Can a rape victim determine the value of their unborn child?

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
27,247
45,335
67
✟2,916,149.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I AM THE 1 PERCENT USED TO JUSTIFY
100 PERCENT OF ABORTIONS

ryan-mfl-2018-adoptedandloved.jpg

Ryan Scott Bomberger

My biological mother was raped, yet she rejected the violence of abortion. I was adopted and loved instead. I’m not the “residue of the rapist”, as Senator Vivian Davis Figures described those like me who were conceived in rape. I couldn’t control the circumstances of my conception. Could you, Senator?

My birthmom needed an active Healer in her life, not an activist huckster.

As an adoptee who grew up wanted and loved in a multiracial family of fifteen and as a happily married adoptive father with four children, I’m here to say there’s another side of this painful issue.


You can read the entire article here:
I am the 1 percent used to justify 100 percent of abortions


Ryan Scott Bomberger
Ryan Bomberger is the Chief Creative Officer and co-founder of The Radiance Foundation. He is happily married to his best friend, Bethany, who is the Executive Director of Radiance. They are adoptive parents with four awesome munchkins. Ryan is a factivist, creative agitator, and international public speaker who loves illuminating that every human life has purpose.
.
 
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I had a supervisor once who believed in the bodily autonomy concept and arbitrary personhood. Throughout her first pregnancy she's very much did not believe her son was human with rights until viable.

After her second pregnancy she said to me that she was having a problem with the fact that with her second son, she knew he was human from the very beginning. It was because she already had a child and knew that she had no right to remove his humanity at any point.

So she was dealing with the fact that with one son she treated him like non-human and not a person. That she had robbed one child of his dignity until point of her own invention, that was reinforced by the pro-choice agenda that was preached to her.

It broke her heart.

She ended up having a multiracial family by adopting children in need.

But every once in a while it still came up in her mind that out of all the children there was one who she treated as less than human at some point. One who she arbitrarily removed humanity from.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Tutorman
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Here's the problem, science does keep pushing back viability. At a point in time we will be able to transplant even early in gestation to women or artificial wombs.

Artificial wombs are actually already being researched.

So by the bodily autonomy criteria the definition of a person and their rights changes over time. That can't possibly be.

Who is human with rights cannot be determined by the level of technology a culture has.

What pushes back viability is the devlopment and improvement of machines in neonatal care units and all the additional training NICU staff get to keep preemies alive. This is not truly being viable because babies still are not breathing, digesting milk, etc. on their own. Viability must be defined the way it used to be: a baby's ability to live outside the mother without any manmade assistance. Until thyen, a baby cannot be said to have body autonomy, even if the mother goes into labor too early.

My sister, who is married to an ob/gyn, started having contractions during the second trimester. She took a medication to stop it and have a full-term baby.
 
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
This is not truly being viable because babies still are not breathing, digesting milk, etc. on their own. Viability must be defined the way it used to be: a baby's ability to live outside the mother wi9thout any manmade assistance. Until thyen, a baby cannot be said to have body autonomy, even if the mother goes into labor too early.

So you said bodily autonomy is from God. And it has been argued that bodily autonomy is a human right.

So you're directly saying here I wasn't human. I didn't have the right to bodily autonomy because I needed assistance when I was born.

So if somebody needs a machine in an induced medical coma, they're no longer human until we bring them out of it.

Somebody who cannot survive without assistance loses the right to bodily autonomy?

If I don't have bodily autonomy even born early...my mother could just remove me from machines morally?

My sister was in an oxygen tent far longer than I was, so I had autonomy before she did?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Tutorman
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I never said you were not human. You just did not did not have rights yet because your mother had to be the one who decided whether to put you and your sister in neonatal care or let two babies die. It was her choice to let the labor continue or, if she was like my sister, stop it medically.
 
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I never said you were not human. You just did not did not have rights yet because your mother had to be the one who decided whether to put you and your sister in neonatal care or let two babies die.

So she had the right to decide whether to put us in neonatal care or let us die when we were premature? Because she had the right of bodily autonomy and we didn't?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Tutorman
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
So she had the right to decide whether to put us in neonatal care or let us die when we were premature? Because she had bodily autonomy and we didn't?
Just like the government today has the ability, if not the right, legally to kill us as adults, or to have us killed, by medicine, by war, by poisoning, by pollution, by plague, by police, by military, etc etc etc .....
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
So she had the right to decide whether to put us in neonatal care or let us die when we were premature? Because she had bodily autonomy and we didn't?

Correct. She had the body atuonomy to decide what to do because her umbilical cords and placentas and the amniotic sacs belonged to her. They were not separate from her body.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Correct. She had the body atuonomy to decide what to do because her umbilical cords and placentas and the amniotic sacs belonged to her. They were not separate from her body.
NOT ANY RIGHT to choose murder, when/if in the body of CHRIST, the government of Yahuweh, the EKKLESIA born again of God not of the world.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Correct. She had the body atuonomy to decide what to do because her umbilical cords and placentas and the amniotic sacs belonged to her. They were not separate from her body.

So even though we were born premature you're saying that? You're promoting infanticide you do get that right?

