If abortion is murder...

[bèlla]

But when we completely rest our faith in Christ it becomes the fruit which we bear, that being much bigger than an online thread. I'll be praying the Lord opens your eyes and ears to the fullness of His Truth. God bless you sister.

You are speaking in platitudes. Have you considered there’s a reason for my position and perhaps it isn’t what you suppose? Can you fathom the possibility that I’m led by love and meet people where they are instead?

We aren’t doppelgangers. Your approach will not resonate with everyone you encounter and if you are guided by the Holy Spirit in your expression the specificity of His leading is clear.

You are praying on my behalf because I don’t broach the subject in the manner you feel is best. I can’t help wondering who’s motivating your stance.

You have no awareness of my person or fruit and I think it’s unlikely the Holy Spirit encouraged either. God bless.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

And how does one decide which abortion is necessary and which one isn’t without completely violating women’s medical care and privacy?

I have noticed that people really fixate on abortion and homosexuality in the Christian community... I think it’s a coping mechanism. It’s very easy to rail on people for “sins” you think you never will have, but people are a whole lot shyer calling out and making public stands against sins they’re committing.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[SPF]

It seems to me that it is inconsistent for prolifers to be about ending abortion, because it is murder of an actual human being, but don't believe it is right to punish such a crime.

The 98.5% of abortions committed for non-medical emergencies are certainly immoral, and I would say they are a form of murder from God's perspective. Should we punish mom's and/or doctors who commit them? Not as of right now as it's legal.

We punish for crimes, and something is a crime if it breaks a law. So until abortion is illegal, then no, we shouldn't legally punish people for doing something legal.

On topic, I voted No because the parents don't abort their baby. The doctor does that. The wording needs to be fixed.

You don't really believe what you just wrote, do you? I mean seriously, if your boyfriend offended me and so I went out and hired someone to kill your boyfriend, you don't think I should be held accountable for his death at all?

And how does one decide which abortion is necessary and which one isn’t without completely violating women’s medical care and privacy?

That's what we have doctors for. It's actually pretty obvious when the mother or the child is literally about to die.

 

[GodLovesCats]

If someone kills a pregnant woman, they are charged with murdering the mother and they are charged with murdering her baby. It doesn't matter how far along she is...it is a murder charge. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs...it simply is the law.

Parents, the person who performs an abortion, and anyone who councils for the termination of a pregnancy should be held accountable just like anyone else who plans or conspires to commit murder. If not, there is a double standard to any law that allows abortion.

Counselors don't tell pregnant women to get abortiions. They offer suggestions and give them advice but it is still 100% the woman's decision (or 50% if her husband is involved) so the counselor is not responsible and cannot be legally held accountable.

 

[Jonaitis]

How many Christians were vocal about the holocaust in Germany? How many Christians were outspoken during segregation and slavery? We have a handful, but no doubt there were many who were silent and compromised on these issues for the sake of self-preservation and worldly respect. It would be a shame for us to hide in the shadows at this time in history as some of them did, while the others are boldly proclaiming the truth with the gospel to a dying generation and world.

 

[GodLovesCats]

As far as abortion-murders being punishable by death, the way our justice system works in the USA and the "western world," the legal system has to be able to prosecute the crime - and the easiest prosecution would be the doctors, since they'd be in possession of the evidence. To prosecute the woman, you would have to be able to prove that she was actually pregnant, and she knew it.

First of all, if a woman does not know she is pregnant, she can't ask for an abortion. If a mom miscarries, the word miscarriage is written in her medical records, not abortion. Due to patient confidentiality laws, a miscarriage will never be known to the government unless someone violates her privacy.

Proving she was pregnant is easy. After a child-bearing age girl or woman misses her next period she can try to visit a women's health center or hospital, then have an ultrasound done. The sonogram result can't be wrong. Either she is pregnant or she isn't. Some states require women to have this done before being allowed to get abortions, so this is not a new idea.

It might also be important to the case whether or not she consented to get the abortion under duress - but isn't that the only reason a woman would kill her baby anyway? The father would be less culpable here unless the courts could prove he applied the duress, but he could still be just as guilty if the parents decided together to procure the abortion.

The question of who is punished and how harshly would therefore be decided in each individual case.

If the reason is rape or incest, the dad is responsible if he forced his victim to get an abortion. However I don't think it should be a first-degree murder charge against him if his victim decided to have an abortion on her own. Now if an abortion is a joint decision by a husband and wife, that is a different story.

No, being under duress is not the only reason women seek abortions. We have threads about the medical causes of pregnancy termination, so I will not go into that here. But in medical cases, the mom can't be a murderer and neither is the doctor because they are killing the baby to save her life.

