A question on Abortion

[Job 33:6]

Well, if a child is unconscious, he or she would not feel you stabbing him or her and killing the child. But what the child can feel does not decide if it is ok to kill the child.

That's true. I think that all killing, is inherently immoral. There is something destructive about killing that isn't good.

But I think it's a question of if the killing of say...a tree is more or less morally wrong than the killing of a dog or a cow.

If we are faced with a situation, a terrible situation where a woman may die in pregnancy, or as an alternative, and embro, which is non sentient, is disposed of (which is killing), could we ever make a case that the sentient woman's life, the woman who experiences pain and emotions, is her life more valuable than the non sentient embryo?

And I think that it is.

And some are countering by saying that all human life is equal and significant, but my thought is that I agree that all life is of value, but if we can sit down and have a steak dinner without even the slightest second thought of remorse for destruction of a sentient animal, how can we be so...against the idea of killing a non sentient embryo, in a circumstance in which a sentient womans life is at stake?

Is it a bad situation to abort the embryo? Absolutely. But in light of the destruction that we regularly carry out on farm animals, it seems contradictory to fight so hard against killing of an embryo in a case where the mother may die (loss of arguably more valuable life).

 

[chad kincham]

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

According to that amoral scenario, it’s okay to kill anyone as long as you first drug them so they are unconscious with no cognitive function, and can’t feel any pain.

Got it.

 

[Albion]

I believe that Jesus was Jesus as soon as He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb.

That seems to be Jehovah's view of the matter.

See Jeremiah 1:5

 

[Job 33:6]

I like your answer, but we're wrong to even bother with a proposition that says killing a human child is more justifiable than killing an adult mosquito.

It's interesting here that you mention a mosquito. It demonstrates that you recognize some kind of gradation of value of life. Not just humans number 1, everything else number 2, but rather you are aware of something like insects being on the bottom maybe fish being a little bit higher and then your dog and your cat being a little bit lower than people and then people at the top.

You recognize some kind of a gradation in the value of life based on something. Something other than scripture.

 

[chad kincham]

If we are faced with a situation, a terrible situation where a woman may die in pregnancy, or as an alternative, and embro, which is non sentient, is disposed of (which is killing), could we ever make a case that the sentient woman's life, the woman who experiences pain and emotions, is her life more valuable than the non sentient embryo?

This argument is fallacious, since all pro life groups, people, and lawmakers ALWAYS allow exemptions for the life of the mother.

And yet, even though 99% of the 64 million babies slaughtered in the womb, were not done to save the mothers life, but because the pregnancy is inconvenient - the pro death proponents always bring up the life of the mother scenario.

 

[Job 33:6]

According to that amoral scenario, it’s okay to kill anyone as long as you first drug them so they are unconscious with no cognitive function, and can’t feel any pain.

Got it.

Well, now you're just adding in factors of intent to murder, which isn't part of the original hypothetical.

What is naturally non sentient, like a tree, I would say is less morally bad to damage, than a sentient being like a fish.

And manipulation by drugging isn't part of the equation.

 

[Job 33:6]

This argument is fallacious, since all pro life groups, people, and lawmakers ALWAYS allow exemptions for the life of the mother.

And yet, even though 99% of the 64 million babies slaughtered in the womb, were not done to save the mothers life, but because the pregnancy is inconvenient - the pro death proponents always bring up the life of the mother scenario.

That's what I learned today. It was my impression that a lot of pro-life advocates wanted complete bans of abortion. But I am appreciative to have learned that pro-life proponents do have exception for extreme cases such as rape or endangerment of the mother's life. I did not originally know that. Which is why I made the topic.

 

[chad kincham]

Alright, last question for pro life people:

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

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

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

And, why is this?

You’re right.

So let’s make it legal to kill anyone for any reason, as long as you knock them out first with drugs or a bat, so they aren’t conscious or have cognitive function, and can’t feel any pain.

Let’s not discriminate between born humans, and unborn humans.

 

[com7fy8]

To say that the mindset of rapists is purely environment, I think is just as ludicrous as saying that it is completely genetic.

If a person is born in sin, he or she is born wrong.

This is a spiritual problem, not a genetic physical one.

And God's word says there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" > in Ephesians 2:2. This evil spirit acts in and through the sin nature of a person. And this can spread from parents to children so they, too, are born in sin with this selfish Satanic spirit effecting emotions, desires, and behavior.

So, I can see how a rapist could spiritually effect his unborn child, so then the child could become able to rape someone.

But the problem, then, isn't the physical genes.

And even if a child spiritually has been effected by his rapist father, the child can be changed by God to love.

If it were to be ok to kill the child of a rapist, then it would be ok to kill the rapist so he does not continue with his evil. But you do not hear a word, perhaps, by some number of pro-choice people calling for rapist fathers to be destroyed; yet, they are fine with killing an unborn who has not hurt anyone.

 

[chad kincham]

Well, now you're just adding in factors of intent to murder, which isn't part of the original hypothetical.

What is naturally non sentient, like a tree, I would say is less morally bad to damage, than a sentient being like a fish.

And manipulation by drugging isn't part of the equation.

Sure it is.

You’re making the criteria for morally and legally taking a human life, them not being sentient, and not feeling any pain when they are killed.

So why discriminate?

You can easily render born humans unconscious and unable to feel pain.

The unborn human is just as human as a born person is - and has the same inalienable God given right to life, as an already born human does.

 

[com7fy8]

But I am appreciative to have learned that pro-life proponents do have exception for extreme cases such as rape or endangerment of the mother's life. I did not originally know that.

