The Pro-lifer Stockholm Syndrome

A ferocious riposte from pro-life activist Hilary White on the Akin controversy, how pro-abortionists are fallaciously and cynically exploiting the issue and how many pro-lifers are caving:

The fact is, the abortion movement has invented the rape exception as a useful propaganda tool, a club with which to bludgeon pro-lifers into silence. They have succeeded in this because they know that a lot of pro-lifers will crumple at the first sign of shouting. It might not be a popular thing to say out loud, but in my travels I’ve met a significant number of “pro-lifers” whose primary concern is to find ways to demonstrate how “pro-woman” they are and are only too eager to rush to agree with the abortionists, or at least provide excuses for them, on the rape exception.

The fact that the feminist crocodile tears over rape-induced pregnancy have succeeded in driving a wedge into the pro-life movement is a sign that pro-lifers, particularly our politicians, are in desperate need of both a sturdy plank for their backs and some solid training in apologetics. We are already seeing pro-lifers in blog posts, comment boxes and on private lists fighting to get on the bandwagon, saying, “What a despicable thing to say!” and it’s only a tiny step from there to a friendly, placating, “There, there. We’re the nice pro-lifers. Of course we support a rape exception…”

I have coined the term “Pro-lifer Stockholm Syndrome” to describe a mental state in which a pro-lifer has become so concerned with being liked, or at least not hated, that she has actually gone over to the other side. In the old days, spiritual writers used to call this the error of “human respect.”

We might be able to concede that Akin spoke poorly, but it is imperative that we never abandon a single inch of the field to the pro-abortion side, yes, even when they’re screaming at us. It should be a rule that when a pro-lifer makes a mess of things, first, we don’t abandon him; second, we take control of the narrative and start demanding that they back up their claims with facts. Always call them on their assertions. Always.

She goes on to shoot down the notion that a child conceived by rape should be killed because of what the father did.  She also points out, referring to what Rep. Akins said, that there has long been research on how stress inhibits fertility, though no one dares study pregnancy rates among rape victims.  Still, she says, pro-abortionists, far from defending science, reject scientific findings when it comes to the life of the fetus and the effect of abortion on women.  She concludes:

We are expected to jump like rabbits every time someone shrieks about pregnancy due to rape. But they only do this because they know it works. I can understand it, who likes to be shouted at and called nasty names? But it is imperative that we learn that this is nothing more than a political slogan, a rather dirty trick.

As our friend the pro-life apologetics trainer Scott Klusendorf likes to say, “So OK, if I change my position to support legalised abortion in the 0.0001 per cent of cases of pregnancy due to rape and incest, will you then drop your insistence on restriction-free abortion on demand?

“Yah, didn’t think so.”

via Pro-lifer Stockholm Syndrome: Rape, Todd Akin and appeasing abortionists | LifeSiteNews.com.

HT:  James M. Kushiner

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Hannah

    The problem with his comments in my mind are not that he suggests that there shouldn’t be an exception for rape, but the way in which he discusses legitimate rape. As anyone who is the victim of a sex crime knows there are plenty of people who suggest what you are saying is not true. To have a politician suggest that women who are pregnant were not legitimately raped is insulting to those of us who have lived through sexual trauma whether it resulted in pregnancy or not. He seems to be one more person suggesting women make it up or are really asking for it. That is why I distance myself and I was hurt and offended.

  • Hannah

    The problem with his comments in my mind are not that he suggests that there shouldn’t be an exception for rape, but the way in which he discusses legitimate rape. As anyone who is the victim of a sex crime knows there are plenty of people who suggest what you are saying is not true. To have a politician suggest that women who are pregnant were not legitimately raped is insulting to those of us who have lived through sexual trauma whether it resulted in pregnancy or not. He seems to be one more person suggesting women make it up or are really asking for it. That is why I distance myself and I was hurt and offended.

  • Tom Hering

    If you’re going to circle the wagons, don’t strap shovels to the wheels. The hole you end up digging will be a big one.

  • Tom Hering

    If you’re going to circle the wagons, don’t strap shovels to the wheels. The hole you end up digging will be a big one.

  • http://www.chapeldoor.blogspot.com Jesse Carr

    No one but no one has dared mention that the reason Roe V. Wade is on the books is because a woman LIED about being raped. I’d say that’s pretty illegitimate.

  • http://www.chapeldoor.blogspot.com Jesse Carr

    No one but no one has dared mention that the reason Roe V. Wade is on the books is because a woman LIED about being raped. I’d say that’s pretty illegitimate.

  • Booklover

    Fight on, Hilary White. Our country has lately been more concerned with words than with actions. Keep fighting for the innocent.

    The pro-abort side will always try to legalize all abortion by using the issue of rape, many times the FALSE claim of rape. Look at Roe v. Wade. Talk to Roe (Norma McCorvey).

  • Booklover

    Fight on, Hilary White. Our country has lately been more concerned with words than with actions. Keep fighting for the innocent.

    The pro-abort side will always try to legalize all abortion by using the issue of rape, many times the FALSE claim of rape. Look at Roe v. Wade. Talk to Roe (Norma McCorvey).

  • Lou G.

    What is the biblical support for legally requiring a woman to carry a baby conceived by the act of rape to full birth? There does not appear to any justification at all for this in scripture.

    I agree that the unborn child is created in the image of God and that it is in fact a viable person. But simply establishing personhood does nothing to support the claim that there is no justification for the woman to terminate the pregnancy. All men are created in the image of God, yet we still conduct war, we still bear arms and defend ourselves from those who would steal our property, and we still execute capital punishment when warranted.

    I think in the case of rape, it is clearly a matter of conscience for the woman to make the decision to keep or not keep the child. It may be a very Christianly thing for a woman to make such a sacrifice and decide to give birth to the child; however, I see no reason whatsoever to legally mandate that she do so. Just like it is a very Christianly thing for missionaries to die on the mission field for Christ, but to legally mandate it for all Christians, everywhere? Clearly that would be unjust.

    I know this is a big can of worms. But it is incredibly troubling to me how monolithic, unthinking and uncaring we come across on this issue. In fact, I would love to do a Bible study on Numbers 5 and its application in such situations. Thanks!!

  • Lou G.

    What is the biblical support for legally requiring a woman to carry a baby conceived by the act of rape to full birth? There does not appear to any justification at all for this in scripture.

    I agree that the unborn child is created in the image of God and that it is in fact a viable person. But simply establishing personhood does nothing to support the claim that there is no justification for the woman to terminate the pregnancy. All men are created in the image of God, yet we still conduct war, we still bear arms and defend ourselves from those who would steal our property, and we still execute capital punishment when warranted.

    I think in the case of rape, it is clearly a matter of conscience for the woman to make the decision to keep or not keep the child. It may be a very Christianly thing for a woman to make such a sacrifice and decide to give birth to the child; however, I see no reason whatsoever to legally mandate that she do so. Just like it is a very Christianly thing for missionaries to die on the mission field for Christ, but to legally mandate it for all Christians, everywhere? Clearly that would be unjust.

    I know this is a big can of worms. But it is incredibly troubling to me how monolithic, unthinking and uncaring we come across on this issue. In fact, I would love to do a Bible study on Numbers 5 and its application in such situations. Thanks!!

  • Tom Hering

    @ 3 & 4, you guys still don’t get it. Most of the reaction to Akin’s statement was a rejection of the idea that there are legitimate and illegitimate rapes – with pregnancy being proof of an illegitimate rape, because it indicates the woman got excited, and so had to be a happy participant at the time. But go ahead. Keep trying to defend the man as if the reaction against him was really about abortion.

  • Tom Hering

    @ 3 & 4, you guys still don’t get it. Most of the reaction to Akin’s statement was a rejection of the idea that there are legitimate and illegitimate rapes – with pregnancy being proof of an illegitimate rape, because it indicates the woman got excited, and so had to be a happy participant at the time. But go ahead. Keep trying to defend the man as if the reaction against him was really about abortion.

  • Orianna Laun

    It may well be that no one studies the pregnancy by rape angle for two major reasons: first, there are likely very few researchers who want to seem so insensitive. Second, there are more restrictions on conducting research involving pregnant women–something I did not know until recently when my husband started work on his Ph.D. His research is interviews only and he is asking questions of non-pregnant people (or if they happen to be pregnant, the questions have absolutely nothing to do with their pregnancy). Still they reminded him that research on pregnant women has certain restrictions.

  • Orianna Laun

    It may well be that no one studies the pregnancy by rape angle for two major reasons: first, there are likely very few researchers who want to seem so insensitive. Second, there are more restrictions on conducting research involving pregnant women–something I did not know until recently when my husband started work on his Ph.D. His research is interviews only and he is asking questions of non-pregnant people (or if they happen to be pregnant, the questions have absolutely nothing to do with their pregnancy). Still they reminded him that research on pregnant women has certain restrictions.

  • Rose

    I wonder if much rape could be prevented by stronger fathers.
    Flaccid fathers fail to protect the hearts and minds of their daughters. They allow degrading images in the home. They allow their daughters to dress and act promiscuously. They avoid correcting their sons’ speech and behavior.
    And there’s a double standard, perhaps even in the church:
    ‘Women, according to the good apostle Paul, are more prone to fall when tempted than are men. After all, just look at the example of Eve. ….Now, one may wonder, if females are less resistent to temptation, why is it they who must tell males when enough is enough?”—John Temple Bristow

  • Rose

    I wonder if much rape could be prevented by stronger fathers.
    Flaccid fathers fail to protect the hearts and minds of their daughters. They allow degrading images in the home. They allow their daughters to dress and act promiscuously. They avoid correcting their sons’ speech and behavior.
    And there’s a double standard, perhaps even in the church:
    ‘Women, according to the good apostle Paul, are more prone to fall when tempted than are men. After all, just look at the example of Eve. ….Now, one may wonder, if females are less resistent to temptation, why is it they who must tell males when enough is enough?”—John Temple Bristow

  • Carl Vehse

    In 2008, the SCOTUS, based on “its independent judgment” (i.e., the majority of 5 pulled this out of their collective keisters!), issued a decision that the death penalty for being convicted of rape (even of a child!) was cruel and unusual punishment. Yet there is no problem among leftards, RINOs and faux-conservatives for murdering an innocent child conceived in a rape by having her torn to pieces or have her head crushed while being ripped out of her mother’s womb.

    Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer were a cruel and unusual punishment imposed on the American people.

  • Carl Vehse

    In 2008, the SCOTUS, based on “its independent judgment” (i.e., the majority of 5 pulled this out of their collective keisters!), issued a decision that the death penalty for being convicted of rape (even of a child!) was cruel and unusual punishment. Yet there is no problem among leftards, RINOs and faux-conservatives for murdering an innocent child conceived in a rape by having her torn to pieces or have her head crushed while being ripped out of her mother’s womb.

    Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer were a cruel and unusual punishment imposed on the American people.

  • Lou G.

    Carl, in the case of rape, the woman and the doctors would know soon enough of the situation so as not to necessitate the grotesque procedure you describe. I see the case of rape as the only morally warranted use of the so-called morning after pill and would support its use for those cases only.

  • Lou G.

    Carl, in the case of rape, the woman and the doctors would know soon enough of the situation so as not to necessitate the grotesque procedure you describe. I see the case of rape as the only morally warranted use of the so-called morning after pill and would support its use for those cases only.

  • Carl Vehse

    Lou G. @10: “I see the case of rape as the only morally warranted use of the so-called morning after pill [to eliminate what you euphemistically call the "situation"] and would support its use for those cases only.”

    I previously quoted from an article by George Neumayr:

    Beneath all the hysterical extrapolations from his [Akin's] remark, which grew wilder and wilder as the days passed, lay that essential demand: approve of killing unborn children conceived under circumstances of rape or be deemed “anti-woman.”

    This culture of hectoring explains why Mitt Romney rushed to the cameras upon hearing Akin’s remark to pronounce abortion in those cases “appropriate.” In a rotten culture, proof of one’s “civilized” bona fides comes from such shameless pandering.

    An authentically conservative party would find Romney’s unprincipled position far more chilling than Akin’s gaffe. If unborn children gain or lose their right to life depending upon the circumstances of their conception, then the party has already conceded that that right doesn’t exist.

    The last statement applied to your claim as well.

  • Carl Vehse

    Lou G. @10: “I see the case of rape as the only morally warranted use of the so-called morning after pill [to eliminate what you euphemistically call the "situation"] and would support its use for those cases only.”

    I previously quoted from an article by George Neumayr:

    Beneath all the hysterical extrapolations from his [Akin's] remark, which grew wilder and wilder as the days passed, lay that essential demand: approve of killing unborn children conceived under circumstances of rape or be deemed “anti-woman.”

    This culture of hectoring explains why Mitt Romney rushed to the cameras upon hearing Akin’s remark to pronounce abortion in those cases “appropriate.” In a rotten culture, proof of one’s “civilized” bona fides comes from such shameless pandering.

    An authentically conservative party would find Romney’s unprincipled position far more chilling than Akin’s gaffe. If unborn children gain or lose their right to life depending upon the circumstances of their conception, then the party has already conceded that that right doesn’t exist.

    The last statement applied to your claim as well.

  • http://delagar@blogspot.com delagar

    Rose, you seem to be arguing that women and girls bring rape upon themselves by the way they dress. Is that your position? That women and girls — if they just acted more decently — would not get raped?

    So that the fault for rape, then, would lie with women — or, I suppose you are actually arguing, with the fathers and husbands who do not keep their daughters and wives properly policed? — and not with the men who rape these women and children?

    Is that your position?

  • http://delagar@blogspot.com delagar

    Rose, you seem to be arguing that women and girls bring rape upon themselves by the way they dress. Is that your position? That women and girls — if they just acted more decently — would not get raped?

    So that the fault for rape, then, would lie with women — or, I suppose you are actually arguing, with the fathers and husbands who do not keep their daughters and wives properly policed? — and not with the men who rape these women and children?

    Is that your position?

  • Jon

    @5 Lou G, if you otherwise count yourself as a prolifer, you are an excellent example of someone with the syndrome.

    Do you realize that you could take everything you just said in your weak argument to justify killing the innocent person in the womb, and also apply it to the case of a mother who on account of her “conscience” kills her 3 year-old child who was born out of rape?

  • Jon

    @5 Lou G, if you otherwise count yourself as a prolifer, you are an excellent example of someone with the syndrome.

    Do you realize that you could take everything you just said in your weak argument to justify killing the innocent person in the womb, and also apply it to the case of a mother who on account of her “conscience” kills her 3 year-old child who was born out of rape?

  • Joshua

    “What is the biblical support for legally requiring a woman to carry a baby conceived by the act of rape to full birth? There does not appear to any justification at all for this in scripture.”

    The biblical support would be the biblical command not to murder.

  • Joshua

    “What is the biblical support for legally requiring a woman to carry a baby conceived by the act of rape to full birth? There does not appear to any justification at all for this in scripture.”

    The biblical support would be the biblical command not to murder.

  • Lou G.

    Jon, no, actually that is not true and betrays your lack of understanding and compassion. A woman who becomes pregnant by rape may decide to give birth to the child and then give him or her up for adoption. At that point her sacrifice will have been made, and the nature of the sacrifice justifies her right to decide whether she will make it or not.

    Turn the tables. If a person with chronic organ failure was about to die, but found that by hooking himself up to you for nine months and using all of your organs and bodily functions, he could be restored to full capacity and live — and you are the only one with the right dna/blood etc.— then by your standard, his doctors could legally kidnap you and require you to save his life by complying with this for nine months. But no one in their right mind would legally demand such a thing.

  • Lou G.

    Jon, no, actually that is not true and betrays your lack of understanding and compassion. A woman who becomes pregnant by rape may decide to give birth to the child and then give him or her up for adoption. At that point her sacrifice will have been made, and the nature of the sacrifice justifies her right to decide whether she will make it or not.

    Turn the tables. If a person with chronic organ failure was about to die, but found that by hooking himself up to you for nine months and using all of your organs and bodily functions, he could be restored to full capacity and live — and you are the only one with the right dna/blood etc.— then by your standard, his doctors could legally kidnap you and require you to save his life by complying with this for nine months. But no one in their right mind would legally demand such a thing.

  • Lou G.

    Joshua, okay then by your simplistic application of biblical command not to murder, we must all become pacificist, turn in our right to bear arms to protect ourselves and property, and stop practicing capital punishment.

  • Lou G.

    Joshua, okay then by your simplistic application of biblical command not to murder, we must all become pacificist, turn in our right to bear arms to protect ourselves and property, and stop practicing capital punishment.

  • Lou G.

    “If unborn children gain or lose their right to life depending upon the circumstances of their conception…”
    But Carl, my suggestion that rape cases use the morning after pill has nothing to do with this statement. The purpose of the morning after pill is to prevent conception.

    Even so, have you had a chance to read Numbers 5?

  • Lou G.

    “If unborn children gain or lose their right to life depending upon the circumstances of their conception…”
    But Carl, my suggestion that rape cases use the morning after pill has nothing to do with this statement. The purpose of the morning after pill is to prevent conception.

    Even so, have you had a chance to read Numbers 5?

  • Jon

    Lou @15,

    “save his life by complying with this for nine months.”

    We are called to love and serve our neighbors. If I had the life saving capacity to offer to my neighbor as you describe, I would consider it my duty to defend my neighbor by obliging in that regard.

    How about you? I take it you are of a different spirit in that regard.

  • Jon

    Lou @15,

    “save his life by complying with this for nine months.”

    We are called to love and serve our neighbors. If I had the life saving capacity to offer to my neighbor as you describe, I would consider it my duty to defend my neighbor by obliging in that regard.

    How about you? I take it you are of a different spirit in that regard.

  • Jon

    And Lou @16, you are changing the subject.

  • Jon

    And Lou @16, you are changing the subject.

  • Joe

    Lou G. — they problem with your position is that you let compassion for the women (something we should all recognize is good, right and salutary) override the right of the baby to live. The command is: thou shalt not murder — it is not though shalt not kill. So, the question is whether ending the life of a baby who has not done anything wrong is murder or is some form of justifiable killing (similar to the fact that you do not violate the commandment if you kill a person who is about to kill your wife or child, etc.)

