do not need an idea about souls to claim that a zygote is qualitatively different from a sperm or an egg.
Destroy a cluster of sperm cells and you would have destroyed a cluster of sperm cells that would not have developed into anything unless it got fused with an egg, but that is remote possibility that presupposes a whole lot of preconditions. Destroy a zygote, and you have destroyed what most certainly would have developed into a human being if it was allowed to follow its natural progression.

The question is whether it is appropriate to destroy this developing human organism for the sake of convenience and the prevention of negative feelings (they are of course very serious in the case of rape) because the development is at an early stage? Not saying it is an easy question, it is probably one of the toughest moral dilemmas out there. However, it should not be answered based on the error of saying that a zygote is "just a cluster of cells" that are similar to any cluster of cells, because it is not.

I must ask you, What is a woman?

 

[serpentdove]

"When does it become a baby?"

When God says so (Jer 1:5). :thumb:

[Flukeman] "And what makes you think it is ok to execute a baby?"

:idunno: He's a humanist. :listen: Luckily he is not the creator of the heavens and the earth who gets to make the decisions (Mt 5:18). :shocked:

 

[serpentdove]

This one I've got to watch . . .

KMO will try to go after the children (Pr 8:36, Jn 10:10) :reals: and we will try to stop him (Jn 10:10, Mt 5:13-16). :king:

 

[serpentdove]

I find it difficult to justify the crime of murder on the grounds of personal victomization. It isn't the child who needs killing...

They protect their sexual sin (1 Co 6:9). They've even got the women K: out there fighting for the right to be used like a whore (Ro 1:26, 2 Tim. 3:6). :BRAVO:

 

[serpentdove]

"...I don't think early term abortion (morning after pill or similar within first tri) is murder..."

Then you are a child-killer (Pr 23:7).

"Nothing says "adding insult to injury" like having to raise your rapist's child."

A woman can give the child up for adoption. lain:

:burnlib: You're going to find out one day that murder was illegal (Ex 20:13, Lk 19:27, Ro 2:6). :smokie: