A question on Abortion

[Job 33:6]

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.


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



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??

Ok, well thank you for clarifying on that. I was sincerely curious because, like you said, one side is going to say that pro choice people just want to kill innocent babies and the pro choice side is saying that pro life people want all out bans on all circumstances.

And, having a cousin who raped a girl, and a mother who almost died giving birth to me, had me questioning, if pro life people truly wanted an all out ban, what happens to that girl who is raped by the drugged out man at knife point, if her life is salt stake?

And, from what I'm gathering, it sounds like people may be interested in options for severe cases, but then bans on the other 99% that aren't severe.

That's what it sounds like people here are saying.

 

[Job 33:6]

where are the pro-choice people who are willing to yield on anything??

I don't know much about the topic so I can't say but thanks for the input.

But I do agree that many abortions (though nobody can say this is always the case), from what I can see, appear to be conducted wrecklessly by teenagers who were just being irresponsible.

 

[SPF]

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.

I'm saying that there are situations in which multiple lives are at risk and unfortunately there are times when not all of them can be saved. It's tragic, but unfortunately happens.

I personally wouldn't recommend using the term "abortion" at all in these circumstances due to the connotation associated with the word.

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.

I'm not sure of a scenario where the doctor saving an unborn baby would result in the death of the mother. I'm sure maybe that's happened before, but it would be such an exceedingly rare occurrence that it really has no relevant place in the discussion.

In most instances, the unborn child simply hasn't reached viability yet and so the point is moot. If the unborn child has reached viability, then usually you can save both.

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.

The bottom line is that as Christians we understand that all people are born inherently sinful with an inclination towards sin. But as Christians, we recognize that when we become Christians we go from death to life, are indwelled with the Holy Spirit, and given everything we need to live a life of godliness.

So from a Christian point of view, you would never intentionally kill an unborn, morally valuable human being because they're being born with a sinful nature.

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).

Yes, a human being possesses greater inherent moral worth and value than an animal. If you want to make yourself into a bigot and discriminate against humans and declare that some are of lesser moral value because they aren't as developed as you - go ahead, be a bigot.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm saying that there are situations in which multiple lives are at risk and unfortunately there are times when not all of them can be saved. It's tragic, but unfortunately happens.

I personally wouldn't recommend using the term "abortion" at all in these circumstances due to the connotation associated with the word.

I'm not sure of a scenario where the doctor saving an unborn baby would result in the death of the mother. I'm sure maybe that's happened before, but it would be such an exceedingly rare occurrence that it really has no relevant place in the discussion.

In most instances, the unborn child simply hasn't reached viability yet and so the point is moot. If the unborn child has reached viability, then usually you can save both.

The bottom line is that as Christians we understand that all people are born inherently sinful with an inclination towards sin. But as Christians, we recognize that when we become Christians we go from death to life, are indwelled with the Holy Spirit, and given everything we need to live a life of godliness.

So from a Christian point of view, you would never intentionally kill an unborn, morally valuable human being because they're being born with a sinful nature.

Yes, a human being possesses greater inherent moral worth and value than an animal. If you want to make yourself into a bigot and discriminate against humans and declare that some are of lesser moral value because they aren't as developed as you - go ahead, be a bigot.

My reason for bringing up the final point wasn't about one human being of less value than another, but rather to point out that we can slaughter and eat cattle without a second thought, and yet, if we have an embryo with no senses, that cannot feel pain or fear, we treat this embryo with more value than we do any other life form, because it's human.

Hence the case of us poking a dog with a knife. It feels pain, it screams in fear and agony, it becomes psychologically traumatized. And yet, this animal, with all it's sentience and feelings, is of less value than a human embryo which doesn't experience any of the above.

At least that's what I was inquiring about and that seems to be the case for pro life supporters. Even as a Christian, I don't think I can agree with this stance. And don't get me wrong, I love a juicy steak, but I think it's more of a sin to destroy pain experiencing animals, than it is an embryo that doesn't experience pain and fear, sentience etc. Much like it is a sin to stab a dog, moreso than it is to stab a tree, because one suffers, while the other does not.