    You asked where is the Biblical support for forcing the mother to conceive, but you have the burden of proof backwards. Where is your support for allowing her to kill/murder?

  • Joe

    Lou G. — they problem with your position is that you let compassion for the women (something we should all recognize is good, right and salutary) override the right of the baby to live. The command is: thou shalt not murder — it is not though shalt not kill. So, the question is whether ending the life of a baby who has not done anything wrong is murder or is some form of justifiable killing (similar to the fact that you do not violate the commandment if you kill a person who is about to kill your wife or child, etc.)

    You asked where is the Biblical support for forcing the mother to conceive, but you have the burden of proof backwards. Where is your support for allowing her to kill/murder?

  • Jon

    @ Lou,

    Why is the mother who out of “conscience” kills her innocent three year old child born out of rape because she can no longer bear the mental anguish of seeing her child as the daughter of her rapist any different than the mother who kills her pre-born, innocent child for the same reason?

    You say I lack compassion for the victim of rape. I ask, where is your compassion for the least of these, your neighbor the innocent child?

  • Jon

    @ Lou,

    Why is the mother who out of “conscience” kills her innocent three year old child born out of rape because she can no longer bear the mental anguish of seeing her child as the daughter of her rapist any different than the mother who kills her pre-born, innocent child for the same reason?

    You say I lack compassion for the victim of rape. I ask, where is your compassion for the least of these, your neighbor the innocent child?

  • Brent

    Lou, Your “turn the tables” analogy does not make sense.

    First, there is no such disease(that I am aware of) that could be cured by hooking someone up to another person. Abortion however is very real.

    Second, let’s grant you that this disease does exist. Pregnancy is not a disease. It is not something that can be “cured.” Killing a human being is not a cure. There is a vast difference a pregnancy and a disease. This is where they analogy breaks down. Of course we shouldn’t have a law that would require you to save someone from a disease(i.e. we are not forced to give up a kidney for a kidney transplant). That does not mean we should not try to protect the life of an unborn because a person is not a disease.

  • Brent

    Lou, Your “turn the tables” analogy does not make sense.

    First, there is no such disease(that I am aware of) that could be cured by hooking someone up to another person. Abortion however is very real.

    Second, let’s grant you that this disease does exist. Pregnancy is not a disease. It is not something that can be “cured.” Killing a human being is not a cure. There is a vast difference a pregnancy and a disease. This is where they analogy breaks down. Of course we shouldn’t have a law that would require you to save someone from a disease(i.e. we are not forced to give up a kidney for a kidney transplant). That does not mean we should not try to protect the life of an unborn because a person is not a disease.

  • Jon

    @ Lou, and I your zeal to show compassion for the rape victim, how can you be sure that encouraging her to take the life of her child will be of real benefit to her? How can you be sure that it won’t cause her more harm as she realizes after the fact that “two wrongs don’t make a right”? How can you be sure that she won’t be further victimized by guilt and remorse at the nagging pangs of conscience that she responded to the horrific act against her by snuffing out the life of her innocent child. Will you console her, reassure her that she “did the right thing”? Do you think that is the compassionate thing to do for her?

  • Jon

    @ Lou, and I your zeal to show compassion for the rape victim, how can you be sure that encouraging her to take the life of her child will be of real benefit to her? How can you be sure that it won’t cause her more harm as she realizes after the fact that “two wrongs don’t make a right”? How can you be sure that she won’t be further victimized by guilt and remorse at the nagging pangs of conscience that she responded to the horrific act against her by snuffing out the life of her innocent child. Will you console her, reassure her that she “did the right thing”? Do you think that is the compassionate thing to do for her?

  • http://delagar@blogspot.com delagar

    Well, Brent, pregnancy is a disease, in fact. (dis-ease, something that needs medical treatment.) I can tell you have never been pregnant if you think otherwise.

    Women die from being pregnant all the time. More so in the past than now, but even with modern medical science, now. I nearly died in childbirth myself.

    You have no right to force another human being to risk her life doing something against her will.

    If she wants to, fine. But it’s up to her.

  • http://delagar@blogspot.com delagar

    Well, Brent, pregnancy is a disease, in fact. (dis-ease, something that needs medical treatment.) I can tell you have never been pregnant if you think otherwise.

    Women die from being pregnant all the time. More so in the past than now, but even with modern medical science, now. I nearly died in childbirth myself.

    You have no right to force another human being to risk her life doing something against her will.

    If she wants to, fine. But it’s up to her.

  • Jerry Brown

    In order to help clarify:

    1. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.
    2. Akin spoke poorly.
    3. Aborting due to rape is still the killing of an innocent human being.
    4. Abortions due to rape are an extremely small percentage of abortions.
    5. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.

  • Jerry Brown

    In order to help clarify:

    1. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.
    2. Akin spoke poorly.
    3. Aborting due to rape is still the killing of an innocent human being.
    4. Abortions due to rape are an extremely small percentage of abortions.
    5. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.

  • fjsteve

    What just cracks me up about this whole thing are all the journalists spouting on about how this story just won’t go away. Uh, hello?

    What media bias?

  • fjsteve

    What just cracks me up about this whole thing are all the journalists spouting on about how this story just won’t go away. Uh, hello?

    What media bias?

  • Jon

    @24 delagar

    “Women die from being pregnant all the time.”

    Wow! That sounds really dangerous. I guess we got really lucky all three times during our pregnancies.

    Seriously, I like the disease-machine argument better than the pregnancy is “dangerous” argument.

    The point where you and Lou (who claims to believe that there is a real viable human person in utero) actually jump rails is that you don’t really believe the life that is in there has the same rights as any other human. You subordinate those rights of the preborn person (if you even go that far yourself to admit it is a human person).

  • Jon

    @24 delagar

    “Women die from being pregnant all the time.”

    Wow! That sounds really dangerous. I guess we got really lucky all three times during our pregnancies.

    Seriously, I like the disease-machine argument better than the pregnancy is “dangerous” argument.

    The point where you and Lou (who claims to believe that there is a real viable human person in utero) actually jump rails is that you don’t really believe the life that is in there has the same rights as any other human. You subordinate those rights of the preborn person (if you even go that far yourself to admit it is a human person).

  • fjsteve

    #24,

    DISEASE

    noun
    1. a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.
    2. any abnormal condition in a plant that interferes with its vital physiological processes, caused by pathogenic microorganisms, parasites, unfavorable environmental, genetic, or nutritional factors, etc.
    3. any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society: His fascination with executions is a disease.
    4. decomposition of a material under special circumstances: tin disease.

    Just thought you would like clarification. Pregnancy isn’t disordered, abnormal, depraved, or necessarily harmful. It doesn’t “require” medical treatment but treatments help them to have better outcomes. That’s called preventative care.

  • fjsteve

    #24,

    DISEASE

    noun
    1. a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.
    2. any abnormal condition in a plant that interferes with its vital physiological processes, caused by pathogenic microorganisms, parasites, unfavorable environmental, genetic, or nutritional factors, etc.
    3. any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society: His fascination with executions is a disease.
    4. decomposition of a material under special circumstances: tin disease.

    Just thought you would like clarification. Pregnancy isn’t disordered, abnormal, depraved, or necessarily harmful. It doesn’t “require” medical treatment but treatments help them to have better outcomes. That’s called preventative care.

  • Steve Billingsley

    I am about as pro-life as someone can get. But recognizing that Todd Akin is an idiot doesn’t change or compromise that in the slightest.

    I have noticed that the Republican Party isn’t rushing to change it’s platform regarding abortion or to defend Akin at all. Sounds about right to me.

    Tom @ 6 – You nailed it on the head.

  • Steve Billingsley

    I am about as pro-life as someone can get. But recognizing that Todd Akin is an idiot doesn’t change or compromise that in the slightest.

    I have noticed that the Republican Party isn’t rushing to change it’s platform regarding abortion or to defend Akin at all. Sounds about right to me.

    Tom @ 6 – You nailed it on the head.

  • Dan Kempin

    delagar, #24,

    “Women die from being pregnant all the time.”

    Women die from abortions, too. Your argument does not stack up.

    Forcing impregnation is one thing. Precluding abortion is another. The burden and damage resulting from a rape pregnancy is the fault of the rapist, not those who would intercede for the child.

    Lou G, #5,

    Your argument is even more faulted. You say there is no basis to “legally requir[e] a woman to carry a baby conceived by the act of rape to full birth?” True enough, but that is not the question. The question is whether she has the right to kill the baby. There is quite a lot of biblical basis to oppose that.

  • Dan Kempin

    delagar, #24,

    “Women die from being pregnant all the time.”

    Women die from abortions, too. Your argument does not stack up.

    Forcing impregnation is one thing. Precluding abortion is another. The burden and damage resulting from a rape pregnancy is the fault of the rapist, not those who would intercede for the child.

    Lou G, #5,

    Your argument is even more faulted. You say there is no basis to “legally requir[e] a woman to carry a baby conceived by the act of rape to full birth?” True enough, but that is not the question. The question is whether she has the right to kill the baby. There is quite a lot of biblical basis to oppose that.

  • Carl Vehse

    Lou G. @16: “Joshua, okay then by your simplistic application of biblical command not to murder, we must all become pacificist, turn in our right to bear arms to protect ourselves and property, and stop practicing capital punishment.”

    Lou, you are either utterly confused or being disingenuous about the moral distinction between murder, capital punishment, and the morally just use of deadly force. In either case, these other issues are irrelevant to the position that the abortion of a human child conceived from her mother being raped, at whatever stage of the child’s development, is murder.

    Lou G. @17: “But Carl, my suggestion that rape cases use the morning after pill has nothing to do with this statement. The purpose of the morning after pill is to prevent conception.”

    The “morning after” pill also prevents a conceived human embryo from being implanted in the womb; thus it serves as an abortifacient.

    Steve Billingsley @29: “But recognizing that Todd Akin is an idiot”

    How did you arrive at this recognition that Todd Akin is an idiot?!?

  • Carl Vehse

    Lou G. @16: “Joshua, okay then by your simplistic application of biblical command not to murder, we must all become pacificist, turn in our right to bear arms to protect ourselves and property, and stop practicing capital punishment.”

    Lou, you are either utterly confused or being disingenuous about the moral distinction between murder, capital punishment, and the morally just use of deadly force. In either case, these other issues are irrelevant to the position that the abortion of a human child conceived from her mother being raped, at whatever stage of the child’s development, is murder.

    Lou G. @17: “But Carl, my suggestion that rape cases use the morning after pill has nothing to do with this statement. The purpose of the morning after pill is to prevent conception.”

    The “morning after” pill also prevents a conceived human embryo from being implanted in the womb; thus it serves as an abortifacient.

    Steve Billingsley @29: “But recognizing that Todd Akin is an idiot”

    How did you arrive at this recognition that Todd Akin is an idiot?!?

  • Lou G.

    Jon, I’ll try to address your questions. Hope I don’t miss any.

    Jon #18:
    “We are called to love and serve our neighbors. If I had the life saving capacity to offer to my neighbor as you describe, I would consider it my duty to defend my neighbor by obliging in that regard. How about you?”
    As a Christian, my conscience may compel me to do so. But then it means you are describing a matter of conscience, not something that should be legally mandated for all people everywhere and enforced by the federal government. Again, is there a biblical mandate that should be applied to all people everywhere? I don’t see one.

    Jon #21:
    Not sure what you’re trying to do there. But given my previous comments, I see the legal justification for the woman to be able to decide to end pregnancy from rape (and remember, I stated using the morning after pill), connected to the woman’s burden and sacrifice in child bearing, not the emotional burden of looking into her rapist’s eyes day after day. I never mentioned that and don’t believe it is required.

    Jon #23:
    Again, you are making arguments that only support the idea that I’m proposing, which is that the decision is a matter of conscience, not something that should be legally mandated and federally imposed.

    Jon #27: You are wrong in how you characterized my belief. I do believe that the unborn baby has the same rights as any other human being. The question you and others here are not dealing with is whether the unborn human being’s rights ought to be enforced over against the rights of the violated woman.

    I am willing to be convinced, but so far no one has made a substantial argument. We shall see.

  • Lou G.

    Jon, I’ll try to address your questions. Hope I don’t miss any.

    Jon #18:
    “We are called to love and serve our neighbors. If I had the life saving capacity to offer to my neighbor as you describe, I would consider it my duty to defend my neighbor by obliging in that regard. How about you?”
    As a Christian, my conscience may compel me to do so. But then it means you are describing a matter of conscience, not something that should be legally mandated for all people everywhere and enforced by the federal government. Again, is there a biblical mandate that should be applied to all people everywhere? I don’t see one.

    Jon #21:
    Not sure what you’re trying to do there. But given my previous comments, I see the legal justification for the woman to be able to decide to end pregnancy from rape (and remember, I stated using the morning after pill), connected to the woman’s burden and sacrifice in child bearing, not the emotional burden of looking into her rapist’s eyes day after day. I never mentioned that and don’t believe it is required.

    Jon #23:
    Again, you are making arguments that only support the idea that I’m proposing, which is that the decision is a matter of conscience, not something that should be legally mandated and federally imposed.

    Jon #27: You are wrong in how you characterized my belief. I do believe that the unborn baby has the same rights as any other human being. The question you and others here are not dealing with is whether the unborn human being’s rights ought to be enforced over against the rights of the violated woman.

    I am willing to be convinced, but so far no one has made a substantial argument. We shall see.

  • Lou G.

    FJSteve: you wrote: “Pregnancy isn’t disordered, abnormal, depraved, or necessarily harmful.”
    Rape is.

  • Lou G.

    FJSteve: you wrote: “Pregnancy isn’t disordered, abnormal, depraved, or necessarily harmful.”
    Rape is.

  • Lou G.

    Dan, you wrote: “The question is whether she has the right to kill the baby”
    Framing the question is important. However, the way you framed it is flawed for several reasons: 1-the woman does not actually kill the baby. and 2-what is required of the woman legally IS actually the whole crux of the matter at the end of the day, and 3 -the question is not about what SHOULD the woman do, but rather what ought to be legally required of her.

  • Lou G.

    Dan, you wrote: “The question is whether she has the right to kill the baby”
    Framing the question is important. However, the way you framed it is flawed for several reasons: 1-the woman does not actually kill the baby. and 2-what is required of the woman legally IS actually the whole crux of the matter at the end of the day, and 3 -the question is not about what SHOULD the woman do, but rather what ought to be legally required of her.

  • Lou G.

    Carl #31:
    Good! Thank you. This is where I’m trying to work things out and clarify. Like I said, I’m willing to be convinced. So far, no pro-life even in the case of rape person has ever given me a good argument…

    First, the only reason why I brought up the war-captial punishment -self-defense argument is because what I’ve always heard before is that the Bible commands us not to kill someone who has been made in the image of God. So, I just didn’t see that as a strong enough argument, because obviously there is such a thing as justifiable killing of another human being. But I do agree with you, murder is not the same as the others.

    What I would like your view on is how would you resolve this type of dilemma (which I believe is a good parallel):

    The scenario:
    If a person with chronic organ failure was about to die, but found that by hooking himself up to you for nine months and using all of your organs and bodily functions, he could be restored to full capacity and live — and you are the only one with the right dna/blood etc.— then by your standard, his doctors could legally kidnap you and require you to save his life by complying with this for nine months against your will.

    Are you willing to say that it is right to legally demand such a thing as the above? And if you told the doctors that you would not comply with procedure and asked to unhook the other man immediately, would you consider that “murder”?

    What do you think?

  • Lou G.

    Carl #31:
    Good! Thank you. This is where I’m trying to work things out and clarify. Like I said, I’m willing to be convinced. So far, no pro-life even in the case of rape person has ever given me a good argument…

    First, the only reason why I brought up the war-captial punishment -self-defense argument is because what I’ve always heard before is that the Bible commands us not to kill someone who has been made in the image of God. So, I just didn’t see that as a strong enough argument, because obviously there is such a thing as justifiable killing of another human being. But I do agree with you, murder is not the same as the others.

    What I would like your view on is how would you resolve this type of dilemma (which I believe is a good parallel):

    The scenario:
    If a person with chronic organ failure was about to die, but found that by hooking himself up to you for nine months and using all of your organs and bodily functions, he could be restored to full capacity and live — and you are the only one with the right dna/blood etc.— then by your standard, his doctors could legally kidnap you and require you to save his life by complying with this for nine months against your will.

    Are you willing to say that it is right to legally demand such a thing as the above? And if you told the doctors that you would not comply with procedure and asked to unhook the other man immediately, would you consider that “murder”?

    What do you think?

  • fws

    abortion, even in the case of rape or incest is murder.

    I would NOT want to be the one in such a situation and I am grateful to be told that it is NOT for me to judge particular situations.

    It was not Akins job to comment. Nor is it ours. that job is reserved for parents, pastor, good and intimate friends, the woman, and judges and juries.
    Large Catechism 8th commandment.

    Akins overreached. ie he sinned. He is receiving the consequences of that as an object lesson.
    Public office holders need to be very careful about what they say.
    There was absolutely NO reason for him to need to say what he said even if he had said it in a better way.

  • fws

    abortion, even in the case of rape or incest is murder.

    I would NOT want to be the one in such a situation and I am grateful to be told that it is NOT for me to judge particular situations.

    It was not Akins job to comment. Nor is it ours. that job is reserved for parents, pastor, good and intimate friends, the woman, and judges and juries.
    Large Catechism 8th commandment.

    Akins overreached. ie he sinned. He is receiving the consequences of that as an object lesson.
    Public office holders need to be very careful about what they say.
    There was absolutely NO reason for him to need to say what he said even if he had said it in a better way.

  • fws

    Lou G

    I think it is wrong to raise hypotheticals.IF you know someone in such a situation, decide, unless you are in a vocation that demands it, that the matter is NONE of your business, and make your mind a grave for it. forget it.

    God certainly will place someone in the vocation of having the inescapable duty to judge and act in such a matter. And they will probably not get things right. And we are not to judge them either.

    I am certain that you have your own personal life situations that are not all that obvious how to deal with. How to deal with a difficult boss or coworker or spouse or child. Focus on those things where God has placed you.
    Avoid pondering hypotheticals. Such an exercise serves whom?

