The husband of our vice president is telling men to "step up" to defend the right to kill a child. Real men will see through this evil charade.

[2PhiloVoid]

So you are saying that we should murder babies because of rape? That doesn’t seem right.

I didn't say that. But I also don't think that women who have been raped should be forced to continue a possible pregnancy that amplifies the trauma she's already sustained in a sexual attack. I don't believe that rapes are somehow "God's Ordained Will." Surely, we as caring, compassionate Christians wouldn't seek to force any woman to face further trauma beyond what she's already sustained.

What's more, I don't believe adoption is a "reasonable ameliorative option" for a rape victim either. No rape victim should be forced to bear a pregnancy if they don't have to or who doesn't have the mental or emotional capacity to do so.

Also, I don't think any woman should be forced to carry a child to term via the presence of a draconian type law. Rather, if you want to create and enforce a draconian law that may prevent illegitimate parents, then begin by outlawing those cultural, philosophical---and typically capitalist---structures that cause the psychological impetus within people (especially men) to support and approve of a sexually immoral society. That's where it starts. As it is, Christians in the U.S. these days seem to want to have laws banning abortion which is the last thing you do, not the first thing you do.

 

[tall73]

She didn't agree to anything, since the unborn didn't exist at the time she was having sex. You can't have an agreement with "someone" who doesn't exist.

Consent to sex doesn't imply a consent to pregnancy. They're separate decisions.

Yep, exactly, even though parents made a decision when they decided to have sex. It's almost as if that decision doesn't automatically sign them up for other obligations that outside observers want to force onto them.

When you engage in an act that can lead to life, you do have responsibility. This applies even if you did not desire pregnancy, or used conraception, because there are known failure rates of all methods.

And we see this reflected in current law. A man who has sex with a woman who becomes pregnant is required to pay child support, and often expenses for pregnancy, whether they wanted a child or not, because the man made the choice to engage in an activity that could lead to life and responsibility.

He has ongoing responsibilities, often requiring the use of his body in labor, etc. to provide.

And the availability of abortion also means some men try to avoid this by pressuring for an abortion the woman doesn't want.

 

[NxNW]

So you are saying that we should murder babies because of rape? That doesn’t seem right.

That sounds like you're abandoning the "consequences" argument.

 

[NxNW]

It has a separate DNA form its mother. It's a person in the earliest form of development.

I don't accept anything less.

If it's a person before it splits into identical twins, was it actually two persons? Or just the one?

 

[stevil]

And by the way, I was only referring to consensual sex.

It's very strange to me, that you put a disclaimer on, only to shortly later say, it all applies even if a person is raped.

 

[tall73]

You are missing the point that leaving it up to doctors to decide the appropriate procedure doesn’t mean that healthy viable babies are being aborted.

It is certainly the vast minority. But it does happen:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/abortion-late-in-pregnancy-eprise/index.html

​

The ultrasound showed that she was at 30 weeks, further along than she anticipated.​

​

“There’s a place where they can pay you for college, and you can stay there to have the baby,” Katherine remembered a woman at the clinic told her.​

​

Maybe that was an option, she thought at first, but it wasn’t what she wanted. She’d bring a baby into the world only if it had its parents, both of them.​

A third-trimester abortion provider in New Mexico, who didn’t want to be named and couldn’t speak directly to Katherine’s case, offered this to explain why someone like her would be accepted for the procedure.​

​

“My patients of all gestational ages share this commonality: Whatever their story, they have come to the decision that an abortion is absolutely necessary to preserve their mental or physical health and/or to save their unborn child from a life of suffering,” the physician wrote in an email.​

​

Katherine was in a nervous haze the day she walked in the clinic doors. She didn’t recall the injection that stopped the fetal heartbeat. She also couldn’t name the medication she was given, but she definitely remembered the cramping that seized her body later at the hotel. Only after the fact did she realize that she’d gone into labor.​

​

“I was in pain you can’t imagine. I wanted to die,” she said. “With that pain, I really was regretting having an abortion.”​

​

But that regret was short-lived. Two days later, when she “gave birth to a dead fetus” at the clinic, she said, she was overcome with tears of relief.​

 

[Hammster]

I am just saying there is no way to resolve this situation. Only the return of Christ will fix all this.

I have more confidence in the King.

 

[Hammster]

No rape victim should be forced to bear a pregnancy if they don't have to or who doesn't have the mental or emotional capacity to do so.

Turn outside of killing the baby, how do you resolve this?

 

[Hammster]

That sounds like you're abandoning the "consequences" argument.

No. Different situation.

 

[RileyG]

It's very strange to me, that you put a disclaimer on, only to shortly later say, it all applies even if a person is raped.

Well, I didn’t know if I was allowed to respond to the comment per the forum rules.

 

[RileyG]

If it's a person before it splits into identical twins, was it actually two persons? Or just the one?

Two.

 

[RileyG]

When you engage in an act that can lead to life, you do have responsibility. This applies even if you did not desire pregnancy, or used conraception, because there are known failure rates of all methods.

And we see this reflected in current law. A man who has sex with a woman who becomes pregnant is required to pay child support, and often expenses for pregnancy, whether they wanted a child or not, because the man made the choice to engage in an activity that could lead to life and responsibility.

He has ongoing responsibilities, often requiring the use of his body in labor, etc. to provide.

And the availability of abortion also means some men try to avoid this by pressuring for an abortion the woman doesn't want.

if women can have abortions, why can’t the fathers refuse to pay child support, give up his parental rights, and abandon the child?

Seems rather hypocritical to me.