And yes, I understand that we shouldn't treat a child any different based on whether they have genetic deficiencies. But rather, I was just pointing out additional concerns that could result in favoring the life of an embryo over our hypothetical spouse who was raped and could die if the embryo were not aborted.

And if we don't favor the embryo over the spouse, the alternative is favoring the spouse over the embryo, which equates to favoring an abortion, because as you said, one life is better than none.

And I admit, the vast majority of abortion cases do not involve rape, and do not involve risks or dangers to the life of the woman. But in cases where they do involve risk, well, you seem to agree, in extreme cases, a doctor probably should have the option to abort an embryo, if it means saving the mothers life, under certain circumstances. And you don't have to call it an abortion if you don't want to, but that's what it is if a doctor must end the life of an embryo or fetus, for the sake of saving the woman

 

[SPF]

My reason for bringing up the final point wasn't about one human being of less value than another, but rather to point out that we can slaughter and eat cattle without a second thought, and yet, if we have an embryo with no senses, that cannot feel pain or fear, we treat this embryo with more value than we do any other life form, because it's human.

Well I don't know what your view of Scripture is, but I think the reality is that Scripture is clear that humans ARE of greater moral value and worth than the animals. Only humans are created in the Image of God, not animals. It's morally OK to kill and eat animals. It's not morally OK to kill and eat other humans. And that's because humans are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value, animals are not.

Hence the case of us poking a dog with a knife. It feels pain, it screams in fear and agony, it becomes psychologically traumatized. And yet, this animal, with all it's sentience and feelings, is of less value than a human embryo which doesn't experience any of the above.

The dog is of less inherent moral worth and value than a human being of any age. That's certainly true.

But that doesn't mean that it's ever acceptable to poke a dog with a knife. Causing undue, malicious harm to any of God's creation would be immoral.

And yes, I understand that we shouldn't treat a child any different based on whether they have genetic deficiencies. But rather, I was just pointing out additional concerns that could result in favoring the life of an embryo over our hypothetical spouse who was raped and could die if the embryo were not aborted.

I don't think we should ever favor the life of the zygote/embryo/fetus/unborn over the life of the mother. I don't know of anyone advocating that we do.

What I've said all along is that all human beings, regardless of age and level of development are equally created in the Image of God and equally possess inherent moral worth and value.

Thus, when a doctor is faced with a moral dilemma where life is on the line, the right thing to do is view both the mother and the unborn as his patients, and his goal should be to save the life of both. However, in the rare circumstance where this isn't possible, he has to do the best he can and make the best decision possible. Saving one life is always better than saving no lives.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well I don't know what your view of Scripture is, but I think the reality is that Scripture is clear that humans ARE of greater moral value and worth than the animals. Only humans are created in the Image of God, not animals. It's morally OK to kill and eat animals. It's not morally OK to kill and eat other humans. And that's because humans are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value, animals are not.

The dog is of less inherent moral worth and value than a human being of any age. That's certainly true.

But that doesn't mean that it's ever acceptable to poke a dog with a knife. Causing undue, malicious harm to any of God's creation would be immoral.

I don't think we should ever favor the life of the zygote/embryo/fetus/unborn over the life of the mother. I don't know of anyone advocating that we do.

What I've said all along is that all human beings, regardless of age and level of development are equally created in the Image of God and equally possess inherent moral worth and value.

Thus, when a doctor is faced with a moral dilemma where life is on the line, the right thing to do is view both the mother and the unborn as his patients, and his goal should be to save the life of both. However, in the rare circumstance where this isn't possible, he has to do the best he can and make the best decision possible. Saving one life is always better than saving no lives.

I don't agree, but I'll like the post because you've answered my questions.

Thanks,

 

[BNR32FAN]

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?

Oh my goodness you think rape is hereditary? I know that neither me nor my wife would put her life as being more important than the child’s life. If it is God’s will that she dies so be it she’s going to die regardless. We put a higher priority on the next life not this one.