    God gives each of us enough challenges and troubles to focus on. How are you doing with all that Lou?

    I find that my conscience is constantly accusing me for leaving undone many good things God has presented for me to do, and that I often do the wrong thing where there are situations that I have no choice but to deal with. This consumes most of my time. It should probably consume more. Lord have mercy.

  • fws

    Lou G

    I think it is wrong to raise hypotheticals.IF you know someone in such a situation, decide, unless you are in a vocation that demands it, that the matter is NONE of your business, and make your mind a grave for it. forget it.

    God certainly will place someone in the vocation of having the inescapable duty to judge and act in such a matter. And they will probably not get things right. And we are not to judge them either.

    I am certain that you have your own personal life situations that are not all that obvious how to deal with. How to deal with a difficult boss or coworker or spouse or child. Focus on those things where God has placed you.
    Avoid pondering hypotheticals. Such an exercise serves whom?

    God gives each of us enough challenges and troubles to focus on. How are you doing with all that Lou?

    I find that my conscience is constantly accusing me for leaving undone many good things God has presented for me to do, and that I often do the wrong thing where there are situations that I have no choice but to deal with. This consumes most of my time. It should probably consume more. Lord have mercy.

  • Dan Kempin

    Lou, #34,

    You said to Carl in #35 that “So far, no pro-life even in the case of rape person has ever given me a good argument.”

    In the case of abortion after a rape you say, “the woman does not actually kill the baby.”

    OK, I’m not sure what your definition of a “good argument” is.

    If you think that abortion does not actually kill the baby, then it is no wonder that you are not persuaded by the arguments. Frankly, if murder were not involved, I’d be with you all the way. In that case the #2 argument WOULD be the crux of the matter.

    But if the baby is not killed, or is not “actually” killed, then what would you say happens to it?

    Does it move to an alternate universe or turn to pure energy? (No, sorry, sarcasm is beneath this argument–there is too much at stake.)

    But to cut to the naked truth, that IS the argument. The baby dies. How are you processing this to think that is not the case?

  • Dan Kempin

    Lou, #34,

    You said to Carl in #35 that “So far, no pro-life even in the case of rape person has ever given me a good argument.”

    In the case of abortion after a rape you say, “the woman does not actually kill the baby.”

    OK, I’m not sure what your definition of a “good argument” is.

    If you think that abortion does not actually kill the baby, then it is no wonder that you are not persuaded by the arguments. Frankly, if murder were not involved, I’d be with you all the way. In that case the #2 argument WOULD be the crux of the matter.

    But if the baby is not killed, or is not “actually” killed, then what would you say happens to it?

    Does it move to an alternate universe or turn to pure energy? (No, sorry, sarcasm is beneath this argument–there is too much at stake.)

    But to cut to the naked truth, that IS the argument. The baby dies. How are you processing this to think that is not the case?

  • Lou G.

    fws: Huh???
    I don’t think you have followed this conversation at all or you would have known that I’m agruing that this issue ought to be considered under the umbrella of matters of conscience.
    Please scroll up before lecturing others.. Thank you and have a blessed day.

  • Lou G.

    fws: Huh???
    I don’t think you have followed this conversation at all or you would have known that I’m agruing that this issue ought to be considered under the umbrella of matters of conscience.
    Please scroll up before lecturing others.. Thank you and have a blessed day.

  • fws

    Lou

    I actually did read all the comments.
    I am saying considering things abstractly with abstract for instances that are about a choice one will never, personally, be faced with or be placed in a position responsible to render judgement officially, is to be a busy body.

    I am not judging you personally. I dont know you.

  • fws

    Lou

    I actually did read all the comments.
    I am saying considering things abstractly with abstract for instances that are about a choice one will never, personally, be faced with or be placed in a position responsible to render judgement officially, is to be a busy body.

    I am not judging you personally. I dont know you.

  • Jon

    Lou @32

    You say, “I do believe that the unborn baby has the same rights as any other human being.”

    I don’t believe you–you haven’t convinced me that you really do hold that belief. If you really did believe that, then you cannot say that the mother has the right to order the execution of her innocent child.

    You are subordinating the rights of the unborn child–the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness–to that of the mother’s right to life liberty and happiness. Plain and simple.

    To address your inane analogy, of course we would not make a law that hooks an unwilling person up to a machine. We don’t mandate altruism–except for the tax system, but I digress. Any more than the state can order a woman to become pregnant. The issue is, for whatever reason, the woman who finds herself in a parental way does not want to be a parent to that child. So the point is what are the state’s interests in protecting that unwanted, innocent child (whom you, too, recognize)? After birth, we say the state’s interest is to ensure placement of the child for adoption. Before birth, the state says, kill it. Why is that, if the unborn has the same rights as the any human person, including the mother?

  • Jon

    Lou @32

    You say, “I do believe that the unborn baby has the same rights as any other human being.”

    I don’t believe you–you haven’t convinced me that you really do hold that belief. If you really did believe that, then you cannot say that the mother has the right to order the execution of her innocent child.

    You are subordinating the rights of the unborn child–the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness–to that of the mother’s right to life liberty and happiness. Plain and simple.

    To address your inane analogy, of course we would not make a law that hooks an unwilling person up to a machine. We don’t mandate altruism–except for the tax system, but I digress. Any more than the state can order a woman to become pregnant. The issue is, for whatever reason, the woman who finds herself in a parental way does not want to be a parent to that child. So the point is what are the state’s interests in protecting that unwanted, innocent child (whom you, too, recognize)? After birth, we say the state’s interest is to ensure placement of the child for adoption. Before birth, the state says, kill it. Why is that, if the unborn has the same rights as the any human person, including the mother?

  • Jon

    Frank @40, how is staying out of, or “above the fray” because you personally don’t have a vocational “dog in the fight” being loving and serving for the tiniest of your defensless neighbors whom you also don’t know personally? Is it not the duty of the Christian to speak in their defense even in the public square about what the state allows, when our unborn neighbors’ lives are at stake?

  • Jon

    Frank @40, how is staying out of, or “above the fray” because you personally don’t have a vocational “dog in the fight” being loving and serving for the tiniest of your defensless neighbors whom you also don’t know personally? Is it not the duty of the Christian to speak in their defense even in the public square about what the state allows, when our unborn neighbors’ lives are at stake?

  • Lou G.

    Dan, thank you for your questions.

    What I’m saying is that *the woman* does not directly kill the baby herself. I understand that this is more or less semantics on the moral level, but if we are going to frame the question at hand in terms of what ought to be legally required, we will have to at least agree on what the issue is. If the woman knows that her actions would result in death, but are performed without malice, it is more akin to a charge of manslaughter.

    But the question, for me, is: Would the death of the unborn child be warranted under certain conditions? I’m not sure, but legally requiring a raped woman to birth the child of her rapist just seems like a usurpation of federal powers to me.

    So, I framed the question at hand as: Should we (as a country) legally require every woman to give birth to a baby conceived by the act of rape? Should such a law be legally enforceable by the federal government? I just can’t say yes to that idea, sorry.
    Thank you, Dan!

  • Lou G.

    Dan, thank you for your questions.

    What I’m saying is that *the woman* does not directly kill the baby herself. I understand that this is more or less semantics on the moral level, but if we are going to frame the question at hand in terms of what ought to be legally required, we will have to at least agree on what the issue is. If the woman knows that her actions would result in death, but are performed without malice, it is more akin to a charge of manslaughter.

    But the question, for me, is: Would the death of the unborn child be warranted under certain conditions? I’m not sure, but legally requiring a raped woman to birth the child of her rapist just seems like a usurpation of federal powers to me.

    So, I framed the question at hand as: Should we (as a country) legally require every woman to give birth to a baby conceived by the act of rape? Should such a law be legally enforceable by the federal government? I just can’t say yes to that idea, sorry.
    Thank you, Dan!

  • Carl Vehse

    Lou G. @35: “I’ve always heard before is that the Bible commands us not to kill someone who has been made in the image of God.”

    Then you have not heard from Lutheran theologians and the understanding that Scripture interprets Scripture. I recomment you read, “Christian Citizenship: What is the LCMS view on the death penalty?” for more information and Scriptural references.

    Your scenario is not a good parallel to this thread and the position that abortion of a child conceived from rape is murder. It may be an interesting topic, just as the scenario of whether a Christian, who is in line for an organ transplant, should give his place on the list to suitable recipient who is not a Christian, so that he might have, living with the transplant, an addtional opportunity to become a Christian. Perhaps some thread on this blog, or a blog or yours, will discuss these scenarios.

  • Carl Vehse

    Lou G. @35: “I’ve always heard before is that the Bible commands us not to kill someone who has been made in the image of God.”

    Then you have not heard from Lutheran theologians and the understanding that Scripture interprets Scripture. I recomment you read, “Christian Citizenship: What is the LCMS view on the death penalty?” for more information and Scriptural references.

    Your scenario is not a good parallel to this thread and the position that abortion of a child conceived from rape is murder. It may be an interesting topic, just as the scenario of whether a Christian, who is in line for an organ transplant, should give his place on the list to suitable recipient who is not a Christian, so that he might have, living with the transplant, an addtional opportunity to become a Christian. Perhaps some thread on this blog, or a blog or yours, will discuss these scenarios.

  • Lou G.

    Okay, Jon. I’ve gotta jump off. Will ponder and return later on. Thanks!

  • Lou G.

    Okay, Jon. I’ve gotta jump off. Will ponder and return later on. Thanks!

  • Carl Vehse

    Here is what Todd Akin said regarding pregnancy from rape, which has generated the apoplexy seen on this blog and others:

    “It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, uh the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

    “But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

    Akin subsequently issued this apology:

    “Rape is an evil act. I used the wrong words in the wrong way and for that I apologize. As the father of two daughters, I want tough justice for predators. I have a compassionate heart for the victims of sexual assault. And I pray for them. The fact is, rape can lead to pregnancy. The truth is, rape has many victims. The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold. I ask for your forgiveness.”

    It is clear from the context that Akin intended “legitimate” to mean “actual,” not “acceptable.”

    So why the lynch mob gathered here on Cranach?

  • Carl Vehse

    Here is what Todd Akin said regarding pregnancy from rape, which has generated the apoplexy seen on this blog and others:

    “It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, uh the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

    “But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

    Akin subsequently issued this apology:

    “Rape is an evil act. I used the wrong words in the wrong way and for that I apologize. As the father of two daughters, I want tough justice for predators. I have a compassionate heart for the victims of sexual assault. And I pray for them. The fact is, rape can lead to pregnancy. The truth is, rape has many victims. The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold. I ask for your forgiveness.”

    It is clear from the context that Akin intended “legitimate” to mean “actual,” not “acceptable.”

    So why the lynch mob gathered here on Cranach?

  • Lou G.

    Carl, I disagree. It is a decent parallel that deserves your consideration in light of the discussion at hand. You can choose not to engage it if you wish. I’ve got to jump off here. I’ll check out hte link and will be back later, Lou..

  • Lou G.

    Carl, I disagree. It is a decent parallel that deserves your consideration in light of the discussion at hand. You can choose not to engage it if you wish. I’ve got to jump off here. I’ll check out hte link and will be back later, Lou..

  • Lou G.

    #47 was in response to #44 (not #46)…

  • Lou G.

    #47 was in response to #44 (not #46)…

  • Dan Kempin

    Lou, #43,

    Well, as long as we have things cleared up: It’s ok to kill someone as long as you hire someone else to do it, and as long as you do so without MALICE.

    Ah. So you took the morality of “The Godfather” to heart. Dr. Luca Brasi makes baby sleep with the fishes.

    It’s nothing personal, kid, only business.

  • Dan Kempin

    Lou, #43,

    Well, as long as we have things cleared up: It’s ok to kill someone as long as you hire someone else to do it, and as long as you do so without MALICE.

    Ah. So you took the morality of “The Godfather” to heart. Dr. Luca Brasi makes baby sleep with the fishes.

    It’s nothing personal, kid, only business.

  • Jon

    Lou says, “But the question, for me, is: Would the death of the unborn child be warranted under certain conditions? I’m not sure, but legally requiring a raped woman to birth the child of her rapist just seems like a usurpation of federal powers to me.”

    How about if the woman were legally required to keep the innocent child to birth if it–

    Has Down Syndrome?

    Were a girl?

    Had brown hair and eyes?

    Interfered with her economic prosperity?

    Impeded her educational opportunities?

    Incompatable with her social life?

    You still haven’t addressed my over-the-top hypothetical about why you believe a mother isn’t justified in killing her rape-resultant toddler, but is justified in ordering the killing of her innocent preborn child.

    Saying that she didn’t kill it with her own hands by ordering an abortion is just a pitiful irrelevant excuse.

  • Jon

    Lou says, “But the question, for me, is: Would the death of the unborn child be warranted under certain conditions? I’m not sure, but legally requiring a raped woman to birth the child of her rapist just seems like a usurpation of federal powers to me.”

    How about if the woman were legally required to keep the innocent child to birth if it–

    Has Down Syndrome?

    Were a girl?

    Had brown hair and eyes?

    Interfered with her economic prosperity?

    Impeded her educational opportunities?

    Incompatable with her social life?

    You still haven’t addressed my over-the-top hypothetical about why you believe a mother isn’t justified in killing her rape-resultant toddler, but is justified in ordering the killing of her innocent preborn child.

    Saying that she didn’t kill it with her own hands by ordering an abortion is just a pitiful irrelevant excuse.

  • JonathanH

    Steve @ 29, I’m mostly in agreement with you, and Tom @ 6 is right, but I don’t think he’s exactly hit the nail on the head.

    I get annoyed when, in situations like this, the person in question always has to be defended or attacked, and NO ONE is allowed to do ANY combination of both. It’s just too complicated a concept for the internet/today’s fast media.

    Yes, I think the strongest reaction has been about Akin’s stupid comments about rape, but while that’s an easy hook, I’ve seen plenty of followup complaints that really just deal with the person’s own abortion views. Sure, just anecdotal stuff from one person viewing Facebook/the internet, but I think people tend to react strongly to just about anyone that has a sharply differing view.

    My point is that it’s not as if no one ever says idiotic statements right up next to pretty good policy opinions. This isn’t to defend Akin specifically, but to point out that it’s a bit sad how often this actually happens. You think certain people represent your views, but then they spoil it with incredibly thoughtless filler.

    This basically shows what I was trying to get at.
    http://issuesetc.org/2012/08/21/1-rape-and-abortion-rebecca-kiessling-82112/

  • JonathanH

    Steve @ 29, I’m mostly in agreement with you, and Tom @ 6 is right, but I don’t think he’s exactly hit the nail on the head.

    I get annoyed when, in situations like this, the person in question always has to be defended or attacked, and NO ONE is allowed to do ANY combination of both. It’s just too complicated a concept for the internet/today’s fast media.

    Yes, I think the strongest reaction has been about Akin’s stupid comments about rape, but while that’s an easy hook, I’ve seen plenty of followup complaints that really just deal with the person’s own abortion views. Sure, just anecdotal stuff from one person viewing Facebook/the internet, but I think people tend to react strongly to just about anyone that has a sharply differing view.

    My point is that it’s not as if no one ever says idiotic statements right up next to pretty good policy opinions. This isn’t to defend Akin specifically, but to point out that it’s a bit sad how often this actually happens. You think certain people represent your views, but then they spoil it with incredibly thoughtless filler.

    This basically shows what I was trying to get at.
    http://issuesetc.org/2012/08/21/1-rape-and-abortion-rebecca-kiessling-82112/

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Lou (@43):

    But the question, for me, is: Would the death of the unborn child be warranted under certain conditions?

    Possibly, yes. But those conditions do not involve the fact that the baby’s mother was raped. I mean, if a mother with children was raped but did not become pregnant for it, we wouldn’t say that the mother would be justified in murdering her three-year-old, would we? No, because the three-year-old had nothing to do with the rape, and is merely a third party — why would killing her be justified?

    I’m not sure, but legally requiring a raped woman to birth the child of her rapist just seems like a usurpation of federal powers to me.

    Um … okay. Just like, I suppose, legally requiring me to not murder my two children is … a usurpation of federal powers? I mean, honestly? And you’re talking about good argumentation?

    You seem to have confused the right to life and the right to live how you want. One of those is real, and the other is not. One of those is supposed to be protected by our government.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Lou (@43):

    But the question, for me, is: Would the death of the unborn child be warranted under certain conditions?

    Possibly, yes. But those conditions do not involve the fact that the baby’s mother was raped. I mean, if a mother with children was raped but did not become pregnant for it, we wouldn’t say that the mother would be justified in murdering her three-year-old, would we? No, because the three-year-old had nothing to do with the rape, and is merely a third party — why would killing her be justified?

    I’m not sure, but legally requiring a raped woman to birth the child of her rapist just seems like a usurpation of federal powers to me.

    Um … okay. Just like, I suppose, legally requiring me to not murder my two children is … a usurpation of federal powers? I mean, honestly? And you’re talking about good argumentation?

    You seem to have confused the right to life and the right to live how you want. One of those is real, and the other is not. One of those is supposed to be protected by our government.

  • fws

    jon @ 42

    what was it I said that orders no one to do anything about murder?

    Murder is not just to prevent the hurting or harming of our neighbor in his body, it is also to neglect to help and befriend our neighbor in every bodily need.
    I dont know about you, but it is that second thing I often neglect to do. I cant think of the last time I did the first.
    Might I assume this is true for most of us? And maybe if we focus on where the most sin is, that sinning that is , relatively speaking, far more rare, will best tend to diminish as well?

    What is it , this past week, that you have positively done to keep that commandment? and do you suppose that, by doing things… you might preach a more effective sermon and actually persuade someone contemplating a murder, to change course, rather than take some heroic stand on a blog as a completely armchair commentator?

    m

  • fws

    jon @ 42

    what was it I said that orders no one to do anything about murder?

    Murder is not just to prevent the hurting or harming of our neighbor in his body, it is also to neglect to help and befriend our neighbor in every bodily need.
    I dont know about you, but it is that second thing I often neglect to do. I cant think of the last time I did the first.
    Might I assume this is true for most of us? And maybe if we focus on where the most sin is, that sinning that is , relatively speaking, far more rare, will best tend to diminish as well?

