A question on Abortion

[Job 33:6]

So I was just wondering what kinds of responses pro life people might give for the following:

Lets say you're a man, and your wife is raped, and she has a high probability of dying if she carries on through the pregnancy and gives birth.

If an abortion could be conducted in the first few weeks of pregnancy while the baby is still in an embryo stage, where it would not experience pain, would an abortion then be potentially acceptable?

And sometimes I wonder, what if the baby grows up, then spreads genes of that rapist that perhaps promotes rape in future progeny. What are pro life people's thoughts on these two topics?

 

[hedrick]

So I was just wondering what kinds of responses pro abortion people might give for the following:

Lets say you're a man, and your wife is raped, and she has a high probability of dying if she carries on through the pregnancy and gives birth.

If an abortion could be conducted in the first few weeks of pregnancy while the baby is still in an embryo stage, where it would not experience pain, would an abortion then be potentially acceptable?

And sometimes I wonder, what if the baby grows up, then spreads genes of that rapist that perhaps promotes rape in future progeny. What are pro abortion people's thoughts on these two topics?

Fortunately, there’s no reason to think that rape is genetic.

 

[Job 33:6]

Fortunately, there’s no reason to think that rape is genetic.

It could be psychological. Things related to addiction to sex.

 

[Job 33:6]

Reality check: Is sex crime genetic?

Here's an article that references some research, quotes include:

A splashy headline appeared on the websites of many U.K. newspapers this morning, claiming that men whose brothers or fathers have been convicted of a sex offense are “five times more likely to commit sex crimes than the average male” and that this increased risk of committing rape or molesting a child “may run in a family’s male genes.” The study, published online today in the International Journal of Epidemiology, analyzed data from 21,566 male sex offenders convicted in Sweden between 1973 and 2009 and concluded that genetics may account for roughly 40% of the likelihood of committing a sex crime. (Women, who commit less than 1% of Sweden’s sexual offenses, were omitted from the analysis.) The scientists have suggested that the new research could be used to help identify potential offenders and target high-risk families for early intervention efforts.

But independent experts—and even the researchers who led the work, to a certain degree—warn that the study has some serious limitations. Here are a few reasons to take its conclusions, and the headlines, with a generous dash of salt.

Alternate explanations: Most studies point to early life experiences, such as childhood abuse, as the most important risk factor for becoming a perpetrator of abuse in adulthood. The new study, however, did not include any detail about the convicted sex criminals’ early life exposure to abuse. Instead, by comparing fathers with sons, and full brothers and half-brothers reared together or apart, the scientists attempted to tease out the relative contributions of shared environment and shared genes to the risk of sexual offending. Based on their analyses, the researchers concluded that shared environment accounted for just 2% of the risk of sexual offense, while genetics accounted for roughly 40%. Although there is likely some genetic contribution to sexual offending—perhaps related to impulsivity or sex drive—the group “may be overestimating the role of genes” because their assumptions were inaccurate, says Fred Berlin, a psychiatrist and sexologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

----


Even if an overestimate, even if genes accounted for half of the estimation at a 20% increased likelyhood as a product of genes, it could be of concern. Even if just 1 percent, 1/40th of that estimated in the research article, were accurately that's 1% too many future rapes.


And not only that, but being a child of a single parent, without a father, knowing that your father was a rapist and that you were born out of wedlock, too could have additional negative affects on psychology of the child.

The following may be graphic:

My cousin raped a woman. He, an african american, was high on cocaine, and he took a white woman by knife point, as a hostage, in a college dormatory.

Sometimes I imagine the terror the woman experienced, and I wonder how she would feel, carrying my cousins progeny in her womb, and how her husband might feel about the same. My cousin too, was fatherless and born out of wedlock. As if something genetic may have been at play.

True story, I'm not making this up. It is what has partially inspired me to inquire about this.

 

[SPF]

So I was just wondering what kinds of responses pro abortion people might give for the following:

Lets say you're a man, and your wife is raped, and she has a high probability of dying if she carries on through the pregnancy and gives birth.

If an abortion could be conducted in the first few weeks of pregnancy while the baby is still in an embryo stage, where it would not experience pain, would an abortion then be potentially acceptable?

And sometimes I wonder, what if the baby grows up, then spreads genes of that rapist that perhaps promotes rape in future progeny. What are pro abortion people's thoughts on these two topics?

It seems like your questions would be more posed towards pro-life advocates than pro-abortion advocates. Is that what you meant?

 

[Job 33:6]

It seems like your questions would be more posed towards pro-life advocates than pro-abortion advocates. Is that what you meant?