But she had the choice to put us in neonatal care when we could survive or to let us die.

That was somehow a right?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,172
830
NoVa
✟160,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Of course this has been a hot topic since the latest laws coming out of Georgia and Alabama. However, [many] people have argued that it is wrong to "force a rape victim to carry a baby to term" and that it is up to the victim to decide if the baby should die. All the pictures below are children of rape victims. Well, if the mother can determine the value of the life of her child and she decides that these children are worthless and don't deserve to live, are we supposed to do the same? Why or why not? Would you look these children in the eye and tell them they are worthless because their mother believes so? If not, why would their value be any different before they were born?
First, appeals to emotion are always fallacious. So are post hoc arguments. For anyone holding to the inherent value of human life what that life may or may not become is irrelevant.

As Christians we believe the image of God is born by all people (Jms. 3:9). Even those who hold to the belief some are purposed for destruction from inception must concede to the premise God's purpose is denied by destroying the fetus before it is destroyed at judgment :scratch:.

I would also suggest these questions ignore a matter often ignored: the redemptive prospects of the future. Some Godly man who is not a rapist may marry that mother and her child and set a Christlike example that will impact that wife/mother, the child of another's sin, that and that child's offspring, and perhaps an entire bloodline, much as Boaz was pivotal in Judah's bloodline (bringing a pagan convert into the bloodline of Christ).
 
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I think it's good for people to see where strict adherence to pro-choice logic leads. That medically viable babies still do not have what is considered by the pro-choice people the right to bodily autonomy.

Which makes them lacking human rights, even though they could survive.

This isn't the blob of cells argument.

This is viability based on the pagan definition of does the female or sick child survive on the rock if we don't help them? If not they weren't viable.

See the book about how Christianity changed all this... When Children Became People.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
So even though we were born premature you're saying that? You're promoting infanticide you do get that right?

But she had the choice to put us in neonatal care when we could survive or to let us die.

That was somehow a right?

I am NOT promoting infantocide. I am only saying your mother had the right to choose what to do with a pair of babies who could not live on their own because of her body autonomy given by God. She chose to deliver you and your sister early, and that worked out great. All I am saying is she could have chosen the wrong route and, fortunately, did not.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Viability must be defined the way it used to be: a baby's ability to live outside the mother without any manmade assistance.
I'm pretty sure that feeding a newborn requires a lot of manmade assistance. Do you have any idea (You don't as you're not a mother) how difficult it is for some women to even breastfeed? Newborn babies, even the most healthy, require A LOT of manmade assistance to survive.

I never said you were not human. You just did not did not have rights yet because your mother had to be the one who decided whether to put you and your sister in neonatal care or let two babies die.
I'm confused, are you're suggesting that after they were born that the mother could have shrugged and said, "let them die." ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
  • Winner
Reactions: Tutorman
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I am NOT promoting infantocide. I am only saying your mother had the right to choose what to do with a pair of babies who could not live on their own because of her body autonomy given by God. She chose to deliver you and your sister early, and that worked out great. All I am saying is she could have chosen the wrong route and, fortunately, did not.

She didn't choose to deliver us early we were coming. Drugs to stop labor are not available in every situation.

You also need to prove that bodily autonomy is somehow given by God to the woman but not the child. And if your argument rests on the same ground as the violinist argument that can be refuted.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Tutorman
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
And you said:

Viability must be defined the way it used to be: a baby's ability to live outside the mother wi9thout any manmade assistance

So until what would have been their 37th week of gestation does a child have autonomy?

If so it's only physical location that determines that. Because an infant is not viable without assistance for a long time.

So having a God-given right is determined by your geographic location inside or outside the womb combined with what week of gestation you would have been in or are in... Depending where you are. But it doesn't apply to the child up to the first few years of their life who needs assistance to survive... They get that God-given right. That's all pretty arbitrary and contradictory.

And if it's a God-given right it's given to all humans so someone isn't human without it. Or they are somehow less of one.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
I think it's good for people to see where strict adherence to pro-choice logic leads. That medically viable babies still do not have what is considered by the pro-choice people the right to bodily autonomy.

Which makes them lacking human rights, even though they could survive.

This isn't the blob of cells argument.

This is viability based on the pagan definition of does the female or sick child survive on the rock if we don't help them? If not they weren't viable.

See the book about how Christianity changed all this... When Children Became People.
When emotions rule, when emotions and feelings over-ride Scripture,
I think that's called idolatry or witchcraft, and is done very often by and in the world.

Learning the truth is often devastatingly painful to a person, but is necessary for life! (better to be devastated today, instead of later on judgment day! as Scripture says clearly)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I'm pretty sure that feeding a newborn requires a lot of manmade assistance. Do you have any idea (You don't as you're not a mother) how difficult it is for some women to even breastfeed? Newborn babies, even the most healthy, require A LOT of manmade assistance to survive.

I'm confused, are you're suggesting that after they were born that the mother could have shrugged and said, "let them die." ?

By manmade I mean machines, tubes, etc. in neonatal care units. Not the natural breastfeeding.

Let's all drop it. I am under attack for not supporting life after birth.
 
Upvote 0