    What is it , this past week, that you have positively done to keep that commandment? and do you suppose that, by doing things… you might preach a more effective sermon and actually persuade someone contemplating a murder, to change course, rather than take some heroic stand on a blog as a completely armchair commentator?

    m

  • CJS

    I am pro-life, and I don’t believe abortion should be legal even in the case of rape. However, your ignorance is showing when you make the claim that pregnancy is extremely rare. Why are people still claiming this? Lets look at a published study.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248

    Abstract
    OBJECTIVE:

    We attempted to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from rape.
    STUDY DESIGN:

    A national probability sample of 4008 adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes.
    RESULTS:

    The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion.
    CONCLUSIONS:

    Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.

  • CJS

    I am pro-life, and I don’t believe abortion should be legal even in the case of rape. However, your ignorance is showing when you make the claim that pregnancy is extremely rare. Why are people still claiming this? Lets look at a published study.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248

    Abstract
    OBJECTIVE:

    We attempted to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from rape.
    STUDY DESIGN:

    A national probability sample of 4008 adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes.
    RESULTS:

    The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion.
    CONCLUSIONS:

    Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.

  • Carl Vehse

    Dan Kempin @49: “It’s nothing personal, kid, only business.”

    Except, of course, in the movies. ;-)

  • Carl Vehse

    Dan Kempin @49: “It’s nothing personal, kid, only business.”

    Except, of course, in the movies. ;-)

  • fws

    cjs @ 54

    you did not identify who you were replying to.
    I did not anywhere claim that abortion due to rape is rare ..or not.

  • fws

    cjs @ 54

    you did not identify who you were replying to.
    I did not anywhere claim that abortion due to rape is rare ..or not.

  • http://janitorialmusings.wordpress.com The Janitor

    It looks like Lou wants to fold his arms and have everyone do the heavy lifting for him. We have to convince him, as though we bear the burden of proof.

    But that’s a debating trick. Lou hasn’t even begun to make an argument for his own case as to why it should be a matter of conscience decision for the mother to kill her unborn child.

    Lou points out that there are some cases where killing is justified and then moves to suggest that killing the of the unborn baby of a rape victim is such a case. Yet Lou fails to give us an argument for that conclusion. He needs to show why killing is justified in some cases and then show us why pregnancy by rape is one of those cases.

    Lou says a raped mother can’t kill the child once it has left the womb because what justifies the killing of the child is “the woman’s burden and sacrifice in child bearing” (post 32).

    Lou plays coy here, as though he’s not sure what the force of the argument is but I think he knows better. Anyway, it looks like Lou is trying to tie the justification of killing the baby to the burden and sacrifice of carrying a child through pregnancy. But if this is the case, Lou has failed to dodge the reductio. All women experience the burden and sacrifice of carrying a child through pregnancy. Therefore, if it is the burden and sacrifice in child bearing that justifies killing a child, then Lou has to say all unborn children (and not just those of rape-victims) can be killed. But that would mean Lou is not pro-life, but pro-choice. So either Lou is being disingenuous or Lou is being inconsistent.

    Now Lou might try to get around this by shifting the justification from the burden and sacrifice of child bearing to the rape itself or to the burden and sacrifice of having to live with a child that is the product of rape. But in this case Lou faces the same reductio: these justifications would also apply equally to a 3 year old child. If Lou points out that a 3 year old could be put up for adoption and, therefore, it would be unjust to kill the 3 year old, then notice that an unborn child can also be given up for adoption once it has been born. If Lou tries to say that the necessary futurity in giving up a presently unborn child for adoption justifies killing the child now, then we can point out that in most (all?) cases there is a necessary futurity to giving a 3 year old up for adoption too! After all, say the raped mother is on a plane and decides she no longer wants the 3 year old sitting next to her. She will have to wait at least till the plane lands before giving the child up for adoption. So if the necessary futurity of adoption justifies killing the unborn then it also justifies killing the 3 year old on the plane.

    Lou’s other option would be to say that it is the joint condition of being raped AND the burden and sacrifice of bearing a child that justifies killing the child. So far he hasn’t given us any reason to think those join conditions would be sufficient, but lets set that aside for now. If he thinks they are, then suppose a mother is in a situation where she cannot give her child up for adoption. Perhaps she has been shipwrecked and is stranded on an life-supporting island. Or perhaps finds herself in a culture without persons willing to adopt. In such cases, having the child outside the womb doesn’t relieve her of burden bearing or sacrifice in regards to the child (and it obviously doesn’t change her status of being raped or the status of the child as being a product of rape). So, in such cases, Lou must say that the mother deserted on an island can kill the three year old… perhaps by bashing it on the head with a large stone or with a coconut.

    It’s also not clear why having other options (e.g., adoption) would make it unjustifiable to kill a child. If the condition of being raped provides the justification for taking a child’s life, then that action remains justified so long as the condition is met. So I’m not sure why we should think that the option of giving up a 3 year old for adoption cancels out the justification of killing the child. It seems that all it does is give more options, while the killing option is still a justifiable one since the justifying condition still obtains. So the raped mother could still justifiably bash the 3 year old over the head with a rock, even if she was living next door to an adoption agency with plenty of vacancies.

    It looks like no matter which way Lou tries to turn, he will fall into some absurdity by having to admit that if a raped woman can kill her child inside the womb then she can kill her child outside the womb.

  • http://janitorialmusings.wordpress.com The Janitor

    It looks like Lou wants to fold his arms and have everyone do the heavy lifting for him. We have to convince him, as though we bear the burden of proof.

    But that’s a debating trick. Lou hasn’t even begun to make an argument for his own case as to why it should be a matter of conscience decision for the mother to kill her unborn child.

    Lou points out that there are some cases where killing is justified and then moves to suggest that killing the of the unborn baby of a rape victim is such a case. Yet Lou fails to give us an argument for that conclusion. He needs to show why killing is justified in some cases and then show us why pregnancy by rape is one of those cases.

    Lou says a raped mother can’t kill the child once it has left the womb because what justifies the killing of the child is “the woman’s burden and sacrifice in child bearing” (post 32).

    Lou plays coy here, as though he’s not sure what the force of the argument is but I think he knows better. Anyway, it looks like Lou is trying to tie the justification of killing the baby to the burden and sacrifice of carrying a child through pregnancy. But if this is the case, Lou has failed to dodge the reductio. All women experience the burden and sacrifice of carrying a child through pregnancy. Therefore, if it is the burden and sacrifice in child bearing that justifies killing a child, then Lou has to say all unborn children (and not just those of rape-victims) can be killed. But that would mean Lou is not pro-life, but pro-choice. So either Lou is being disingenuous or Lou is being inconsistent.

    Now Lou might try to get around this by shifting the justification from the burden and sacrifice of child bearing to the rape itself or to the burden and sacrifice of having to live with a child that is the product of rape. But in this case Lou faces the same reductio: these justifications would also apply equally to a 3 year old child. If Lou points out that a 3 year old could be put up for adoption and, therefore, it would be unjust to kill the 3 year old, then notice that an unborn child can also be given up for adoption once it has been born. If Lou tries to say that the necessary futurity in giving up a presently unborn child for adoption justifies killing the child now, then we can point out that in most (all?) cases there is a necessary futurity to giving a 3 year old up for adoption too! After all, say the raped mother is on a plane and decides she no longer wants the 3 year old sitting next to her. She will have to wait at least till the plane lands before giving the child up for adoption. So if the necessary futurity of adoption justifies killing the unborn then it also justifies killing the 3 year old on the plane.

    Lou’s other option would be to say that it is the joint condition of being raped AND the burden and sacrifice of bearing a child that justifies killing the child. So far he hasn’t given us any reason to think those join conditions would be sufficient, but lets set that aside for now. If he thinks they are, then suppose a mother is in a situation where she cannot give her child up for adoption. Perhaps she has been shipwrecked and is stranded on an life-supporting island. Or perhaps finds herself in a culture without persons willing to adopt. In such cases, having the child outside the womb doesn’t relieve her of burden bearing or sacrifice in regards to the child (and it obviously doesn’t change her status of being raped or the status of the child as being a product of rape). So, in such cases, Lou must say that the mother deserted on an island can kill the three year old… perhaps by bashing it on the head with a large stone or with a coconut.

    It’s also not clear why having other options (e.g., adoption) would make it unjustifiable to kill a child. If the condition of being raped provides the justification for taking a child’s life, then that action remains justified so long as the condition is met. So I’m not sure why we should think that the option of giving up a 3 year old for adoption cancels out the justification of killing the child. It seems that all it does is give more options, while the killing option is still a justifiable one since the justifying condition still obtains. So the raped mother could still justifiably bash the 3 year old over the head with a rock, even if she was living next door to an adoption agency with plenty of vacancies.

    It looks like no matter which way Lou tries to turn, he will fall into some absurdity by having to admit that if a raped woman can kill her child inside the womb then she can kill her child outside the womb.

  • M J Spaulding

    IMO what Akin’s said was hateful. And to all the men on this blog until you have been raped, and it does happen, you have no right to have an opinion. Rape is a violation of a person. No one has the right to force another person in such a personal way. To say that if you got pregnant means it wasn’t rape because you enjoyed it is ludicrous. I became pregnant two times without having an orgasm. The two are not connected. I’m appalled at the number of abortions and would like to see that number decreased, but picking on the raped victim is not the way to do it.

  • M J Spaulding

    IMO what Akin’s said was hateful. And to all the men on this blog until you have been raped, and it does happen, you have no right to have an opinion. Rape is a violation of a person. No one has the right to force another person in such a personal way. To say that if you got pregnant means it wasn’t rape because you enjoyed it is ludicrous. I became pregnant two times without having an orgasm. The two are not connected. I’m appalled at the number of abortions and would like to see that number decreased, but picking on the raped victim is not the way to do it.

  • The Janitor

    (1) How, specifically, are the comments hateful and (2) why think we need to be rapedbefore being able to have an opinion on these issues?

    On both points you seem to be responding out if emotion rather than reason. Of course, if you can rationally justify both of the point I’d stand corrected.

  • The Janitor

    (1) How, specifically, are the comments hateful and (2) why think we need to be rapedbefore being able to have an opinion on these issues?

    On both points you seem to be responding out if emotion rather than reason. Of course, if you can rationally justify both of the point I’d stand corrected.

  • Jon

    Frank, @ 53

    “you might preach a more effective sermon and actually persuade someone contemplating a murder, to change course, rather than take some heroic stand on a blog as a completely armchair commentator?”

    Well Hhllo, Pot! Kettle here.

    You basically are saying don’t try to convince a neighbor like poor Lou here who holds a very conflicted and inconguent argument on an important topic, who might thereby also take it as his duty to put what he preaches into practice by going out and supporting, encouraging and convincing a sister neighbor that, in her case, she would be very justified in ordering the murder of her innocent child. This Lou would do with the notion that he is acting truly compassionately for her on account of her trajedy.

    So, I am not being a busy-body by commenting on this post any more than you are. And if there were a post-count-meter, for that matter, I’m sure that your comment volume would far exceed that of mine on other matters that don’t concern your vocation.

    Cheers!

  • Jon

    Frank, @ 53

    “you might preach a more effective sermon and actually persuade someone contemplating a murder, to change course, rather than take some heroic stand on a blog as a completely armchair commentator?”

    Well Hhllo, Pot! Kettle here.

    You basically are saying don’t try to convince a neighbor like poor Lou here who holds a very conflicted and inconguent argument on an important topic, who might thereby also take it as his duty to put what he preaches into practice by going out and supporting, encouraging and convincing a sister neighbor that, in her case, she would be very justified in ordering the murder of her innocent child. This Lou would do with the notion that he is acting truly compassionately for her on account of her trajedy.

    So, I am not being a busy-body by commenting on this post any more than you are. And if there were a post-count-meter, for that matter, I’m sure that your comment volume would far exceed that of mine on other matters that don’t concern your vocation.

    Cheers!

  • George

    Why do people just automatically presume that a woman will be better off if she aborts the child resulting from rape? What if she actually ends up loving the child and it becomes a wonderful relationship?  The rapist means his actions for evil, but uothers can make good out of them.   Can you really see all ends?  Just maybe–maybe–the woman might end up thankful for the situation, where there is now a life instead of nothing, or worse, a dead baby.
    And certainly the child will be better off alive than dead (find someone who wishes they had been killed as a child) And for the sake of argument, let us grant to the pro-abortion side that the pregnancy is to the woman’s detriment.  Maybe the pregnancy sends her into a deep depression and later in life she attempts suicide or she otherwise greatly suffers.  Even then, you still wouldn’t be able to justify killing the baby. 

  • George

    Why do people just automatically presume that a woman will be better off if she aborts the child resulting from rape? What if she actually ends up loving the child and it becomes a wonderful relationship?  The rapist means his actions for evil, but uothers can make good out of them.   Can you really see all ends?  Just maybe–maybe–the woman might end up thankful for the situation, where there is now a life instead of nothing, or worse, a dead baby.
    And certainly the child will be better off alive than dead (find someone who wishes they had been killed as a child) And for the sake of argument, let us grant to the pro-abortion side that the pregnancy is to the woman’s detriment.  Maybe the pregnancy sends her into a deep depression and later in life she attempts suicide or she otherwise greatly suffers.  Even then, you still wouldn’t be able to justify killing the baby. 

  • M J Spaulding

    Janitor,
    The remarks were hateful for they seemed to indicate that if a woman got pregnant from a rape it wasn’t really rape which is nonsense. And the reason a man should not have an opinion on pregnancy from rape unless they have been raped is because it is an experience that words cannot describe, there is fear, humiliation and the aftermath with the police and the fear of pregnancy. And if you are married will your husband believe that you were raped. And the trial if it comes to that.

  • M J Spaulding

    Janitor,
    The remarks were hateful for they seemed to indicate that if a woman got pregnant from a rape it wasn’t really rape which is nonsense. And the reason a man should not have an opinion on pregnancy from rape unless they have been raped is because it is an experience that words cannot describe, there is fear, humiliation and the aftermath with the police and the fear of pregnancy. And if you are married will your husband believe that you were raped. And the trial if it comes to that.

  • Jon

    MJ Spaulding at 58:

    You said, “I’m appalled at the number of abortions and would like to see that number decreased.”

    I’ll honor your wishes and not voice my male opinion here.

    But I’d honestly like to know what number of abortions you would find an exceptable reduction, and how many abosrtions you think you would be happy to see remain.

  • Jon

    MJ Spaulding at 58:

    You said, “I’m appalled at the number of abortions and would like to see that number decreased.”

    I’ll honor your wishes and not voice my male opinion here.

    But I’d honestly like to know what number of abortions you would find an exceptable reduction, and how many abosrtions you think you would be happy to see remain.

  • M J Spaulding

    George,
    I don’t automatically assume that a woman will be better off to abort after being raped. But it should be up to the woman for only she knows what she went through. Few rapes have witnesses.

  • M J Spaulding

    George,
    I don’t automatically assume that a woman will be better off to abort after being raped. But it should be up to the woman for only she knows what she went through. Few rapes have witnesses.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    MJ (@62), yes, rape is horrible. If anyone is arguing otherwise on this blog, please feel free to correct them.

    That said, the “if you haven’t been in thus-and-so situation, then you’re not allowed to have an opinion” argument is merely an attempt to silence people. I seriously doubt you would apply that line of thinking beyond this particular instance (for instance, “If you’ve never been in a war, you’re not allowed to have opinions about wars”).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    MJ (@62), yes, rape is horrible. If anyone is arguing otherwise on this blog, please feel free to correct them.

    That said, the “if you haven’t been in thus-and-so situation, then you’re not allowed to have an opinion” argument is merely an attempt to silence people. I seriously doubt you would apply that line of thinking beyond this particular instance (for instance, “If you’ve never been in a war, you’re not allowed to have opinions about wars”).

  • The Janitor

    MJ,

    (1) assuming you’ve shown that the remark is nonsense, you still haven’t shown the remark is hateful. A nonsensical comment isn’t necessarily a hateful one.

    (2k the fact that words can’t describe an experience also doesn’t entail that we can have no opinion on the experience or an event related to the experience. At most, it may indicate that we can have no opinion on *what it is like* to be raped. But no one was asserting that anyway.

  • The Janitor

    MJ,

    (1) assuming you’ve shown that the remark is nonsense, you still haven’t shown the remark is hateful. A nonsensical comment isn’t necessarily a hateful one.

    (2k the fact that words can’t describe an experience also doesn’t entail that we can have no opinion on the experience or an event related to the experience. At most, it may indicate that we can have no opinion on *what it is like* to be raped. But no one was asserting that anyway.

  • Jon

    Janitor @ 57

    I think you might have missed a spot while sweeping up?

    To add to the absurdity, what if the mom of the toddler decides that even by giving up the child for adoption she can not bear to live with the knowledge of the child’s continuing very existence because that, by itself, is enough to keep the pain alive for her. More justification for killing the child, no?

    Poor Lou.

  • Jon

    Janitor @ 57

    I think you might have missed a spot while sweeping up?

    To add to the absurdity, what if the mom of the toddler decides that even by giving up the child for adoption she can not bear to live with the knowledge of the child’s continuing very existence because that, by itself, is enough to keep the pain alive for her. More justification for killing the child, no?

    Poor Lou.

  • M J Spaulding

    John @63
    A study in England from the beginning of legal abortions shows that 95.5% were abortions of convenience (those other than for the death or health of the mother or rape) I imagine the figures in the US are about the same. So I would like to see the abortions decrease by say 95%

  • M J Spaulding

    John @63
    A study in England from the beginning of legal abortions shows that 95.5% were abortions of convenience (those other than for the death or health of the mother or rape) I imagine the figures in the US are about the same. So I would like to see the abortions decrease by say 95%

  • M J Spaulding

    tODD @ 65
    I think there is a difference between rape of an individual (man or woman) than war which affects all persons in the battle area and beyond. But perhaps I’m wrong. Convince me.

  • M J Spaulding

    tODD @ 65
    I think there is a difference between rape of an individual (man or woman) than war which affects all persons in the battle area and beyond. But perhaps I’m wrong. Convince me.

  • M J Spaulding

    Janitor @ 66
    Even if you are not asserting what it is like to be raped; people are trying to decide how it effects the victim.