 

[stevil]

Well, I didn’t know if I was allowed to respond to the comment per the forum rules.

The rules are in your favour. Anti gay, prolife, pro Christian.

 

[stevil]

if women can have abortions, why can’t the fathers refuse to pay child support, give up his parental rights, and abandon the child?

Seems rather hypocritical to me.

Women get to control their own bodies, including removing things from their bodies.
Men don't get a say in that.

But if a child is born, that child's life requires resources. The man and the woman are legally culpable to ensure the child has sufficient resources until it becomes an adult.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Turn outside of killing the baby, how do you resolve this?

Being that I'm not a Theonomist/Dominionist, Postmillennialist, I don't think it's my job as a Christian to resolve political disarray surrounding the abortion issue, especially in the case of pregnancy resulting from rape.

 

[tall73]

Women get to control their own bodies, including removing things from their bodies.
Men don't get a say in that.

But if a child is born, that child's life requires resources. The man and the woman are legally culpable to ensure the child has sufficient resources until it becomes an adult.

Which then means you do in fact recognize that responsibility can stem from the sexual act. You just want to limit it to avoid the implications.

If the man has responsibility from having sex, so does the woman. Both of them should care for the life that was brought about, not kill it, or neglect it. The man shouldn't pressure to have it aborted to get off the hook. The woman shouldn't abort it.

 

[stevil]

Which then means you do in fact recognize that responsibility can stem from the sexual act. You just want to limit it to avoid the implications.

Yeah, once the baby is born and becomes a citizen we recognise it as a dependancy and the parents are culpable to take care of it. It is no longer inside the woman's body. The baby still has no rights to her body. She doesn't have to breast feed it. If it has issues, she don't have to donate it a kidney or part of her liver. She still maintains full control of her body.
The mother no longer gets a say in deciding to kill her baby.

If the man has responsibility from having sex, so does the woman.

Yes, they are both responsible if the baby is born to take care of it, unless they adopt it out.

Both of them should care for the life that was brought about, not kill it, or neglect it.

Once it has been born, yes.

The man shouldn't pressure to have it aborted to get off the hook. The woman shouldn't abort it.

Again with the "should's" The man can try to convince the woman to abort if he wants to. The woman can abort if she wants to.

 

[tall73]

Yeah, once the baby is born and becomes a citizen we recognise it as a dependancy and the parents are culpable to take care of it. It is no longer inside the woman's body.

That sounds like an arbitrary distinction, and not actually followed by some courts, who hold the man responsible for care the woman and life receive as a result of the pregnancy, even prior to the birth. As the ones responsible for the life, both should care for it.

The baby still has no rights to her body. She doesn't have to breast feed it. If it has issues, she don't have to donate it a kidney or part of her liver. She still maintains full control of her body.
The mother no longer gets a say in deciding to kill her baby.

You already said she doesn't have control of her body though, because she must work to feed it, and so must he, which is a commitment of decades. If the life is entitled to decades of labor, training, etc. it is strange for you to claim that one, and only one, of the parties who entered into the same act which bound them with responsibility has the right to kill this life prior to birth, for the convenience of not going through that obligation. Whereas, you don't give that right to the man, and their responsibility stems from the same act of sex. His obligation is present, right from that moment, whether he wants the new life or not.

Yes, they are both responsible if the baby is born to take care of it, unless they adopt it out.

They are both responsible to the life they formed once they engaged in the act that could bring it about.

Once it has been born, yes.

Again with the "should's" The man can try to convince the woman to abort if he wants to. The woman can abort if she wants to.

Oh? You think men can try to pressure women to abort? In some jurisdictions such coercion is illegal.

Yes, again with the "shoulds". And you apparently agree with some "shoulds" or you wouldn't hold the man and woman responsible to pay for the care of the life. That is a "should". And it is based on the recognition of his contributing to the life. So your argument is not that are no "shoulds." And the "shoulds" you are applying are inconsistent.

 

[stevil]

That sounds like an arbitrary distinction, and not actually followed by some courts, who hold the man responsible for care the woman and life receive as a result of the pregnancy, even prior to the birth. As the ones responsible for the life, both should care for it.

Can you explain how a father takes care of a fertilised egg in the mother's womb?

You already said she doesn't have control of her body though, because she must work to feed it, and so must he, which is a commitment of decades.

That's an interesting spin. But really besides the point. The baby no longer has a dependancy on the mother's physical body.

If the life is entitled to decades of labor, training, etc. it is strange for you to claim that one, and only one, of the parties who entered into the same act which bound them with responsibility has the right to kill this life prior to birth, for the convenience of not going through that obligation.

Not a claim I have made. Certainly very weird wording, It's like you are reaching for something.
The woman has the right to autonomy over her own body, she can take the morning after pill or have an abortion if she wants, it's entirely upto her.

Whereas, you don't give that right to the man,

Yeah, the man can't force the woman to take the morning after pill and cannot force the woman to endure an abortion. He has no rights to her body.

His obligation is present, right from that moment, whether he wants the new life or not.

His obligation starts when the baby is born, not before.
I mean if you claim it is before, what is it that he does for the baby before it is born? does he put nappies on it? Does he feed it formula? Does he take care of it while the mum is at work?

Oh? You think men can try to pressure women to abort? In some jurisdictions such coercion is illegal.

It's illegal for him to ask the woman to abort?

 

[Hammster]

Ni

Being that I'm not a Theonomist/Dominionist, Postmillennialist, I don't think it's my job as a Christian to resolve political disarray surrounding the abortion issue, especially in the case of pregnancy resulting from rape.

Nice dodge.