 

[Job 33:6]

Oh my goodness you think rape is hereditary? I know that neither me nor my wife would put her life as being more important than the child’s life. If it is God’s will that she dies so be it she’s going to die regardless. We put a higher priority on the next life not this one.

I posted a link on genetics behind rape, it's in post #4.

 

[SPF]

I don't agree, but I'll like the post because you've answered my questions.

Thanks,

Well, I can support my positions with science and Scripture, are you able to say what you disagree with and support your position?

Would love to read a credible alternative view.

 

[NerdGirl]

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?

This scenario is so incredibly unlikely that it's really not helpful when considering the morality of abortion.

Abortion is murder. Life begins at conception. Even more importantly, as Christians, Scripture teaches that God knows us, and all the days of our lives, long before we're born.

Rape is not a genetic or inherited behavior. Even if it were, abortion is still murder, and is not morally acceptable.

 

[Job 33:6]

@SPF

And one last thing on this:

"I'm not sure of a scenario where the doctor saving an unborn baby would result in the death of the mother. I'm sure maybe that's happened before, but it would be such an exceedingly rare occurrence that it really has no relevant place in the discussion."

My mother almost died because she went through with her pregnancy with me. Perhaps a rare case, but some women's lives can be jeapordised should they decide to go forward with a pregnancy.

And that's where that comes from. Rare? Yes, but it certainly happens. There are these situations where women do give their lives for their child, but alternatively their lives could continue on, if they hypothetically did have an abortion. That's all.

 

[Job 33:6]

This scenario is so incredibly unlikely that it's really not helpful when considering the morality of abortion.

Abortion is murder. Life begins at conception. Even more importantly, as Christians, Scripture teaches that God knows us, and all the days of our lives, long before we're born.

Rape is not a genetic or inherited behavior. Even if it were, abortion is still murder, and is not morally acceptable.

See post #4 for genetics on rape.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, I can support my positions with science and Scripture, are you able to say what you disagree with and support your position?

Would love to read a credible alternative view.

Well, I think a significant point in all of this is that, I think a cow, has a life of more value than a human embryo, on the basis that it can be emotionally traumatized.

I mentioned this before but, a dog for example, if you stab it, it cries, it experiences fear, experiences pain and suffering. An embryo isn't sentient, it doesn't experience these things, no more than a plant does.

And so, I think it's easier for me to say that early term abortions ought to be ok in those rare extreme cases of rape and life endangerment to the mother.

If I can eat a steak at dinner (and I love beef), I ought to be ok with destroying an embryo for the sake of saving an adult woman.

 

[NerdGirl]

See post #4 for genetics on rape.

I don't believe that it's genetic whatsoever. I think it's far more likely these men are exposed to similar upbringings and circumstances that might foster mentalities and behaviors that make them more prone to violent acts. Nobody is born wanting to force other people to have sex with them.

 

[SPF]

Well, I think a significant point in all of this is that, I think a cow, has a life of more value than a human embryo, on the basis that it can be emotionally traumatized.

Let's consider the principle that you're attempting to establish and see if it "plays out".

What you're suggesting is that a human being's moral worth and value is tied up in their ability to be emotional traumatized. Your assertion is that if a human being cannot be emotionally traumatized, then they are less morally valuable than not only other human beings, but even when compared to animals.

A sociopath is defined as: "a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience."

It is possible that a sociopath could not be emotionally traumatized. Does this mean that an adult sociopath is possesses less moral worth and value than you? If not, why?

And even more basic than that, can you explain what makes a human being morally valuable in the first place? I'll do you a favor and give you the answer - it's because human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value - Do you believe that?

If you do believe that, why do you think it's ok to discriminate against human beings and declare some more morally valuable than other based upon emotional capacity?

Can you find anything in Scripture to support the idea that some humans are more morally valuable than others?

And if ability to be emotionally traumatized is tied into our moral worth and value, does that mean that women, who are naturally more emotional are actually more morally valuable than men?