  • M J Spaulding

    Janitor @ 66
    Even if you are not asserting what it is like to be raped; people are trying to decide how it effects the victim.

  • http://janitorialmusings.wordpress.com The Janitor

    MJ,

    In what regards? But nothing you said entails that we cannot discuss how it effects the victim. As I said, your comments, at best, would only imply that we cannot know *what it is like* to be raped.

    But there is an important sense in which we cannot know *what it is like* (or the qualia) of many many things. For instance, you don’t know what it is like to be man or what it is like to be a janitor or what it is like to be president, etc. etc. There is an experiential factor in every case that you cannot “know” until you experience it. So should we not form opinions on *anything* outside our range of experiences?

    Further we often discuss and “decide how it effects the victim” for things we have not subjectively experienced. For instance, psychologists and psychiatrists often discuss and “decide” how psychopathy effects psychopaths and drugs affect drug addicts etc.

    Why should we think that if we have not experienced something, such as rape, we cannot discuss or know its effects? (Ignoring the ambiguity in this statement: who exactly is deciding how rape effects a rape victim and in what sense are they doing this?)

  • http://janitorialmusings.wordpress.com The Janitor

    MJ,

    In what regards? But nothing you said entails that we cannot discuss how it effects the victim. As I said, your comments, at best, would only imply that we cannot know *what it is like* to be raped.

    But there is an important sense in which we cannot know *what it is like* (or the qualia) of many many things. For instance, you don’t know what it is like to be man or what it is like to be a janitor or what it is like to be president, etc. etc. There is an experiential factor in every case that you cannot “know” until you experience it. So should we not form opinions on *anything* outside our range of experiences?

    Further we often discuss and “decide how it effects the victim” for things we have not subjectively experienced. For instance, psychologists and psychiatrists often discuss and “decide” how psychopathy effects psychopaths and drugs affect drug addicts etc.

    Why should we think that if we have not experienced something, such as rape, we cannot discuss or know its effects? (Ignoring the ambiguity in this statement: who exactly is deciding how rape effects a rape victim and in what sense are they doing this?)

  • Dan Kempin

    MJ, #62,

    “To say that if you got pregnant means it wasn’t rape because you enjoyed it is ludicrous.”

    I don’t think anyone here said that. We were talking about abortion.

  • Dan Kempin

    MJ, #62,

    “To say that if you got pregnant means it wasn’t rape because you enjoyed it is ludicrous.”

    I don’t think anyone here said that. We were talking about abortion.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    MJ (@69), as I suspected, you do not apply your own argument consistently. You just want the men here to shut up.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    MJ (@69), as I suspected, you do not apply your own argument consistently. You just want the men here to shut up.

  • Joe

    Lou — I will admit I have gotten a bit confused as to what you are actually asking. Originally, you seemed to be asking for Biblical support for the proposition that a rape victim should be forced to carry the child to term and deliver. Then later on you started talking about the overreaching of the federal gov’t.

    I am a pretty libertarian kind of guy when it comes to the government mandating morality so I generally agree with the idea that immorality alone is not enough to require governmental action. However, with abortion you run into the fundamental issue of when life begins. If you answer it as life begins at conception, then the fundamental libertarian premise behind a lack of governmental intervention (i.e. no one else is harmed by my behavior) falls away because a a person is actually killed.

    So I guess I would ask for clarity — Are you arguing:

    1. that the gov’t should not prevent abortion in the case of rape because doing so is beyond the scope of the legitimate use of governmental power; or

    2. that abortion, in the case of rape, is allowable per the Bible.

  • Joe

    Lou — I will admit I have gotten a bit confused as to what you are actually asking. Originally, you seemed to be asking for Biblical support for the proposition that a rape victim should be forced to carry the child to term and deliver. Then later on you started talking about the overreaching of the federal gov’t.

    I am a pretty libertarian kind of guy when it comes to the government mandating morality so I generally agree with the idea that immorality alone is not enough to require governmental action. However, with abortion you run into the fundamental issue of when life begins. If you answer it as life begins at conception, then the fundamental libertarian premise behind a lack of governmental intervention (i.e. no one else is harmed by my behavior) falls away because a a person is actually killed.

    So I guess I would ask for clarity — Are you arguing:

    1. that the gov’t should not prevent abortion in the case of rape because doing so is beyond the scope of the legitimate use of governmental power; or

    2. that abortion, in the case of rape, is allowable per the Bible.

  • CJS

    fws @ 56 — my apologies, I wasn’t replying to you. The original article quoted someone as saying pregnancies result from rape 0.0001% of the time… a fabricated figure (I presume) to make it seem as if it isn’t really much of an issue. Other posters here hinted at something similar. I just think that we can come up with better pro-life arguments then claiming that it doesn’t happen, or happens too rarely to matter.

  • CJS

    fws @ 56 — my apologies, I wasn’t replying to you. The original article quoted someone as saying pregnancies result from rape 0.0001% of the time… a fabricated figure (I presume) to make it seem as if it isn’t really much of an issue. Other posters here hinted at something similar. I just think that we can come up with better pro-life arguments then claiming that it doesn’t happen, or happens too rarely to matter.

  • fws

    thanks cs

    my impression is that the Republicans are playing those against abortion for chumps.

    they are not fleeing akins because he said something awkward.

    it is because he threatens to highlight that they are in favor of abortion in certain cases.

  • fws

    thanks cs

    my impression is that the Republicans are playing those against abortion for chumps.

    they are not fleeing akins because he said something awkward.

    it is because he threatens to highlight that they are in favor of abortion in certain cases.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    Someone who promotes more government funding of abortion (by voting for Democrats) is being hypocritical about “women’s rights”.

    More than half of the human beings aborted with government support are female.

    Likewise it’s a bit nauseating when someone claims to be sympathetic to non-whites while supporting aborting millions of non-white human beings.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    Someone who promotes more government funding of abortion (by voting for Democrats) is being hypocritical about “women’s rights”.

    More than half of the human beings aborted with government support are female.

    Likewise it’s a bit nauseating when someone claims to be sympathetic to non-whites while supporting aborting millions of non-white human beings.

  • Michael B.

    @Jon@George@Others

    “You are subordinating the rights of the unborn child–the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness–to that of the mother’s right to life liberty and happiness.”

    “And for the sake of argument, let us grant to the pro-abortion side that the pregnancy is to the woman’s detriment. Maybe the pregnancy sends her into a deep depression and later in life she attempts suicide or she otherwise greatly suffers. Even then, you still wouldn’t be able to justify killing the baby.”

    You all are certainly doubling-down on the whole pro-life argument. Namely, it doesn’t really matter what’s good for the woman — as long as the fetus lives. There are those in the pro-life movement who feel the Republicans have treated them like a mistress whom you’re embarrassed to be seen in public with, and I think there’s probably some good reasons for them to feel this way. After all, the anti-abortion platform has been on the Republican “official” agenda for over 30 years, and not only is abortion still legal, we’re looking at getting it subsidized by the government. You might get this or that restriction, but nothing that really stops abortion. Next time a Republican candidate is interviewed on abortion, watch how they squirm.

    Look, forcing a woman to gestate isn’t any worse than forcing impregnation on her. More mainstream Republicans are rightfully ashamed of you, even if they need your votes. The view has no place in the 21st century. Americans are getting closer to electing a female president, and many gender roles are breaking down. Unless there is some huge reactionary change in how women are viewed, you can expect abortion to continue to be safe and legal, until one day it becomes unnecessary through more advanced birth control. But until that happens, don’t expect getting rid of legalized abortion to be any easier in the next 30 years either.

  • Michael B.

    @Jon@George@Others

    “You are subordinating the rights of the unborn child–the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness–to that of the mother’s right to life liberty and happiness.”

    “And for the sake of argument, let us grant to the pro-abortion side that the pregnancy is to the woman’s detriment. Maybe the pregnancy sends her into a deep depression and later in life she attempts suicide or she otherwise greatly suffers. Even then, you still wouldn’t be able to justify killing the baby.”

    You all are certainly doubling-down on the whole pro-life argument. Namely, it doesn’t really matter what’s good for the woman — as long as the fetus lives. There are those in the pro-life movement who feel the Republicans have treated them like a mistress whom you’re embarrassed to be seen in public with, and I think there’s probably some good reasons for them to feel this way. After all, the anti-abortion platform has been on the Republican “official” agenda for over 30 years, and not only is abortion still legal, we’re looking at getting it subsidized by the government. You might get this or that restriction, but nothing that really stops abortion. Next time a Republican candidate is interviewed on abortion, watch how they squirm.

    Look, forcing a woman to gestate isn’t any worse than forcing impregnation on her. More mainstream Republicans are rightfully ashamed of you, even if they need your votes. The view has no place in the 21st century. Americans are getting closer to electing a female president, and many gender roles are breaking down. Unless there is some huge reactionary change in how women are viewed, you can expect abortion to continue to be safe and legal, until one day it becomes unnecessary through more advanced birth control. But until that happens, don’t expect getting rid of legalized abortion to be any easier in the next 30 years either.

  • http://janitorialmusings.wordpress.com The Janitor

    Michael B.

    Thanks for dumbing down the 21st century for us. Acting like a woman’s comfort is more important than the life of her baby. I’m not a Republican, but if you belonged to my political party I would be embarrassed of you…

    Look, forcing a baby to die in the womb isn’t any better than forcing a toddler to die outside the womb. Sorry to burst your progressive bubble, but the Pro-Choice side is losing numbers and the Pro-Life side is on the rise: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2012/05/23/50-of-americans-pro-life/ Welcome to the real 21st century… I guess.

  • http://janitorialmusings.wordpress.com The Janitor

    Michael B.

    Thanks for dumbing down the 21st century for us. Acting like a woman’s comfort is more important than the life of her baby. I’m not a Republican, but if you belonged to my political party I would be embarrassed of you…

    Look, forcing a baby to die in the womb isn’t any better than forcing a toddler to die outside the womb. Sorry to burst your progressive bubble, but the Pro-Choice side is losing numbers and the Pro-Life side is on the rise: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2012/05/23/50-of-americans-pro-life/ Welcome to the real 21st century… I guess.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Michael B. (@78), you keep posting on this blog, but I can’t see that you’ve learned anything in all that time. Are you just trolling? It kinda looks like it.

    Because I’d expect by now that you’d be able to predict what the replies would be to your arguments. That you don’t seem to be able to make the same predictions again speaks to your not learning what other people think here. Are you coming here to learn that? If not, why are you here? Because it certainly isn’t to influence people with witty rhetoric.

    Namely, it doesn’t really matter what’s good for the woman — as long as the fetus lives.

    You seem aghast at this (admittedly simplistic) summary statement. Which implies to me that you think the right to life and the right to a pleasant life (1) both exist and (2) are of equal priority.

    Would you be equally gobsmacked if I suggested to you that a mother’s right to live how she wants ends at the point that it endangers the life of her (oh, let’s say, five-year-old) child? Don’t you think you’d be something of a monster for suggesting that a mother should be able to do what she wants, even if it results in the death of her child?

    But here, once again, we run up your near-absolute inability to conceive of an unborn human as a human.

    Look, forcing a woman to gestate isn’t any worse than forcing impregnation on her.

    (Sigh. Do you really not see this reply coming?) Try this on: Look, forcing a woman to not murder her toddler isn’t any worse than forcing impregnation on her. Does that sound like a reasonable argument to you? Or does it sound like you might be forgetting someone? Someone besides the mother?

    Seriously, get out more.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Michael B. (@78), you keep posting on this blog, but I can’t see that you’ve learned anything in all that time. Are you just trolling? It kinda looks like it.

    Because I’d expect by now that you’d be able to predict what the replies would be to your arguments. That you don’t seem to be able to make the same predictions again speaks to your not learning what other people think here. Are you coming here to learn that? If not, why are you here? Because it certainly isn’t to influence people with witty rhetoric.

    Namely, it doesn’t really matter what’s good for the woman — as long as the fetus lives.

    You seem aghast at this (admittedly simplistic) summary statement. Which implies to me that you think the right to life and the right to a pleasant life (1) both exist and (2) are of equal priority.

    Would you be equally gobsmacked if I suggested to you that a mother’s right to live how she wants ends at the point that it endangers the life of her (oh, let’s say, five-year-old) child? Don’t you think you’d be something of a monster for suggesting that a mother should be able to do what she wants, even if it results in the death of her child?

    But here, once again, we run up your near-absolute inability to conceive of an unborn human as a human.

    Look, forcing a woman to gestate isn’t any worse than forcing impregnation on her.

    (Sigh. Do you really not see this reply coming?) Try this on: Look, forcing a woman to not murder her toddler isn’t any worse than forcing impregnation on her. Does that sound like a reasonable argument to you? Or does it sound like you might be forgetting someone? Someone besides the mother?

    Seriously, get out more.

  • David

    @Lou G. #47

    Hi Lou, it seems to me no one has attempted (i admittedly skimmed through the last ~30 comments) to address your analogy and explain whether or not it is a valid parallel.

    I don’t believe the sick patient attached to a healthy person and baby-mother is a valid analogy.

    My reason is twofold. Firstly, what is killing the patient is a disease, which is a natural occurrence, not a result of human intervention. In terms of baby in the womb, what kills the baby is a result of human intervention.

    Following your logic for allowing abortion for babies, it would mean “because it is not illegal for a person to walk by a person in need of critical care dying on the floor, therefore shooting to kill someone should not be made illegal.”

    Secondly is the argument of responsibility. A parent has the responsibility of care for the child. God has ordained this to be the case in the womb by designing the mother to be a life-source to the baby. This is how it was originally designed. This responsibility to care for the child continues until the child is able to self-sustain (legally, this has been made to be 18 where I am), so a parent has the responsibility to care for the child even after birth. On the other hand, the healthy person does not have the responsibility to care for sick person, hence him doing so would be considered an act of altruism, while mother caring for her baby would not be considered an act of altruism, it is responsibility.

  • David

    @Lou G. #47

    Hi Lou, it seems to me no one has attempted (i admittedly skimmed through the last ~30 comments) to address your analogy and explain whether or not it is a valid parallel.

    I don’t believe the sick patient attached to a healthy person and baby-mother is a valid analogy.

    My reason is twofold. Firstly, what is killing the patient is a disease, which is a natural occurrence, not a result of human intervention. In terms of baby in the womb, what kills the baby is a result of human intervention.

    Following your logic for allowing abortion for babies, it would mean “because it is not illegal for a person to walk by a person in need of critical care dying on the floor, therefore shooting to kill someone should not be made illegal.”

    Secondly is the argument of responsibility. A parent has the responsibility of care for the child. God has ordained this to be the case in the womb by designing the mother to be a life-source to the baby. This is how it was originally designed. This responsibility to care for the child continues until the child is able to self-sustain (legally, this has been made to be 18 where I am), so a parent has the responsibility to care for the child even after birth. On the other hand, the healthy person does not have the responsibility to care for sick person, hence him doing so would be considered an act of altruism, while mother caring for her baby would not be considered an act of altruism, it is responsibility.

  • Michael B.

    @The Janitor
    “the Pro-Choice side is losing numbers and the Pro-Life side is on the rise”

    Even if this source is true, I would suggest to you that the term “pro-life” is thrown around a lot by those who really aren’t.

    @Todd(80)
    “we run up your near-absolute inability to conceive of an unborn human as a human.”

    Not true (or at least, not for the entire term of pregnancy). Science shows us that a late term fetus isn’t much different than a newborn. No debate on this point. I’m not pro-choice because I believe a fetus isn’t a person. I’m pro-choice because the state can’t control women’s bodies once they become pregnant. Consider this: bad nutrition on a pregnant woman’s part can do incredible damage to her child for his entire life. For just one example, a lack of folic acid during pregnancy increases the risk of a major birth defect known as a neural tube defect.
    This could do a far greater damage, than say, an abusive father who gets drunk and breaks his kid’s arm. And yet we still believe it should be legal for a woman to eat poorly during pregnancy.

  • Michael B.

    @The Janitor
    “the Pro-Choice side is losing numbers and the Pro-Life side is on the rise”

    Even if this source is true, I would suggest to you that the term “pro-life” is thrown around a lot by those who really aren’t.

    @Todd(80)
    “we run up your near-absolute inability to conceive of an unborn human as a human.”

    Not true (or at least, not for the entire term of pregnancy). Science shows us that a late term fetus isn’t much different than a newborn. No debate on this point. I’m not pro-choice because I believe a fetus isn’t a person. I’m pro-choice because the state can’t control women’s bodies once they become pregnant. Consider this: bad nutrition on a pregnant woman’s part can do incredible damage to her child for his entire life. For just one example, a lack of folic acid during pregnancy increases the risk of a major birth defect known as a neural tube defect.
    This could do a far greater damage, than say, an abusive father who gets drunk and breaks his kid’s arm. And yet we still believe it should be legal for a woman to eat poorly during pregnancy.

  • Jon

    “we still believe it should be legal for a woman to eat poorly during pregnancy.”

    Really? How much money does the government spend on health education and assistance programs that stress pre-natal care to avoid just these sorts of preventable problems?

    I bet there is far more access and subsidy for prenatal vitamins available for public assistance than there is to birth control pills for Sandra Fluk.

    Pre-natal care is an area where the government is getting the message right and spending money on a good cause, instead of funding abortion providers.

  • Jon

    “we still believe it should be legal for a woman to eat poorly during pregnancy.”

    Really? How much money does the government spend on health education and assistance programs that stress pre-natal care to avoid just these sorts of preventable problems?

    I bet there is far more access and subsidy for prenatal vitamins available for public assistance than there is to birth control pills for Sandra Fluk.

    Pre-natal care is an area where the government is getting the message right and spending money on a good cause, instead of funding abortion providers.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B. (@82):

    Not true (or at least, not for the entire term of pregnancy).

    Gee, I wonder how many sentences it will take for you to prove yourself wrong on that. Let’s see…

    Science shows us that a late term fetus isn’t much different than a newborn.

    Gee, ya think? And when does science tell us that the unborn becomes a human?

    I’m not pro-choice because I believe a fetus isn’t a person. I’m pro-choice because the state can’t control women’s bodies once they become pregnant.