Oh yes, that is correct, thank you for pointing that out. I just edited the original post.

 

[SPF]

So I was just wondering what kinds of responses pro life people might give for the following:

Lets say you're a man, and your wife is raped, and she has a high probability of dying if she carries on through the pregnancy and gives birth.

If an abortion could be conducted in the first few weeks of pregnancy while the baby is still in an embryo stage, where it would not experience pain, would an abortion then be potentially acceptable?

And sometimes I wonder, what if the baby grows up, then spreads genes of that rapist that perhaps promotes rape in future progeny. What are pro life people's thoughts on these two topics?

Our principles are what drive our practices. For example, if I believe that lying is morally wrong (the principle), then I ought not to lie (the practice). Pretty simple.

Abortion is a moral issue. The morality of abortion ultimately comes down to how we view the life of the unborn inside the womb. The how in which the unborn come into existence plays no part in their moral worth and value.

I think it's as simple as this:

1. All human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

2. A new and unique human being comes into existence at fertilization.

If those two premises are true, which I think they are, the morality of abortion becomes a fairly easy discussion.

98.5% of all abortions are performed for non-medical emergencies, or what we classify as convenience reasons. If the above two points are true, then we ought to easily say that the 98.5% of abortions performed today are immoral.

The purposeful and intentional killing of an innocent human being is wrong. The unborn are about as innocent as we can get.

A human beings developmental period is about 25 years. It starts at fertilization, and then continues after birth. At no point during our development are we not a human being. At no point in our development do we not look like what we ought to look like (when healthy).

Our moral worth and value is not based upon our age, level of development, location of residence, or even dependency upon others. Our moral worth and value is rooted and based in the character of a perfect and immutable God. That is why we are morally valuable. Not because of anything we have done, or anything we have attained.

People like to discriminate against humans, but there's no basis for doing so that can be defended.

 

[Job 33:6]

Our principles are what drive our practices. For example, if I believe that lying is morally wrong (the principle), then I ought not to lie (the practice). Pretty simple.

Abortion is a moral issue. The morality of abortion ultimately comes down to how we view the life of the unborn inside the womb. The how in which the unborn come into existence plays no part in their moral worth and value.

I think it's as simple as this:

1. All human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

2. A new and unique human being comes into existence at fertilization.

If those two premises are true, which I think they are, the morality of abortion becomes a fairly easy discussion.

98.5% of all abortions are performed for non-medical emergencies, or what we classify as convenience reasons. If the above two points are true, then we ought to easily say that the 98.5% of abortions performed today are immoral.

The purposeful and intentional killing of an innocent human being is wrong. The unborn are about as innocent as we can get.

A human beings developmental period is about 25 years. It starts at fertilization, and then continues after birth. At no point during our development are we not a human being. At no point in our development do we not look like what we ought to look like (when healthy).

Our moral worth and value is not based upon our age, level of development, location of residence, or even dependency upon others. Our moral worth and value is rooted and based in the character of a perfect and immutable God. That is why we are morally valuable. Not because of anything we have done, or anything we have attained.

People like to discriminate against humans, but there's no basis for doing so that can be defended.

In a circumstance where our spouses life is jeapordised, and where the genes of the rapist are passed on, potentially increasing probability of future rapes, why feel as though an embryo, which feels no pain and experiences no thoughts, and morphologically, is literally boneless, skinless, brainless, heatless etc., is of greater value, than the life of our spouse or future people?

I understand that abortion isn't ideal, but I have a hard time believing that I would let my spouse die, to birth the child of my spouses rapist. Hypothetically.

 

[Tony B]

If an abortion could be conducted in the first few weeks of pregnancy while the baby is still in an embryo stage, where it would not experience pain, would an abortion then be potentially acceptable?

I wouldn't go against my wife's wishes. If having discussed pros and cons, she agreed it would be appropriate to abort the pregnancy, I would be supportive of that. If she preferred to give birth to the child, I'd support that too.

And sometimes I wonder, what if the baby grows up, then spreads genes of that rapist that perhaps promotes rape in future progeny. What are pro life people's thoughts on these two topics?

I don't know enough about genetics to offer a qualified opinion, but rape is the result of a person allowing sexual desire to overcome right...it's moral decay, a sin. I think it comes down to a person's moral beliefs and standard, and not directly related to genetics.

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright, last question for pro life people:

An embryo, a human embryo, let's say within 3 weeks of development, feels no pain, has no thoughts, doesn't experience emotion, isn't sentient, it doesn't have skin or bones or muscles or eyes etc.

A cattle or dog or pig or horse etc., These animals experience pain and emotions. If we stick a dog with a knife, it will scream in pain and it will experience fear and suffering. These other forms of life have skin and bones.