There are people in a certain group who can make a lot of noise so they seem like they represent all members of that group. And ones can claim they represent God.

About if a mother's life were endangered > if Jesus was the unborn, in Mary, and Mary's life were endangered . . . and if the only way to save Jesus was to directly kill Mary . . . would God have you kill Mary? Would God have you kill Jesus, in order to save Mary?

There is such a thing as two wrong choices, and not doing either one. This evil world can rig choices which are all wrong, and I do not have to choose any of them.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure it is.

You’re making the criteria for morally and legally taking a human life, them not being sentient, and not feeling any pain when they are killed.

So why discriminate?

You can easily render born humans unconscious and unable to feel pain.

The unborn human is just as human as a born person is - and has the same inalienable God given right to life, as an already born human does.

In your hypothetical, you're adding drugs to the equation. You're not taking the original life form as it is, but rather manipulating it prior to determining value of its life. You're basically killing the life form, prior to killing it.

I think in most cases like especially when it comes to farm animals, or plants, people tend to subconsciously gauge life based on its level of sentience. We tend to give more value to the lives of a pet dog or cat then we do fish or plants. usually we think of insects as kind of the lowest of animals as far as the value of their life, We step on ants we kill spiders etc. So we subconsciously create this gradation of life value based on sentience of the being.

But abortion is interesting because in some cases we have literally an embryo that is of a lower conscious level than dogs or cats or cows or pigs or fish, But we promote the value of that embryo above all of the above. Even to the extent that we might argue that the embryos life is even of more value than the mother. No matter whether the father was a criminal or not. No matter if there was consent or not. Even if the mother may die in pregnancy.

Just an observation.

 

[Job 33:6]

There are people in a certain group who can make a lot of noise so they seem like they represent all members of that group. And ones can claim they represent God.

About if a mother's life were endangered > if Jesus was the unborn, in Mary, and Mary's life were endangered . . . and if the only way to save Jesus was to directly kill Mary . . . would God have you kill Mary? Would God have you kill Jesus, in order to save Mary?

There is such a thing as two wrong choices, and not doing either one. This evil world can rig choices which are all wrong, and I do not have to choose any of them.

I agree that, it's kind of a bad deal number 1 or bad deal number 2 situation. But yeah thanks for the input.

 

[Job 33:6]

On the above notes, thanks everyone for the discussion. I'll probably let the topic go, I think I've satisfied my thirst in time for this election. I appreciate everyone's input.

 

[thelord's_pearl]

I've seen me having a personality trait/s like my father so I do support the idea of genes. comf7fy8 talked about the spirit working in the sons of the disobedient, yes when they're saved, the Holy Spirit works in you and condemns sin, and also the person who commits rape will be condemned by God anyway since God hates sin and will bring judgment on it

 

[com7fy8]

I agree that, it's kind of a bad deal number 1 or bad deal number 2 situation. But yeah thanks for the input.

since all pro life groups, people, and lawmakers ALWAYS allow exemptions for the life of the mother.

But there are people who believe any and all abortions are murder.

It was my impression that a lot of pro-life advocates wanted complete bans of abortion. But I am appreciative to have learned that pro-life proponents do have exception for extreme cases such as rape or endangerment of the mother's life.

Not all are the same. There are ones who believe all abortions are inexcusable in the sight of God. So, such ones would not excuse killing an unborn in order to save the mother's life.

And even if certain ones would be ok with saving a mother's life, still there are ones who would not excuse killing the child resulting from rape.

In fact, killing the child of a rapist can be a form of abortion for convenience, if the mother fears the inconvenience of the rapist having visiting rights to see his child while he is in prison. But, like I say . . . ones are fine with killing the child, but not killing the rapist!

 

[Tony B]

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

I try to think of what advice Jesus would give my wife and me in such circumstances, and go with that.

Rape is a particularly heinous crime, punishable by death in the law of Moses, and generally it used to be the same for our Western societies' judicial systems. Now it seems all too frequent that the perpetrators get a wrap over the knuckles, free board and lodging for a while, and often reoffend after they are released. Something terribly wrong with our logic here.

We men need to put our emotions in the same shoes as that of a raped woman...and try and understand the emotional trauma and deep revulsion they most likely feel at the thought of carrying a foetus of an evil man within them, and of the constant reminder of the evil act as the foetus develops.

It would have to be a very unusual situation for me not to approve of the death penalty for a rapist.

 

[GraceBro]

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

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

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

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

Murder is not acceptable simply because the victim may not feel pain. Is rape okay if you drug the victim so they don't know it happened? When is it okay to kill an unborn child? The circumstances of conception or the consequences of birth are not a justification for murder. Even if being a rapist is "genetic," and I do not believe it is, people still make choices. Nobody's choices are hardwired. Is there a pedophile gene? Is there an adultery gene? All this talk is just to remove the personal responsibility of the individual. An unborn child is a life and it has a right to live. Put the rapist to death. You don't penalize the victim twice.

 

[thelord's_pearl]

Is it really true that rape is punishable by death in the law of Moses?
it seems like there is a certain nationality that has more cases of incest/molestation or aggression.

 

[Tony B]

Is it really true that rape is punishable by death in the law of Moses?

Yes, with some qualification.

If the rape occurred to a betrothed women and she cried out for help/fought against it/was not compliant, then the man was to be put to death.

That penalty would equally apply if the rape occurred to a married woman, or a single woman.

If however a single woman was able to resist but didn't, and she and the man are found laying together, then the man was obliged to pay a certain amount of money to the parents of the woman, and he was to take the woman as his wife and she was to remain as that for the rest of his life.