    Four sentences. I count four sentences (including the two quoted above) that it took for you to once again demonstrate your near-absolute inability to conceive of an unborn human as a human.

    This will almost certainly surprise you — by now, I’m used to the idea that you really are incapable of having seen this coming — but your argument completely fails to grasp the notion that, when a woman is pregnant, there are two human bodies she’s in control of. No, really!

    So you tell me, with your pat liberal patois, that “the state can’t control women’s bodies”, at the very same time that you also state (by logical construction) that the state must allow for the bodies of females to be violated to the utmost … as long as they’re unborn. Which is the most extreme form of “state control”.

    But you won’t get that, no matter how many times you try to tell me that you do. You don’t know what it is that’s being killed, but you’ve convinced yourself it’s not a human being. And that’s all you ever need to know. So feel free to say that, once again, in your reply to me. Thanks.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B. (@82):

    Not true (or at least, not for the entire term of pregnancy).

    Gee, I wonder how many sentences it will take for you to prove yourself wrong on that. Let’s see…

    Science shows us that a late term fetus isn’t much different than a newborn.

    Gee, ya think? And when does science tell us that the unborn becomes a human?

    I’m not pro-choice because I believe a fetus isn’t a person. I’m pro-choice because the state can’t control women’s bodies once they become pregnant.

    Four sentences. I count four sentences (including the two quoted above) that it took for you to once again demonstrate your near-absolute inability to conceive of an unborn human as a human.

    This will almost certainly surprise you — by now, I’m used to the idea that you really are incapable of having seen this coming — but your argument completely fails to grasp the notion that, when a woman is pregnant, there are two human bodies she’s in control of. No, really!

    So you tell me, with your pat liberal patois, that “the state can’t control women’s bodies”, at the very same time that you also state (by logical construction) that the state must allow for the bodies of females to be violated to the utmost … as long as they’re unborn. Which is the most extreme form of “state control”.

    But you won’t get that, no matter how many times you try to tell me that you do. You don’t know what it is that’s being killed, but you’ve convinced yourself it’s not a human being. And that’s all you ever need to know. So feel free to say that, once again, in your reply to me. Thanks.

  • SKPeterson

    Michael B @ 82 – The notion that the woman has the complete right to do with her body is fine, but are we not talking about two bodies here?

    Anyhow, I find this line of reasoning somewhat amusing; the right of a woman to her body and the disposition of its assets, i.e. womb space, is essentially a pure property rights argument which is rather funny coming from the mostly leftist crowd who shy away from claiming the legitimacy of any sort of right to property outside of the womb. Using your argumentation in the reductio, any property owner anywhere can kill anyone on their property for any reason. I mean who are these people called the state that want to control the property of individuals? Any sort of restriction on the killing of people on private property by property owners jeopardizes the rights of property owners to dispose of their property as they best see fit. There shouldn’t be any restrictions whatsoever on the right of property owners to kill anyone who is on their property at any time for any reason. And we should probably have the government pick up the tab for the weapons, the ammo, and the body bags, or their simply trying to control people’s property again. I mean the National Property Rights Action League won’t stand for it and certainly objects to this sort of unconscionable war on owners.

  • SKPeterson

    Michael B @ 82 – The notion that the woman has the complete right to do with her body is fine, but are we not talking about two bodies here?

    Anyhow, I find this line of reasoning somewhat amusing; the right of a woman to her body and the disposition of its assets, i.e. womb space, is essentially a pure property rights argument which is rather funny coming from the mostly leftist crowd who shy away from claiming the legitimacy of any sort of right to property outside of the womb. Using your argumentation in the reductio, any property owner anywhere can kill anyone on their property for any reason. I mean who are these people called the state that want to control the property of individuals? Any sort of restriction on the killing of people on private property by property owners jeopardizes the rights of property owners to dispose of their property as they best see fit. There shouldn’t be any restrictions whatsoever on the right of property owners to kill anyone who is on their property at any time for any reason. And we should probably have the government pick up the tab for the weapons, the ammo, and the body bags, or their simply trying to control people’s property again. I mean the National Property Rights Action League won’t stand for it and certainly objects to this sort of unconscionable war on owners.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Michael, the whole “women’s bodies” argument is rather fallible. For instance, women are encouraged not to smoke or drink during pregnancy. But if it is their bodies, why bother?

    The only argument a pro-abortionist can make is one about when life starts. Make that argument, or just fall further behind in the debate.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Michael, the whole “women’s bodies” argument is rather fallible. For instance, women are encouraged not to smoke or drink during pregnancy. But if it is their bodies, why bother?

    The only argument a pro-abortionist can make is one about when life starts. Make that argument, or just fall further behind in the debate.

  • SKPeterson

    KK – It is rather interesting to note that a mother who smokes, or drinks, or uses drugs and carries the child to term can be held criminally liable for child endangerment or abuse. But if she aborts it’s “no harm, no foul.”

  • SKPeterson

    KK – It is rather interesting to note that a mother who smokes, or drinks, or uses drugs and carries the child to term can be held criminally liable for child endangerment or abuse. But if she aborts it’s “no harm, no foul.”

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SKP, that’s why I’m making the argument, except I wasn’t sure about the criminal liability in the US.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SKP, that’s why I’m making the argument, except I wasn’t sure about the criminal liability in the US.

  • Michael B.

    @Klasie@86
    “For instance, women are encouraged not to smoke or drink during pregnancy. ”

    Yeah, but encouraged or forced? If a woman who is pregnant is caught drunk during pregnancy, should the state be allowed to criminally charge her? Certainly it’s illegal for her to use drugs, but it’s illegal for everyone else too. Here’s some more info on this topic: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/6/gr030603.html

    “The only argument a pro-abortionist can make is one about when life starts. Make that argument, or just fall further behind in the debate.”

    And yet nowhere does Roe vs. Wade say a fetus isn’t human life. What convinced the justices was the right to privacy. Read the argument. And I don’t think it’s falling further behind in the debate. It’s been the law for over 40 years and has no end in site. You think Romney will appoint judges who will overturn it?

    @ SKPeterson
    “It is rather interesting to note that a mother who smokes, or drinks, or uses drugs and carries the child to term can be held criminally liable for child endangerment or abuse.”

    Really? Well, SK, the USA is a big country, and has got a lot of drug users and a lot of people in prison. Name just one single woman in prison because she smoked or drank during her pregnancy.

  • Michael B.

    @Klasie@86
    “For instance, women are encouraged not to smoke or drink during pregnancy. ”

    Yeah, but encouraged or forced? If a woman who is pregnant is caught drunk during pregnancy, should the state be allowed to criminally charge her? Certainly it’s illegal for her to use drugs, but it’s illegal for everyone else too. Here’s some more info on this topic: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/6/gr030603.html

    “The only argument a pro-abortionist can make is one about when life starts. Make that argument, or just fall further behind in the debate.”

    And yet nowhere does Roe vs. Wade say a fetus isn’t human life. What convinced the justices was the right to privacy. Read the argument. And I don’t think it’s falling further behind in the debate. It’s been the law for over 40 years and has no end in site. You think Romney will appoint judges who will overturn it?

    @ SKPeterson
    “It is rather interesting to note that a mother who smokes, or drinks, or uses drugs and carries the child to term can be held criminally liable for child endangerment or abuse.”

    Really? Well, SK, the USA is a big country, and has got a lot of drug users and a lot of people in prison. Name just one single woman in prison because she smoked or drank during her pregnancy.

  • The Janitor

    And the “right to privacy” argument is one of the dumbest tools in the very small pro-choice toolbox. Everyone recognizes that rights to privacy end where another human’s well-being is involved.

  • The Janitor

    And the “right to privacy” argument is one of the dumbest tools in the very small pro-choice toolbox. Everyone recognizes that rights to privacy end where another human’s well-being is involved.

  • The Janitor

    By the way, Michael, your response to Klasie appealing to Roe v Wade only goes to demonstrate that you’re just behind in the abortion debate.

    Since Roe v. Wade, the historical reasoning that provided one of the two pillars of the basis for the courts decision has been shown to be fallacious in its historical analysis of abortion laws (cf. James Witherspoon). And of course the reasoning in regards to the 14th Am. has been challenged.

  • The Janitor

    By the way, Michael, your response to Klasie appealing to Roe v Wade only goes to demonstrate that you’re just behind in the abortion debate.

    Since Roe v. Wade, the historical reasoning that provided one of the two pillars of the basis for the courts decision has been shown to be fallacious in its historical analysis of abortion laws (cf. James Witherspoon). And of course the reasoning in regards to the 14th Am. has been challenged.

  • kerner

    I would like to interject a request for some consistent legal thinking here. In Wisconsin, we define Child Neglect so:

    “…neglecting, refusing or being unable for reasons other than poverty to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter so as to endanger seriously the physical health of the child,…”

    All states have some version of this legal requirement that parents care for their children, keep them alive, safe, and healthy. David already mentioned this @81.

    So it is ridiculous (sorry Lou) to say that the government has no right to tell people that they have to keep other people alive. Every parent in this country is being told in no uncertain terms that they had better keep their children alive, safe and healthy, or else this:

    “(1) Any person who is responsible for a child’s welfare who, through his or her actions or failure to take action, intentionally contributes to the neglect of the child is guilty of one of the following:

    (a) A Class A misdemeanor.

    (b) A Class H felony if bodily harm is a consequence.

    (c) A Class F felony if great bodily harm is a consequence.

    (d) A Class D felony if death is a consequence. ”

    or this:

    “Any person who intentionally fails for 120 or more consecutive days to provide spousal, grandchild or child support which the person knows or reasonably should know the person is legally obligated to provide is guilty of a Class I felony.”

    So, the only real question is why mothers of born children, can go to prison for failing to care for their children and keep them alive, but mothers of preborn children can kill their children at will. What is it about a pre-born child that a parent is allowed to kille her, while a born child is protected by law? But please don’t tell me that a newborn child can “live on her own”. That is one of the stupidest statements ever made. Someday, take a newborn child, and leave her outside by herself for a couple of days, and see whether she could really “live on her own”. (well…don’t REALLY try doing that. the child will die and you will go to prison.)

  • kerner

    I would like to interject a request for some consistent legal thinking here. In Wisconsin, we define Child Neglect so:

    “…neglecting, refusing or being unable for reasons other than poverty to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter so as to endanger seriously the physical health of the child,…”

    All states have some version of this legal requirement that parents care for their children, keep them alive, safe, and healthy. David already mentioned this @81.

    So it is ridiculous (sorry Lou) to say that the government has no right to tell people that they have to keep other people alive. Every parent in this country is being told in no uncertain terms that they had better keep their children alive, safe and healthy, or else this:

    “(1) Any person who is responsible for a child’s welfare who, through his or her actions or failure to take action, intentionally contributes to the neglect of the child is guilty of one of the following:

    (a) A Class A misdemeanor.

    (b) A Class H felony if bodily harm is a consequence.

    (c) A Class F felony if great bodily harm is a consequence.

    (d) A Class D felony if death is a consequence. ”

    or this:

    “Any person who intentionally fails for 120 or more consecutive days to provide spousal, grandchild or child support which the person knows or reasonably should know the person is legally obligated to provide is guilty of a Class I felony.”

    So, the only real question is why mothers of born children, can go to prison for failing to care for their children and keep them alive, but mothers of preborn children can kill their children at will. What is it about a pre-born child that a parent is allowed to kille her, while a born child is protected by law? But please don’t tell me that a newborn child can “live on her own”. That is one of the stupidest statements ever made. Someday, take a newborn child, and leave her outside by herself for a couple of days, and see whether she could really “live on her own”. (well…don’t REALLY try doing that. the child will die and you will go to prison.)

  • kerner

    One other thing. Some of you have already suggested that women are being told what they can do with their bodies in other ways. The FDA has an entire body of regulations controlling, or banning outright, thousands of foods, medications, cosmedics, medical procedures and medical devices that women cannot put in, on, or around their bodies. An many of the regulations such as cosmedics, or silicone implants (which were totally banned for 14 years) are specifically directed at women.

    It is ludicrous to suggest that a woman has some absolute right to control her own body, when there are literally thousands of choices and freedoms the government DOES NOT allow a woman to choose.

    Hell. In New York City, a woman can’t even ingest 32 oz. of soda pop without the government interfering

  • kerner

    One other thing. Some of you have already suggested that women are being told what they can do with their bodies in other ways. The FDA has an entire body of regulations controlling, or banning outright, thousands of foods, medications, cosmedics, medical procedures and medical devices that women cannot put in, on, or around their bodies. An many of the regulations such as cosmedics, or silicone implants (which were totally banned for 14 years) are specifically directed at women.

    It is ludicrous to suggest that a woman has some absolute right to control her own body, when there are literally thousands of choices and freedoms the government DOES NOT allow a woman to choose.

    Hell. In New York City, a woman can’t even ingest 32 oz. of soda pop without the government interfering

  • Michael B.

    @Kerner

    “. Some of you have already suggested that women are being told what they can do with their bodies in other ways. The FDA has an entire body of regulations controlling, or banning outright, thousands of foods, medications, cosmedics, medical procedures and medical devices that women cannot put in, on, or around their bodies. ”

    Right, but the woman is not being forced to do something with her body in these cases (namely, gestate). Let me help you out a bit and give you something more compelling that I heard from a pro-lifer: Start from the premise that it’s okay for the state to conscript men into the military. The state is certainly taking control over men’s bodies in this situation. It can be painful for them, and they possibly might even die. So why it is wrong for the state to force a woman to do something against her will with her body?

  • Michael B.

    @Kerner

    “. Some of you have already suggested that women are being told what they can do with their bodies in other ways. The FDA has an entire body of regulations controlling, or banning outright, thousands of foods, medications, cosmedics, medical procedures and medical devices that women cannot put in, on, or around their bodies. ”

    Right, but the woman is not being forced to do something with her body in these cases (namely, gestate). Let me help you out a bit and give you something more compelling that I heard from a pro-lifer: Start from the premise that it’s okay for the state to conscript men into the military. The state is certainly taking control over men’s bodies in this situation. It can be painful for them, and they possibly might even die. So why it is wrong for the state to force a woman to do something against her will with her body?

  • SKPeterson

    Michael B @ 89 _ I’m glad to see you’re appreciative of the geographic scope of the United States. You’ll note I said “can be”, I did not say “will be”. Often, it appears that the state will step in and remove the child under conditions of “neglect” and then decline to further prosecute the mother. Of course, this varies state by state. A good resource is found here:

    http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/drugexposed.pdf

    However, if the child dies, then the mother may be held criminally liable. Here is one example from Minnesota:

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.2665

    Item (1) could be used against the mother. Not that it has, not that it will, but it could.

  • SKPeterson

    Michael B @ 89 _ I’m glad to see you’re appreciative of the geographic scope of the United States. You’ll note I said “can be”, I did not say “will be”. Often, it appears that the state will step in and remove the child under conditions of “neglect” and then decline to further prosecute the mother. Of course, this varies state by state. A good resource is found here:

    http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/drugexposed.pdf

    However, if the child dies, then the mother may be held criminally liable. Here is one example from Minnesota:

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.2665

    Item (1) could be used against the mother. Not that it has, not that it will, but it could.

  • SKPeterson

    Michael @ 94 – The government didn’t force the woman to do something with her body: have sex. The government is now dealing with the consequence of that action, and the concomitant irresponsibility. In general, you’re being irresponsible forces you to pick up the tab and to make sure that restitution is paid to any bystanders/others who might have been harmed by your action. In this case, the unborn child is the aggrieved party.

  • SKPeterson

    Michael @ 94 – The government didn’t force the woman to do something with her body: have sex. The government is now dealing with the consequence of that action, and the concomitant irresponsibility. In general, you’re being irresponsible forces you to pick up the tab and to make sure that restitution is paid to any bystanders/others who might have been harmed by your action. In this case, the unborn child is the aggrieved party.

  • fws

    skp

    I think Michael is agreeing that abortion is wrong, but he is disagreeing with the argumentation used by many prolifers to try to make that case from logic and reason without resorting to the Bible to make that case.

    Try reading what he is saying that way SKP. Nuance.

  • fws

    skp

    I think Michael is agreeing that abortion is wrong, but he is disagreeing with the argumentation used by many prolifers to try to make that case from logic and reason without resorting to the Bible to make that case.

    Try reading what he is saying that way SKP. Nuance.

  • fws

    skp @ 96

    Excellent point. And the father? Maybe one of the things that is missing is to fold the man into all this talk about abortion. Maybe the father should be responsible to support that woman for the 9 months until she comes to term?

    Those who favor legalized abortion based on some right ignore the concept of duty. This touches on what Michael proposes as to broader concept about military subscription in a draft (by the way , many would argue Michael that the draft is unconstitutional and inimical to the idea of a republic).

    My argument, or idea rather SKP, is that the government has , only partially and illogically, moved the locus of life or death authority over the household to the head of household where it always was in world history up till the christian era. And so the woman is now given that life and death authority once again. And you would be perfectly right to point out that in that case, parents, ANY head of household should then be granted those same powers over unemancipated members of the household of life and death as well. Memo received and filed.

    I DO suggest that THIS is the larger conceptual framework that would be more workable SKP and we should argue within. It also, not coincidentally, deals , at the same time, and in a conceptually unified way, with the boundaries of parental vs governmental authority as to what kids are taught in a public school and corporal punishment etc etc etc.

    Consider this SKP. I know it is not a typical way to conceptualize and it does not immediately achieve a culture war victory, but I do urge you to consider that this is probably the only way to look at all this that is consonant with both history and reason and also the Bible.

  • fws

    skp @ 96

    Excellent point. And the father? Maybe one of the things that is missing is to fold the man into all this talk about abortion. Maybe the father should be responsible to support that woman for the 9 months until she comes to term?

    Those who favor legalized abortion based on some right ignore the concept of duty. This touches on what Michael proposes as to broader concept about military subscription in a draft (by the way , many would argue Michael that the draft is unconstitutional and inimical to the idea of a republic).

    My argument, or idea rather SKP, is that the government has , only partially and illogically, moved the locus of life or death authority over the household to the head of household where it always was in world history up till the christian era. And so the woman is now given that life and death authority once again. And you would be perfectly right to point out that in that case, parents, ANY head of household should then be granted those same powers over unemancipated members of the household of life and death as well. Memo received and filed.