Is it correct to say that pro life people generally consider the life of a human embryo, as described above, to be of more value, more moral value, than the latter of the animal kingdom?

And, why is this?

 

[Job 33:6]

I wouldn't go against my wife's wishes. If having discussed pros and cons, she agreed it would be appropriate to abort the pregnancy, I would be supportive of that. If she preferred to give birth to the child, I'd support that too.




I don't know enough about genetics to offer a qualified opinion, but rape is the result of a person allowing sexual desire to overcome right...it's moral decay, a sin. I think it comes down to a person's moral beliefs and standard, and not directly related to genetics.

Would you consider yourself pro life or pro choice, or do you think it might be circumstantial? It just sounded like the first part was pro choice.

 

[SPF]

In a circumstance where our spouses life is jeapordised

This is exceedingly rare. But it does happen. In these instances, the right thing to do is for the doctor to view both the mother and the unborn child as his patient. The goal, as a doctor, is to keep both alive. But in reality, this isn't always an option. In these rare instances, the doctor must make the best decision possible given the specific scenario.

But these exceedingly rare instances are different than the 98.5% of abortions that are committed for convenience reasons.

In a life or death situation, the doctor wants to save both lives, but ultimately, he may only be able to save one. It's tragic, not abortion.

and where the genes of the rapist are passed on, potentially increasing probability of future rapes

First of all you're making a big assumption here that there is a "rape gene" in the first place. But let's assume there is a "rape gene", why stop there? If there's a "rape gene", then surely there is a "lying gene" and a "killing gene" and so why not abort all babies except from approved families with no history of anything violent or criminal? I hope you see the slippery slope here.

why feel as though an embryo, which feels no pain and experiences no thoughts, and morphologically, is literally boneless, skinless, brainless, heatless etc., is of greater value

This one is easy, and I already addressed it. You're discriminating against a human based upon their level of development. God doesn't do that, so why are you?

Our moral worth and value does not stem from our level of development, location of residence, age, race, gender, or anything else. Our moral worth and value stem from being created in the Image of God. No human being possesses more inherent moral worth and value than another human being.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is exceedingly rare. But it does happen. In these instances, the right thing to do is for the doctor to view both the mother and the unborn child as his patient. The goal, as a doctor, is to keep both alive. But in reality, this isn't always an option. In these rare instances, the doctor must make the best decision possible given the specific scenario.

But these exceedingly rare instances are different than the 98.5% of abortions that are committed for convenience reasons.

In a life or death situation, the doctor wants to save both lives, but ultimately, he may only be able to save one. It's tragic, not abortion.

First of all you're making a big assumption here that there is a "rape gene" in the first place. But let's assume there is a "rape gene", why stop there? If there's a "rape gene", then surely there is a "lying gene" and a "killing gene" and so why not abort all babies except from approved families with no history of anything violent or criminal? I hope you see the slippery slope here.

This one is easy, and I already addressed it. You're discriminating against a human based upon their level of development. God doesn't do that, so why are you?

Our moral worth and value does not stem from our level of development, location of residence, age, race, gender, or anything else. Our moral worth and value stem from being created in the Image of God. No human being possesses more inherent moral worth and value than another human being.

You said, and I'll quote "The goal, as a doctor, is to keep both alive. But in reality, this isn't always an option. In these rare instances, the doctor must make the best decision possible given the specific scenario."

It sounded like you said above that, in rare instances, the doctor must make a choice, that could involve aborting the embryo, that could be the best choice.

Is that what you're saying?

And regarding the "rape gene", I posted an article above on that.

And thank you for answering my last question. It sounds as though, given that God created mankind in His image, a human embryo, which experiences no pain, has no sentience nor emotion, no flesh nor bone, is of more value, than the life of say....a dog, which could scream in pain if you liked it with a knife. According to your position. Feel free to correct this understanding if it isn't accurate.

 

[Albion]

So I was just wondering what kinds of responses pro life people might give for the following:

Lets say you're a man, and your wife is raped, and she has a high probability of dying if she carries on through the pregnancy and gives birth.

If an abortion could be conducted in the first few weeks of pregnancy while the baby is still in an embryo stage, where it would not experience pain, would an abortion then be potentially acceptable?

And sometimes I wonder, what if the baby grows up, then spreads genes of that rapist that perhaps promotes rape in future progeny. What are pro life people's thoughts on these two topics?

My immediate thought is that tens of millions of abortions should not be held hostage to a very rare scenario such as you have laid out for us.