 

[Job 33:6]

And, let's see if I can squeeze in one more post here before the response.

The questions comes up of, what does it mean to be created in the image of God?

Is created in the image of God something that is a spiritual matter? Is it something that is a physical matter? Does our intelligence make us in God's Image?

I can't imagine that being created in God's image is something physical. Because God himself is infinite and eternal and doesn't have arms and legs.

I can't imagine it is intellectual, because some animals are actually really intelligent. And to destroy their lives, suggests that perhaps we assume that they never could ever make a thoughtful decision, no matter what the animal were and no matter when, now or in the future the animal made it's decision.

If it's spiritual, created in God's image in a spiritual way, then we are in an odd position of not really knowing when this happens. Some could say that a spirit is created at conception? But where does this come from? The second the sperm hits the egg, God creates a spirit? Or is it a week later? I don't think scripture clarifies on sperm interacting with eggs and timing of creation, as far as I'm aware.

The concept of imago dei, I think it's useful and inspirational to think about, but I don't think I am able to use it to combat abortion while simultaneously mixing beef in my tacos. I just can't seem to make that work.

 

[Job 33:6]

Let's consider the principle that you're attempting to establish and see if it "plays out".

What you're suggesting is that a human being's moral worth and value is tied up in their ability to be emotional traumatized. Your assertion is that if a human being cannot be emotionally traumatized, then they are less morally valuable than not only other human beings, but even when compared to animals.

A sociopath is defined as: "a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience."

It is possible that a sociopath could not be emotionally traumatized. Does this mean that an adult sociopath is possesses less moral worth and value than you? If not, why?

And even more basic than that, can you explain what makes a human being morally valuable in the first place? I'll do you a favor and give you the answer - it's because human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value - Do you believe that?

If you do believe that, why do you think it's ok to discriminate against human beings and declare some more morally valuable than other based upon emotional capacity?

Can you find anything in Scripture to support the idea that some humans are more morally valuable than others?

And if ability to be emotionally traumatized is tied into our moral worth and value, does that mean that women, who are naturally more emotional are actually more morally valuable than men?

If the adult sociopath is a vegetable in an endless coma, where he does not feel pain or think or experience trauma, then I think that killing an animal that does experience trauma, in a traumatic way, would be more morally wrong than killing a human vegetable.

When people make a decision to "pull the plug" on a family member in a coma, I think this is less morally wrong than say, someone stomping a cat to death.

And I think that emotional capacity is significant in defining value of life, because our emotional capacity, is what makes us human to begin with. Without it, we are...plants.

But also, when damaged, that's causing others harm as well. So, kicking a dog causes an emotional traumatization. Pulling the plug on a human in a coma does not. Maybe sentience is better to focus on than emotional trauma, although trauma is a product of sentience.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

If Im going to be totally honest, I dont think its really possible to answer that question hypothetically. I dont think you could really imagine the emotions you and your wife would be going through.
Without being in that situation I think that despite being pro-life I would probably go with abortion and saving my wifes life, even if it meant murdering her child. If she wanted to keep the child I would support her in that and if carrying that child did cost her life I would want the crime to be rape and murder as her death would have been a direct result of the attack. I dont think I could raise the child if it survived and she didnt.

 

[Job 33:6]

And a sociopath, presumably can feel pain ^, which means that kicking them (we'll replace stabbing but will remain in principal on topic), kicking them would be more morally wrong than kicking a tree because they would experience pain.

 

[Job 33:6]

"If you do believe that, why do you think it's ok to discriminate against human beings and declare some more morally valuable than other based upon emotional capacity?"

And I think that, if you have one family member in an endless coma, who experiences no sentience, and you have another family member who is awake and sentient, if you had to make a choice of which were to live if one had to die, I feel like we would all have to choose the sentient one as the one of more value.

It sounds terrible I know, but I think it's what we would all do.

One family member, the awake one, can experience emotions and may say, "please save me". The other, would have no awareness and would experience no pain. The moral decision presumably would then be to save the sentient one.