    I DO suggest that THIS is the larger conceptual framework that would be more workable SKP and we should argue within. It also, not coincidentally, deals , at the same time, and in a conceptually unified way, with the boundaries of parental vs governmental authority as to what kids are taught in a public school and corporal punishment etc etc etc.

    Consider this SKP. I know it is not a typical way to conceptualize and it does not immediately achieve a culture war victory, but I do urge you to consider that this is probably the only way to look at all this that is consonant with both history and reason and also the Bible.

  • fws

    michael and skp

    Roe V Wade, I argue, effectively places life and death authority over unemancipated members of a household, again, with the head of household where it always was up until the christian era.

    It is also true that this was done illogically and inconsistently. That memo is received and filed appropriately.

    That same power, logically , should be given then to the head of household over life and death up until the child is emancipated. And society of course would not accept this. Ok. That is the start of the argument we should be making. It is a powerful one.

    This way of argumentation will not immediately win any cultural war battle but it has an important virtue: it deals with all the issues of parental authority vs the state in a single unified conceptual frame. it deals with the boundaries of what public schools should be allowed to teach for example. JW parents refusing blood transfusions for junior. child abuse and custody issues…..when should the state step in? I suggest that my frame would yield more thoughtful, and therefore more enduring solutions.

    And it takes the long view of world history and the Bible and is consistent with those things.

    Do I think that we should roll the clock back to the prechristian era? of course not. But we should identify this as THE thing that is in debate and argue in that framework and context, which will place history and why history changed in the post christian era all on our side…. Both michael and SKP are presenting what should be the main frame of the argument as an … oh by the way….

    And in this framework, it is not inconsistent for someone to be prosecuted for killing her fetus whereas she is not prosecuted for killing it. This is consistent with biblical times as well. So we dont need to try to argue that based on whether the fetus is a human or not. (yes it is by the way!) That would not be essential for a prolifer like you and me to making our larger case and argument. So this frame eliminates lots of side arguments that are based upon some scientifically arcane and intricate stuff that are not really needed to mount an argument as I am suggesting we should do.

  • fws

    michael and skp

    Roe V Wade, I argue, effectively places life and death authority over unemancipated members of a household, again, with the head of household where it always was up until the christian era.

    It is also true that this was done illogically and inconsistently. That memo is received and filed appropriately.

    That same power, logically , should be given then to the head of household over life and death up until the child is emancipated. And society of course would not accept this. Ok. That is the start of the argument we should be making. It is a powerful one.

    This way of argumentation will not immediately win any cultural war battle but it has an important virtue: it deals with all the issues of parental authority vs the state in a single unified conceptual frame. it deals with the boundaries of what public schools should be allowed to teach for example. JW parents refusing blood transfusions for junior. child abuse and custody issues…..when should the state step in? I suggest that my frame would yield more thoughtful, and therefore more enduring solutions.

    And it takes the long view of world history and the Bible and is consistent with those things.

    Do I think that we should roll the clock back to the prechristian era? of course not. But we should identify this as THE thing that is in debate and argue in that framework and context, which will place history and why history changed in the post christian era all on our side…. Both michael and SKP are presenting what should be the main frame of the argument as an … oh by the way….

    And in this framework, it is not inconsistent for someone to be prosecuted for killing her fetus whereas she is not prosecuted for killing it. This is consistent with biblical times as well. So we dont need to try to argue that based on whether the fetus is a human or not. (yes it is by the way!) That would not be essential for a prolifer like you and me to making our larger case and argument. So this frame eliminates lots of side arguments that are based upon some scientifically arcane and intricate stuff that are not really needed to mount an argument as I am suggesting we should do.

  • Hanni

    Haven’t updated reading all the comments, but saw that someone said no one “dared to keep statistics on rape (paraphrase) pregnancies, but the NIH (national institute of health) said about a week ago that 36,000 pregnancies a year were the result of rape.

  • Hanni

    Haven’t updated reading all the comments, but saw that someone said no one “dared to keep statistics on rape (paraphrase) pregnancies, but the NIH (national institute of health) said about a week ago that 36,000 pregnancies a year were the result of rape.

  • SKPeterson

    Okay, Frank. But what concept of pater familias should we work with? the ancient Greco-Roman system, or the modified version associated with the early Church, as expressed in Ephesians, for example?

    As to your notion about the father, that is an interesting observation. We ignore the father don’t we? Unless he is the one who is pressuring the woman to have an abortion, his interests are not considered.

  • SKPeterson

    Okay, Frank. But what concept of pater familias should we work with? the ancient Greco-Roman system, or the modified version associated with the early Church, as expressed in Ephesians, for example?

    As to your notion about the father, that is an interesting observation. We ignore the father don’t we? Unless he is the one who is pressuring the woman to have an abortion, his interests are not considered.

  • kerner

    Michael B @94:

    The military draft is an interesting example, but my other comment really gets more to the point of it. Parents, both male and female, are responsible for protecting the life, health and safety of their children. Each child must be fed, clothed, bathed, had her diapers changed, given shelter, given medical care (and dental care when she starts to develop teeth). To do this, a mother will almost certainly use her “body”, although I suppose it is technically possible to pay someone else to do absolutely everything for the child. In reality, almost every mother does at least some things herself, as do fathers. But what I see here is that the responsibility of parenthood to keep the child safe, healthy and above all, alive. The fact that, for at least the first 5 months or so (usually 9 months) this can only be done inside the mother’s body seems like a distinction without a difference to me.

    Given how seriously we take a parent’s responsibility to protect our children, and given how much the government interferes with out bodies in thousands of ways every day, why does the fact that the child is inside the body of one parent affect the great responsibility of parenthood at all?

    I grant you that Western Christian culture may be unusual in this respect. Many cultures have treated children much like the property of the parents, allowing parents to abandon, or evn kill, their children. We can do that as a culture if we want to. But as long as we are willing to put a mother in jail for, say, leaving a toddler alone in an automobile or in the house without supervision, or who doesn’t take her child to the Doctor when she is sick, or who doesn’t make her child go to school, or who doesn’t clean the house the child lives in, or who doesn’t feed her child, or who doesn’t change her child’s diapers,or who doesn’t dress her child appropriate for the weather, or who doesn’t bathe her child such that the child gets head lice…if we punish a mother who refuses to do all that, I don’t see why punishing a mother who refuses to gestate her child is any different. Not in any way that matters.

    And if a mother can’t be punished for refusing to gestate, I don’t see why we would punish her for refusing to do all of those other things.

  • kerner

    Michael B @94:

    The military draft is an interesting example, but my other comment really gets more to the point of it. Parents, both male and female, are responsible for protecting the life, health and safety of their children. Each child must be fed, clothed, bathed, had her diapers changed, given shelter, given medical care (and dental care when she starts to develop teeth). To do this, a mother will almost certainly use her “body”, although I suppose it is technically possible to pay someone else to do absolutely everything for the child. In reality, almost every mother does at least some things herself, as do fathers. But what I see here is that the responsibility of parenthood to keep the child safe, healthy and above all, alive. The fact that, for at least the first 5 months or so (usually 9 months) this can only be done inside the mother’s body seems like a distinction without a difference to me.

    Given how seriously we take a parent’s responsibility to protect our children, and given how much the government interferes with out bodies in thousands of ways every day, why does the fact that the child is inside the body of one parent affect the great responsibility of parenthood at all?

    I grant you that Western Christian culture may be unusual in this respect. Many cultures have treated children much like the property of the parents, allowing parents to abandon, or evn kill, their children. We can do that as a culture if we want to. But as long as we are willing to put a mother in jail for, say, leaving a toddler alone in an automobile or in the house without supervision, or who doesn’t take her child to the Doctor when she is sick, or who doesn’t make her child go to school, or who doesn’t clean the house the child lives in, or who doesn’t feed her child, or who doesn’t change her child’s diapers,or who doesn’t dress her child appropriate for the weather, or who doesn’t bathe her child such that the child gets head lice…if we punish a mother who refuses to do all that, I don’t see why punishing a mother who refuses to gestate her child is any different. Not in any way that matters.

    And if a mother can’t be punished for refusing to gestate, I don’t see why we would punish her for refusing to do all of those other things.

  • kerner

    fws @99

    I just noticed that you and I are essentially arguing for the same starting point logically. Nice to see that happening, amigo.

    And SKP makes an interesting point, i.e., that the head of the family, for purposes of abortion at least, is mother, not father.

    And this is worth mentioning. Like other forms of domestic violence, abortion is about power and control.

  • kerner

    fws @99

    I just noticed that you and I are essentially arguing for the same starting point logically. Nice to see that happening, amigo.

    And SKP makes an interesting point, i.e., that the head of the family, for purposes of abortion at least, is mother, not father.

    And this is worth mentioning. Like other forms of domestic violence, abortion is about power and control.

  • fws

    skp@ 101

    I would never want to return to the greco roman system.
    But I would suggest that whatever system we christians do work in, we can indeed do whatever it is we need to do in that system.

    I would suggest that christians build a name for themselves of offering to take on the cost and responsibility of helping the mother bear the child to term and offering help beyond that, and just forget the culture war and trying to win this thing in congress or the legislature or whereever. Opt out of the whole who has the power thing. Right now, the head of household has been legally (and with pathetic inconsistency) as the woman. where is the father (no one , included the courts, seem to really care).

    So we can quietly work to change all that as to the law. I suggest that the argument be about consistency as to where the locus of this power of life and death needs to be globally and logically when we argue in society. we should NOT appeal to the bible here. I think there are very powerfully compelling arguments that anyone would see the need for consistency. and the argument would not be a piecemeal one and persons could then see that who are not believers.

    then… we all band together , catholics, lutherans evangelicals mormons buddhists whoever wants… to offer mercy (the opposite of the consequences they deserve for what they have done and the decisions they have made…) for the sake of the child. we open our wallets and encourage the govt in some sane way that does not encourage baby machines to get on the public dole….. to give the mom every opportunity to get carry the baby to term of her own free will…… maybe the government SHOULD be involved to enforce having the father pay for as much as possible! and this would not be jail time. it maybe would be a govt work project if he cant get a j.o.b. I dont know really. lets be creative!

  • fws

    skp@ 101

    I would never want to return to the greco roman system.
    But I would suggest that whatever system we christians do work in, we can indeed do whatever it is we need to do in that system.

    I would suggest that christians build a name for themselves of offering to take on the cost and responsibility of helping the mother bear the child to term and offering help beyond that, and just forget the culture war and trying to win this thing in congress or the legislature or whereever. Opt out of the whole who has the power thing. Right now, the head of household has been legally (and with pathetic inconsistency) as the woman. where is the father (no one , included the courts, seem to really care).

    So we can quietly work to change all that as to the law. I suggest that the argument be about consistency as to where the locus of this power of life and death needs to be globally and logically when we argue in society. we should NOT appeal to the bible here. I think there are very powerfully compelling arguments that anyone would see the need for consistency. and the argument would not be a piecemeal one and persons could then see that who are not believers.

    then… we all band together , catholics, lutherans evangelicals mormons buddhists whoever wants… to offer mercy (the opposite of the consequences they deserve for what they have done and the decisions they have made…) for the sake of the child. we open our wallets and encourage the govt in some sane way that does not encourage baby machines to get on the public dole….. to give the mom every opportunity to get carry the baby to term of her own free will…… maybe the government SHOULD be involved to enforce having the father pay for as much as possible! and this would not be jail time. it maybe would be a govt work project if he cant get a j.o.b. I dont know really. lets be creative!

  • fws

    kerner @ 103

    “And this is worth mentioning. Like other forms of domestic violence, abortion is about power and control. ”

    when churches and believers reach for the power the government to over turn roe v wade or pass laws against abortion, I suggest we are really playing into all this . I am not saying it is all wrong. But I am saying that is not where our main effort should be. we need to be known, as christians, as the ones who are willing to take any unwanted babies and their pregnant moms under our wings and bear the sacrificial financial burden of all that I am suggesting.

  • fws

    kerner @ 103

    “And this is worth mentioning. Like other forms of domestic violence, abortion is about power and control. ”

    when churches and believers reach for the power the government to over turn roe v wade or pass laws against abortion, I suggest we are really playing into all this . I am not saying it is all wrong. But I am saying that is not where our main effort should be. we need to be known, as christians, as the ones who are willing to take any unwanted babies and their pregnant moms under our wings and bear the sacrificial financial burden of all that I am suggesting.

  • kerner

    fws:

    You are no doubt correct that the main emphasis of a Christian in all this is to love our neighbors. The problem is, and will remain, that in th case if an unwanted pregnancy, we have at least two neighbors (3, if did is involved in the situation). And these 2 neighbors have competing interests. Stressed and perhaps panicking mom has a strong interest in putting her life in order. Helpless child has a strong interest in being born and baptized. Balancing these interests is not easy, and I don’t think it ever will be.

    From a legal perspective, this really is very much like domestic violence. When should the government of the body politic interfere with that other government we call the family?

    What I was saying before is that abortion actually runs counter to the logic we usually use in our culture. Our culture does not allow family members to physically harm one another, neither intentionally nor even by neglect. And the laws against neglect are very positive side of the 5th Commandment rules. Where our children are concerned, parents are commanded by the government to ” help and befriend (our children) in every bodily need [in every need and danger of life and body].” Only when it comes to abortion do we depart from that principle. Nobody has yet showed me a good reason for that departure.

  • kerner

    fws:

    You are no doubt correct that the main emphasis of a Christian in all this is to love our neighbors. The problem is, and will remain, that in th case if an unwanted pregnancy, we have at least two neighbors (3, if did is involved in the situation). And these 2 neighbors have competing interests. Stressed and perhaps panicking mom has a strong interest in putting her life in order. Helpless child has a strong interest in being born and baptized. Balancing these interests is not easy, and I don’t think it ever will be.

    From a legal perspective, this really is very much like domestic violence. When should the government of the body politic interfere with that other government we call the family?

    What I was saying before is that abortion actually runs counter to the logic we usually use in our culture. Our culture does not allow family members to physically harm one another, neither intentionally nor even by neglect. And the laws against neglect are very positive side of the 5th Commandment rules. Where our children are concerned, parents are commanded by the government to ” help and befriend (our children) in every bodily need [in every need and danger of life and body].” Only when it comes to abortion do we depart from that principle. Nobody has yet showed me a good reason for that departure.

  • kerner

    Maybe I need to rephrase something. The interests of mother and child may SEEM to be a lot more in conflict with each other than they actually are. Our goal as Christians should be to remove as much of that conflict as we can, which will often mean supporting mothers in a difficult position such that the birth of her child will not seem to be the dissaster she may believe it to be.

  • kerner

    Maybe I need to rephrase something. The interests of mother and child may SEEM to be a lot more in conflict with each other than they actually are. Our goal as Christians should be to remove as much of that conflict as we can, which will often mean supporting mothers in a difficult position such that the birth of her child will not seem to be the dissaster she may believe it to be.

  • fws

    kerner @ 106

    I think you are homing in on the logical consistency that would be the best for us all to focus on in public arguments.

    we have reassigned the locus of life or death authority over the household to the head of household as it was in pre christian eras. and we have identified that head of household, not illogically as the mother in our current context.

    but we have done so with no consistency whatsoever. as you say we COULD do this, consistently, and give parents the total life and death authority over their household until emancipation. I cant imagine ANYone accepting this roll back to pagan times. Not even a pagan.

    If we argue from this, then we are arguing in a way that would also resolve nagging issues of the boundaries of social govt vs family govt authority as to child abuse, schooling etc etc. It would provide a consistent intellectual frame to discuss ALL such matters.

    would it be a magic bullet SKP? no . But I do think it would facilitate a discussion where believers would not have to argue AS believers and would provide a consistency that would be much better than us all becoming Thomists and arguing from some “natural law” theory that was also used to support the inquisition and counter reformation because its adherents, logically, deduced from THAT system , that “error has NO rights.”

    In a pluralistic society , post 30 years war, I would NOT want to return to such a world that the American Catholics seem rather successful up to now convincing even Lutherans to sign up for.

    Fact. There is NOTHING we can do that will eliminate sin or smooth out the crumpled paper bag that is world history. So it will remain for christians to take on the task of doing mercy. and doing mercy is not to wag a finger at those who make bad decisions and rub their noses in the consequences. It is to give those suffering fools the opposite of what they deserve, which is justice, which is to suffer the negative consequences of what they have done. And mercy is for US to bear the justice on ourselve and the suffering, that OTHERS righeously and rightly deserve to suffer.

    That is why christians remain in the world. that is what we are called to do.

  • fws

    kerner @ 106

    I think you are homing in on the logical consistency that would be the best for us all to focus on in public arguments.

    we have reassigned the locus of life or death authority over the household to the head of household as it was in pre christian eras. and we have identified that head of household, not illogically as the mother in our current context.

    but we have done so with no consistency whatsoever. as you say we COULD do this, consistently, and give parents the total life and death authority over their household until emancipation. I cant imagine ANYone accepting this roll back to pagan times. Not even a pagan.

    If we argue from this, then we are arguing in a way that would also resolve nagging issues of the boundaries of social govt vs family govt authority as to child abuse, schooling etc etc. It would provide a consistent intellectual frame to discuss ALL such matters.

    would it be a magic bullet SKP? no . But I do think it would facilitate a discussion where believers would not have to argue AS believers and would provide a consistency that would be much better than us all becoming Thomists and arguing from some “natural law” theory that was also used to support the inquisition and counter reformation because its adherents, logically, deduced from THAT system , that “error has NO rights.”

    In a pluralistic society , post 30 years war, I would NOT want to return to such a world that the American Catholics seem rather successful up to now convincing even Lutherans to sign up for.

    Fact. There is NOTHING we can do that will eliminate sin or smooth out the crumpled paper bag that is world history. So it will remain for christians to take on the task of doing mercy. and doing mercy is not to wag a finger at those who make bad decisions and rub their noses in the consequences. It is to give those suffering fools the opposite of what they deserve, which is justice, which is to suffer the negative consequences of what they have done. And mercy is for US to bear the justice on ourselve and the suffering, that OTHERS righeously and rightly deserve to suffer.