If that scenario were not more of an excuse than a real, pressing, and commonplace human problem, the pro-choice people ought to be willing to support SOME changes in the laws, to allow SOME restrictions on abortions done purely for the sake of convenience, of children capable of living outside of the womb, of "partial birth" abortions, and etc.

But "no," whenever I mention this to one of those folks who talked as if they have given abortion a great deal of thought and careful analysis...they swallow their tongues.

 

[Job 33:6]

My immediate thought is that tens of millions of abortions should not be held hostage to a very rare scenario such as you have laid out for us.

If that scenario were not more of an excuse than a real, pressing, and commonplace human problem, the pro-choice people ought to be willing to support SOME changes in the laws, to allow SOME restrictions on abortions done purely for the sake of convenience, of children capable of living outside of the womb, of "partial birth" abortions, and etc.

But "no," whenever I mention this to one of those folks who talked as if they have given abortion a great deal of thought and careful analysis...they swallow their tongues.

What if I reversed this and said that 1% of emergency cases, should not be held hostage to government controlled ban on abortion, because of the other 99% of wreckless or immoral abortions.

Is it fair to say that the solution ought to be somewhere in between? Where the 99% should be banned to save life, while the 1% should be granted choice to save life?

 

[Albion]

What if I reversed this and said that 1% of emergency cases, should not be held hostage to government controlled ban on abortion, because of the other 99% of wreckless or immoral abortions.

In that case, I would say, "but no one IS holding those hostage--to anything."

And if your scenario is speculating on a time when every last abortion were illegal and prosecuted to the max, that's no excuse (in my opinion) because that is not a situation that the pro-life people are insisting upon.

Is it fair to say that the solution ought to be somewhere in between?

I thought that that was essentially what I was suggesting in my post.

Of course I added the fact that I never get anywhere with pro-choice people when I do raise the point and, probably more important than that, I never see it dealt with elsewhere, among the politicians, the abortion industry, the media, and so forth.

 

[SPF]

You said, and I'll quote "The goal, as a doctor, is to keep both alive. But in reality, this isn't always an option. In these rare instances, the doctor must make the best decision possible given the specific scenario."

It sounded like you said above that, in rare instances, the doctor must make a choice, that could involve aborting the embryo, that could be the best choice.

Is that what you're saying?

What I'm saying is that our principles determine our actions. These two events are not analogous:

1. A mother decides that her unborn child is inconvenient and drives to an abortion clinic and asks a doctor to intentionally and purposefully kill the unborn child.

2. A mother acknowledges the moral worth and value of her unborn child, would like to see it born, but has a medical emergency and goes to the hospital and is faced with a moral dilemma where it is inevitable that either her unborn baby which is not viable yet will die, or she and her unborn child will die.

Those two situations are not analogous. Again, 98.5% of all abortions are performed for convenience reasons and we can easily say those are immoral.

This would be more analogous:

1. There is a car wreck and two people are rushed to the hospital, both with are bleeding out, and both need immediate surgery. They get to the hospital and for whatever reason, it becomes apparent that the doctor can only save one of the lives. He wants to save both, he would save both if he could, but he can only save one. And so he does.

2. A mother is 13 weeks pregnant and there is a problem with the fetus. She is rushed to the hospital. She wants the baby, but it becomes clear that if the baby isn't removed that both the mother and baby will die. This is what we call a tragic situation, the doctor tries to come up with a way to save both, but he can't. And so he saves the one he can.

Nothing immoral has occurred with either of the above two scenarios. Those scenarios are not analogous to a healthy pregnant woman walking into an abortion clinic and petitioning a doctor to intentionally and purposefully kill her unborn child.

I find it hard to believe that if you're an intelligent thinker that you can't distinguish between the differences there. I have to imagine you're just trolling.

And regarding the "rape gene", I posted an article above on that.

Sure, you posted a singular study, which is itself suspect. But hey, I granted you that there might a "rape gene". But again, why would there be a rape gene? And if there is a rape gene, then surely there is a lying gene, a murder gene, and a gene for all sorts of terrible actions. People's choices obviously aren't there own, but people are forced to act upon their genes.

Therefore, the only right thing to do in this case is to only allow people with no family history of any violent crimes to procreate.

Again, I hope you see the slippery slope there.

And thank you for answering my last question. It sounds as though, given that God created mankind in His image, a human embryo, which experiences no pain, has no sentience nor emotion, no flesh nor bone, is of more value, than the life of say....a dog, which could scream in pain if you liked it with a knife. According to your position. Feel free to correct this understanding if it isn't accurate.

I will gladly correct your understanding, though at this point I doubt you'll accept it.

