• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

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

Discussion in 'Debates on Abortion' started by (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ), May 20, 2019.

  1. St_Worm2

    St_Worm2 Senior Member Supporter

    +38,560
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I AM THE 1 PERCENT USED TO JUSTIFY
    100 PERCENT OF ABORTIONS

    [​IMG]
    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.
    .
     
  2. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,430
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    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: May 21, 2019
  3. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +724
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  4. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,430
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    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?
     
  5. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +724
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  6. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,430
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    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?
     
  7. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +8,648
    Anabaptist
    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 .....
     
  8. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +724
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  9. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +8,648
    Anabaptist
    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.
     
  10. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,430
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    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?
     
  11. Josheb

    Josheb Christian Supporter

    94
    +33
    Christian
    Married
    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).
     
  12. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,430
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  13. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +724
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  14. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    +1,412
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    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." ?
     
  15. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,430
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Your autonomy argument is a version of the fallacious violinist theory.

    Unstringing the Violinist | Stand to Reason
     
  16. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,430
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    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.
     
  17. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +724
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Oops, I did not realize there were no labor stopping drugs in 1974. Now that there are, a woman today is able to avoid delivering her baby too early.

    Who is the violinist and what does that have to do with anything?
     
  18. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,430
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    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.
     
  19. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +8,648
    Anabaptist
    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)
     
  20. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +724
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
Loading...