    That is why christians remain in the world. that is what we are called to do.

  • fws

    kerner @ 107

    +1

    the religious view morality as being alone the self virtues. Christians reach beyond that and say that morality that its own reward (smugly so) and is divorced from the aim of having the positive impulses you just identified, is not really morality at all.

    Of course I am NOT saying that the aristotelian self virtues are not wonderful. They are. but they must always be means to the end of preparing us to be of service to others actively.

  • fws

    kerner @ 107

    +1

    the religious view morality as being alone the self virtues. Christians reach beyond that and say that morality that its own reward (smugly so) and is divorced from the aim of having the positive impulses you just identified, is not really morality at all.

    Of course I am NOT saying that the aristotelian self virtues are not wonderful. They are. but they must always be means to the end of preparing us to be of service to others actively.

  • Michael B.

    @kerner@102
    “The military draft is an interesting example, but my other comment really gets more to the point of it. Parents, both male and female, are responsible for protecting the life, health and safety of their children…I don’t see why punishing a mother who refuses to gestate her child is any different. ”

    When it comes the military draft, I’d have to give this more thought. If a man can be forced to fight, I can’t see a reason why a woman can’t be forced to gestate. But do you really want the government to have that much power? That it can control people’s own bodies? Sure, the government makes people pay child support, and the mom has certain standards to obey or else her child is taken away. But that’s hardly having something hooked up to your body or entering the military.

  • Michael B.

    @kerner@102
    “The military draft is an interesting example, but my other comment really gets more to the point of it. Parents, both male and female, are responsible for protecting the life, health and safety of their children…I don’t see why punishing a mother who refuses to gestate her child is any different. ”

    When it comes the military draft, I’d have to give this more thought. If a man can be forced to fight, I can’t see a reason why a woman can’t be forced to gestate. But do you really want the government to have that much power? That it can control people’s own bodies? Sure, the government makes people pay child support, and the mom has certain standards to obey or else her child is taken away. But that’s hardly having something hooked up to your body or entering the military.

  • kerner

    Michal B:

    Didn’t you read my earlier posts? It isn’t meet certain standards or lose your baby. It’s meet certain standards or go to jail.

    Secondly, I am not a woman, but I have been with my wife through 5 pregancies, and from a greater distance, seen my daughters gestate 5 times so far, and I have also seen how difficult it is to take care of kids after they are born. From my observations, caring for the baby after she is born is every bit as difficult, probably MORE difficult, than gestating, at least in a normal pregnancy. (OK the last couple months can be pretty fatiguing, but the over all experience doesn’t seem so bad)

    I have never heard women argue that they want an abortion because they hate being pregnant, per se. What they are worried about,is what people may think of them for being pregnant, or the responsibilities of parenthood that will come after the baby is born. You know, the way their lives will change in the long run because of this. Some of them are afraid of the trauma of child birth. But who says, “I’m going to get an abortion because I hate gestating.”? If a lot of women say that, I haven’t heard it very much. But I am just a man on the outside looking in. If there are women out there who believe that hatred of gestation is a common motivation for abortion, please correct me. As a man, I certainly don’t know everything about this.

    One thing I have experienced that absolutely floored me is that some people can be more critical of a woman who gives up her baby for adoption than they are of a woman who has an abortion. Maybe some women who don’t feel they can or should or that they want to raise a child opt for abortion because they don’t want to experience the shame of having a baby and then giving her to someone else to raise. Abortion is out of sight, out of mind. When you carry the baby to term and then give her up, everyone you know knows what you did.

  • kerner

    Michal B:

    Didn’t you read my earlier posts? It isn’t meet certain standards or lose your baby. It’s meet certain standards or go to jail.

    Secondly, I am not a woman, but I have been with my wife through 5 pregancies, and from a greater distance, seen my daughters gestate 5 times so far, and I have also seen how difficult it is to take care of kids after they are born. From my observations, caring for the baby after she is born is every bit as difficult, probably MORE difficult, than gestating, at least in a normal pregnancy. (OK the last couple months can be pretty fatiguing, but the over all experience doesn’t seem so bad)

    I have never heard women argue that they want an abortion because they hate being pregnant, per se. What they are worried about,is what people may think of them for being pregnant, or the responsibilities of parenthood that will come after the baby is born. You know, the way their lives will change in the long run because of this. Some of them are afraid of the trauma of child birth. But who says, “I’m going to get an abortion because I hate gestating.”? If a lot of women say that, I haven’t heard it very much. But I am just a man on the outside looking in. If there are women out there who believe that hatred of gestation is a common motivation for abortion, please correct me. As a man, I certainly don’t know everything about this.

    One thing I have experienced that absolutely floored me is that some people can be more critical of a woman who gives up her baby for adoption than they are of a woman who has an abortion. Maybe some women who don’t feel they can or should or that they want to raise a child opt for abortion because they don’t want to experience the shame of having a baby and then giving her to someone else to raise. Abortion is out of sight, out of mind. When you carry the baby to term and then give her up, everyone you know knows what you did.

  • Michael B.

    @Kerner

    ” From my observations, caring for the baby after she is born is every bit as difficult, probably MORE difficult, than gestating, at least in a normal pregnancy. (OK the last couple months can be pretty fatiguing, but the over all experience doesn’t seem so bad)”

    Perhaps. But if the pregnancy is risky, then it’s a completely different story. But for argument lets just say gestation is easy. Even if this were true, when the state forces gestation, that completely changes the scenario. Other parts of the human reproduction process are very enjoyable under normal circumstances. But everything changes when something is forced.

  • Michael B.

    @Kerner

    ” From my observations, caring for the baby after she is born is every bit as difficult, probably MORE difficult, than gestating, at least in a normal pregnancy. (OK the last couple months can be pretty fatiguing, but the over all experience doesn’t seem so bad)”

    Perhaps. But if the pregnancy is risky, then it’s a completely different story. But for argument lets just say gestation is easy. Even if this were true, when the state forces gestation, that completely changes the scenario. Other parts of the human reproduction process are very enjoyable under normal circumstances. But everything changes when something is forced.

  • fws

    Michael B

    I was trying to think of just ONE part of the male participation in reproduction that would be similarly odious were it enforced. Sperm donors? not.

    That part would be to track down the father and make him work and pay child support or at least pay for the cost of gestation, delivery and adoption.
    Interesting how those two roles, male, vs female, line up.
    And what do we do about all that?

    We focus on the female and her “rights”. Maybe that is not so wrong. Maybe she also has the full right to demand that the male bear most of the brunt of what happens after he has his fun planting the sperm. and maybe that is what is wrong. Christians need to focus on the right/duty of the other side, and we instead focus on criticizing and condemning the woman , as has been done since the dawn of time (cf the adulterous woman… where is the guy in that story eh?)

  • fws

    Michael B

    I was trying to think of just ONE part of the male participation in reproduction that would be similarly odious were it enforced. Sperm donors? not.

    That part would be to track down the father and make him work and pay child support or at least pay for the cost of gestation, delivery and adoption.
    Interesting how those two roles, male, vs female, line up.
    And what do we do about all that?

    We focus on the female and her “rights”. Maybe that is not so wrong. Maybe she also has the full right to demand that the male bear most of the brunt of what happens after he has his fun planting the sperm. and maybe that is what is wrong. Christians need to focus on the right/duty of the other side, and we instead focus on criticizing and condemning the woman , as has been done since the dawn of time (cf the adulterous woman… where is the guy in that story eh?)

  • Michael B.

    “That part would be to track down the father and make him work and pay child support or at least pay for the cost of gestation, delivery and adoption.”

    Child support is a glorified form of taxation — and taxation is a typical activity of any government that has ever existed. By the way, if you have a job, you’re paying for the cost of that pregnancy as well.

  • Michael B.

    “That part would be to track down the father and make him work and pay child support or at least pay for the cost of gestation, delivery and adoption.”

    Child support is a glorified form of taxation — and taxation is a typical activity of any government that has ever existed. By the way, if you have a job, you’re paying for the cost of that pregnancy as well.

  • fws

    Michael B

    Well now. We COULD parse things in the coldly legalistic way you just did. Or, you could take a step back and consider the humanistic reasons behind what I said.

    To have someone bear the consequences of what they have done, especially if that too is mixed with mercy, can sometimes be the only and best way to help someone.
    Alcoholics Anonymous tells us that the best way to help an alcoholic is to NOT clean up the ruinous consequences he creates. it is rather to let the Divine Law teach him by allowing him those consequences. And do this without accusal or withholding love.
    This is much easier said than done!

  • fws

    Michael B

    Well now. We COULD parse things in the coldly legalistic way you just did. Or, you could take a step back and consider the humanistic reasons behind what I said.

    To have someone bear the consequences of what they have done, especially if that too is mixed with mercy, can sometimes be the only and best way to help someone.
    Alcoholics Anonymous tells us that the best way to help an alcoholic is to NOT clean up the ruinous consequences he creates. it is rather to let the Divine Law teach him by allowing him those consequences. And do this without accusal or withholding love.
    This is much easier said than done!

  • http://delagar@blogspot.com delagar

    “From my observations, caring for the baby after she is born is every bit as difficult, probably MORE difficult, than gestating, at least in a normal pregnancy. (OK the last couple months can be pretty fatiguing, but the over all experience doesn’t seem so bad)”

    As someone who has actually gone through the experience, I can tell you this is not the case.

    I am sure there are women on the planet who enjoy being pregnant and have no problems with it. I hear Michelle Duggar claims to love it. But in my experience, and in the experience of most of the women I know, pregnancy is hard.

    Let me preface this with the understanding that I wanted my child. My husband and I both did, badly. However:

    I had “morning sickness” through most of my first four months. I was tired through the entire pregnancy — so tired I used to lock my office door and lie down on the floor to sleep. I had migraines, but I couldn’t use the medication I needed to prevent them, since it would abort the fetus, so I just had to endure them; and they usually lasted 3-5 days, and would have me vomiting and in bed the entire time.

    That’s just some of what I went through. We’ll skip the excruciating back pain, how my feet swelled so badly I couldn’t wear my shoes, the way (toward the end) I couldn’t sleep at night because the growing child was crowding up against my lungs so enormously I couldn’t get a full breath.

    Then there is the birth itself. I know up above I was mocked* for suggesting that pregnancy and childbirth is risky. But in fact it is. It is much more risky than abortion. I nearly died giving birth to our daughter. Does this mean I didn’t want her? No. As I said above, I wanted her, and my husband wanted her, badly. I never considered aborting her, and never would have.

    But the fact is, pregnancy is hard, it is risky, and both pregnancy and childbirth do permanent damage to a woman’s body. (I won’t go into details here, since it’s probably TMI, but certain things never get better.) Women who want to have children, that’s one thing.

    But forced pregnancy? Forcing someone to go through what is, in fact, a dangerous, painful, exhausting experience that will damage her body, in order to bear a child against her will? Because *your* religion or *your* moral code says it ought to be done?

    I just don’t think so.

    *And really, can I just add here, to the gentleman who made that comment? Class act, sir. You think it’s amusing that women die giving birth? You should have been in the birthing room when my doctor was talking to my husband about the choices we might have to make in the next few hours. I’m sure it would have cracked you up.

  • http://delagar@blogspot.com delagar

    “From my observations, caring for the baby after she is born is every bit as difficult, probably MORE difficult, than gestating, at least in a normal pregnancy. (OK the last couple months can be pretty fatiguing, but the over all experience doesn’t seem so bad)”

    As someone who has actually gone through the experience, I can tell you this is not the case.

    I am sure there are women on the planet who enjoy being pregnant and have no problems with it. I hear Michelle Duggar claims to love it. But in my experience, and in the experience of most of the women I know, pregnancy is hard.

    Let me preface this with the understanding that I wanted my child. My husband and I both did, badly. However:

    I had “morning sickness” through most of my first four months. I was tired through the entire pregnancy — so tired I used to lock my office door and lie down on the floor to sleep. I had migraines, but I couldn’t use the medication I needed to prevent them, since it would abort the fetus, so I just had to endure them; and they usually lasted 3-5 days, and would have me vomiting and in bed the entire time.

    That’s just some of what I went through. We’ll skip the excruciating back pain, how my feet swelled so badly I couldn’t wear my shoes, the way (toward the end) I couldn’t sleep at night because the growing child was crowding up against my lungs so enormously I couldn’t get a full breath.

    Then there is the birth itself. I know up above I was mocked* for suggesting that pregnancy and childbirth is risky. But in fact it is. It is much more risky than abortion. I nearly died giving birth to our daughter. Does this mean I didn’t want her? No. As I said above, I wanted her, and my husband wanted her, badly. I never considered aborting her, and never would have.

    But the fact is, pregnancy is hard, it is risky, and both pregnancy and childbirth do permanent damage to a woman’s body. (I won’t go into details here, since it’s probably TMI, but certain things never get better.) Women who want to have children, that’s one thing.

    But forced pregnancy? Forcing someone to go through what is, in fact, a dangerous, painful, exhausting experience that will damage her body, in order to bear a child against her will? Because *your* religion or *your* moral code says it ought to be done?

    I just don’t think so.

    *And really, can I just add here, to the gentleman who made that comment? Class act, sir. You think it’s amusing that women die giving birth? You should have been in the birthing room when my doctor was talking to my husband about the choices we might have to make in the next few hours. I’m sure it would have cracked you up.

  • kerner

    delagar:

    As I said, I am only a man on the outside looking in. But I didn’t say pregnancy was easy. I said it was no more difficult (and perhaps easyer) than raising a child for 2 decades, which is not setting the bar very high, because raising a child can also kill you or drive you crazy.

    And I know that childbirth itself is dangerous. That, actually, is an exception that I believe is arguable. I believe in the right of self defense in virtually every other context. Self defense becomes appropriate when the life of one person is clearly threatened by another. When the pregnancy presents such a clear danger to the mother’s very life, I don’t see how we can deprive her of that same right.

    A lot of pro-lifers will say that this position puts me on a slippery slope, and maybe it does. But conflicting rights have to be sorted out in legal matters all the time, and that process is always slippery.

    But we haven’t been talking about that up to now. We’ve been talking about the duty of a parent to care for a child, the burdens that causes under normal circumstances, and one extreme circumstance (sexual assault) that would cause the mother to be really hostile to her child. Some among us say that extreme circumstance is enough to overcome the child’s right to live and the parental duty to protect the child’s life. I can’t quite get to that point because, in every other context, taking someone else’s life is a measure so extreme that about the only legal reason to take that extreme step is to protect a different life.

    But I can understand the agrument that it ought to be an option to kill a person who clearly and seriously threatens your own life. I have a much greater problem with killing someone who gives you nausea, backaches and swollen ankles, and who you never have to see again after that because you can give that person to someone else to raise and never look back.

    What strengthens the argument of allowing a sexual assault victim to abort is that the SA victim did not choose to have the sex that got her pregnant. This imposes upon her a “parental responsiblity” that she did nothing to incur the way most people do. And this makes it a much closer question. But we are still facing the “choice” of killing a baby, who didn’t do anything to deserve that either.

  • kerner

    delagar:

    As I said, I am only a man on the outside looking in. But I didn’t say pregnancy was easy. I said it was no more difficult (and perhaps easyer) than raising a child for 2 decades, which is not setting the bar very high, because raising a child can also kill you or drive you crazy.

    And I know that childbirth itself is dangerous. That, actually, is an exception that I believe is arguable. I believe in the right of self defense in virtually every other context. Self defense becomes appropriate when the life of one person is clearly threatened by another. When the pregnancy presents such a clear danger to the mother’s very life, I don’t see how we can deprive her of that same right.

    A lot of pro-lifers will say that this position puts me on a slippery slope, and maybe it does. But conflicting rights have to be sorted out in legal matters all the time, and that process is always slippery.

    But we haven’t been talking about that up to now. We’ve been talking about the duty of a parent to care for a child, the burdens that causes under normal circumstances, and one extreme circumstance (sexual assault) that would cause the mother to be really hostile to her child. Some among us say that extreme circumstance is enough to overcome the child’s right to live and the parental duty to protect the child’s life. I can’t quite get to that point because, in every other context, taking someone else’s life is a measure so extreme that about the only legal reason to take that extreme step is to protect a different life.

    But I can understand the agrument that it ought to be an option to kill a person who clearly and seriously threatens your own life. I have a much greater problem with killing someone who gives you nausea, backaches and swollen ankles, and who you never have to see again after that because you can give that person to someone else to raise and never look back.

    What strengthens the argument of allowing a sexual assault victim to abort is that the SA victim did not choose to have the sex that got her pregnant. This imposes upon her a “parental responsiblity” that she did nothing to incur the way most people do. And this makes it a much closer question. But we are still facing the “choice” of killing a baby, who didn’t do anything to deserve that either.

  • kerner

    Again, I realize that I don’t understand what it is like to be a woman, and childbirth is not the only thing about being a woman that I don’t understand. It is a unique characteristic of this era that we try to pretend that men and women are the same in when that is so obviously not so.

    For what it is worth, women don’t understand what it is like to be a man very well either.

  • kerner

    Again, I realize that I don’t understand what it is like to be a woman, and childbirth is not the only thing about being a woman that I don’t understand. It is a unique characteristic of this era that we try to pretend that men and women are the same in when that is so obviously not so.

    For what it is worth, women don’t understand what it is like to be a man very well either.

  • Elizabeth

    Children are a gift from God, no matter who they come from. They are innocent of wrong doing. When God gifts a woman a child, that child comes with specific purposes, specific giftings that could possibly change the world for the better, so when their voice is silenced because of what a man does, any effect that the world would have experienced, any chance of that baby becoming a person who can right this world for the betterment of it and its citizens is lost. God doesn’t EVER mistakenly make creations. They are His handiwork formed with intent. They are not an accident.

  • Elizabeth

    Children are a gift from God, no matter who they come from. They are innocent of wrong doing. When God gifts a woman a child, that child comes with specific purposes, specific giftings that could possibly change the world for the better, so when their voice is silenced because of what a man does, any effect that the world would have experienced, any chance of that baby becoming a person who can right this world for the betterment of it and its citizens is lost. God doesn’t EVER mistakenly make creations. They are His handiwork formed with intent. They are not an accident.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X