Human beings have a developmental period of 25 years, beginning at fertilization. Yet at no point during our development are we not created in the Image of God, possessing inherent moral worth and value.

Our moral worth and value stem from the fact that we are created in the Image of God. You are being a bigot by discriminating against human beings and attempting to assign moral value based upon a subjective criteria that you are making up.

All human beings possess the same inherent moral worth value. You are not more morally valuable than a 3 year old because you can write. You are not more morally valuable than an elementary student because you've gone through puberty. Our moral worth and value is not based upon our level of development, gender, race, location of residence, or anything else aside from the fact that we are created in the Image of God.

Human beings are the only creations of God that are created in His Image. Is the rest of God's creation morally valuable? Certainly, it is because God created it, and God said it was good. But are the animals in the animal kingdom created in the Image of God like human beings are? No, they are not.

And if you're a Christian, surely you have some understanding, some basic grasp of the fact that human beings are a unique creation of God, and are created in His Image.

 

[Job 33:6]

In that case, I would say, "but no one IS holding those hostage--to anything."

And if your scenario is speculating on a time when every last abortion were illegal and prosecuted to the max, that's no excuse (in my opinion) because that is not a situation that the pro-life people are insisting upon.


I thought that that was essentially what I was suggesting in my post.

Of course I added the fact that I never get anywhere with pro-choice people when I do raise the point and, probably more important than that, I never see it dealt with elsewhere, among the politicians, the abortion industry, the media, and so forth.

Interesting, ok. So pro life people are not calling for an all out ban on all abortions or any shape or form?

I recall reading about certain states outright banning abortion, and women who wanted an abortion, needing to travel to distant states to get one.

So if not an all out ban on all abortions, what do pro life supporters call for? Or am I misunderstanding?

 

[Albion]

Interesting, ok. So pro life people are not calling for an all out ban on all abortions or any shape or form?

I didn't say that. But it would split the anti-abortion cause to go to that level. Or to include some of the things that pro-choice people like to claim is a necessary part of changing anything at all about the current legal situation. For instance, that women who get an abortion somewhere or other will be sentenced to life in prison or even death. Or that no abortion would be allowed under any circumstances. All of that sort of fearmongering is routine whenever this issue comes to a debate.

I recall reading about certain states outright banning abortion, and women who wanted an abortion, needing to travel to distant states to get one.

So? Were these women in danger of death if the child were carried any longer?

So if not an all out ban on all abortions, what do pro life supporters call for? Or am I misunderstanding?

I'd be reluctant to guess at which ones would draw the line at what particular exceptions, but almost all of them would agree to some. There is virtually no support, from what I can tell, for denying a woman an abortion if her life is in danger, or if the child is badly deformed, and many pro-choice people are not opposed to allowing morning after pills to be legal.

If we could poll everybody, I think you'd find a wide range of POVs about this, but my point remains...where are the pro-choice people who are willing to yield on anything??

 

[Job 33:6]

@SPF

"2. A mother acknowledges the moral worth and value of her unborn child, would like to see it born, but has a medical emergency and goes to the hospital and is faced with a moral dilemma where it is inevitable that either her unborn baby which is not viable yet will die, or she and her unborn child will die."

These scenarios presented are not analogous because they suggest that either that the mother lives and the child dies, or they both die. As opposed to a scenario in which either the mother lives, or the child lives.

The car wreck scenario is more analogous, in which case, it sounds like you're saying that in some circumstances, the choice to abort a baby should be available, much like the choice ought to be available for a doctor to save a mother in a car accident over saving her child. Which sounds like a case for a pro choice argument.

Because in the car accident scenario, the doctor can save the mother at a loss of the child. In abortion terms, this would mean saving the mother, as a product of removing the fetus (or aborting the fetus). The doctor could decide not to abort the fetus and the baby would live, but the mother would die.

And I don't think there is anything wrong with the proposition of a "rape gene". Rape can be the product of many things, and genetics associated with violence or sex addiction, I don't think should be excluded as potential influences that cause rape.

The bottom line is, if a violent, drugged, sex addicted rapist bears a child, there may be issues down the road due to the passing on of those genes. And we can be fair in agreeing in this. Even if it's just a 1% chance of a future rapes being partially attributed to genetics, that's 1% too many rapes.

"Human beings are the only creations of God that are created in His Image. Is the rest of God's creation morally valuable? Certainly, it is because God created it, and God said it was good. But are the animals in the animal kingdom created in the Image of God like human beings are? No, they are not."

So an embryo, with no sentience, no pain, no emotion, no skin, bones or muscle, no brain, is of a greater moral value than a dog which can feel pain and fear. According to pro life supporters (right or wrong).

Noted.