 

[GodLovesCats]

SPF, telling you to kill my hypothetical boyfriend does not make me a murderer. I would be telling you (in your example) to murder him for me. Sure, I could be charged of murder, but nothing makes me directly a murderer. I killed nobody.

 

[SPF]

SPF, telling you to kill my hypothetical boyfriend does not make me a murderer. I would be telling you (in your example) to murder him for me. Sure, I could be charged of murder, but nothing makes me directly a murderer. I killed nobody.

It does under current US law.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It does under current US law.

What if I told you to kill my boyfriend and you declined?

 

[SPF]

What if I told you to kill my boyfriend and you declined?

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. If you engaged me and offered to pay me to murder your boyfriend, and I said no. Then I would obviously be guilty of nothing, but you would be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

Here's an example for you by Loretta DeLoggio:

Groom hires Hitman to kill Bride. How many crimes can be charged, and what is the likely outcome?

The first crime is conspiracy to commit murder. Whenever two or more people join together to commit a crime, the joining together is a crime of its own, usually a felony. So both G and H are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

H is guilty of murder by direct intent. H intentionally took the life of another with no excuse or justification, such as insanity.

G is guilty of murder in two possible ways.

• The first is transfer of intent. Although G did not himself kill B, it was G’s intent that was the proximate cause of B’s death. Under the Model Penal Code, I would probably argue that hiring the hitman constituted the “prior act” necessary to constitute the crime.
• The second is a deviously circular argument for felony murder. Hiring someone to commit a crime is a felony. Conspiracy to commit a crime is a felony. Any felony that results in the death of another automatically escalates that death to first-degree murder.

So you can get four life sentences out of this: G and H are both guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, and are both guilty of first-degree murder.

There may also be lesser included offenses, like burglary (the unlawful entering of the house of another with the purpose of committing a crime) violation of postal regulations if it’s a mail bomb, carrying an unlawful weapon, etc. etc.

But those “add on” charges only become relevant if a life sentence is pardoned or paroled, or otherwise reduced. In those cases, the weapons charges, federal mail charges, etc. are not automatically reduced just because the murder charge is. This is one of the reasons why prosecutors often pile on as many charges as they can imagine; one thing may be overruled, but another may keep the villain in jail.

So if we apply this to abortion. Sure, the doctor is the one who is directly killing the baby. But the mother is just as guilty as she is engaging the doctor and asking the doctor and permitting the doctor to kill her baby. They are both equally culpable. In fact, I would actually suggest that in the eyes of God the woman is in a worse position than the doctor. The doctor only has a job because the woman came to him. It's not like abortion doctors are walking around handing their business cards to pregnant women, encouraging them to come kill their babies.

 

[GodLovesCats]

We know there is never a good reason for G to hire H to kill B. That is obvious. But in the case of abortion there sometimes is a good reason. When she is forced to choose between her own life and the baby's life, it is not murder under U.S. law. So no charges should be filed until her intent is proven to be non-medical if abortion bans are going to cirminalize mothers.

 

[SPF]

We know there is never a good reason for G to hire H to kill B. That is obvious. But in the case of abortion there sometimes is a good reason. When she is forced to choose between her own life and the baby's life, it is not murder under U.S. law. So no charges should be filed until her intent is proven to be non-medical if abortion bans are going to cirminalize mothers.

Obviously. And nobody has said otherwise. If a doctor in a hospital is trying to save lives and isn't able to save every life he isn't charged for murder.

If a doctor in a hospital ER has a pregnant woman come in and her life is in danger, he should treat both her and her unborn equally as his patients. However, there may be instances in which he cannot save both the lives of the mother and baby. Obviously that isn't murder. That's a tragic loss.

But in 98.5% of instances where abortions take place, it's for non-medical emergencies so you're only referring to the vast minority of situations.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I was thinking about non-hospital abortions. If someone goes in a women's health care clinic claiming she has a medical need for an abortion the law kicks in to prove or disprove her claim. Of course this scenario would be against both the mother and doctor if she lied about medically needing one and got it anyway. But if she really did need one and the doctor refused, what do you call it?

 

[SPF]

I was thinking about non-hospital abortions. If someone goes in a women's health care clinic claiming she has a medical need for an abortion the law kicks in to prove or disprove her claim. Of course this scenario would be against both the mother and doctor if she lied about medically needing one and got it anyway. But if she really did need one and the doctor refused, what do you call it?

I suspect if abortion became illegal the only place one could get one would be a hospital...

And it's not the mother who determines whether or not she medically needs one. It's the doctor.

 

[GodLovesCats]

That is a great idea. Require all gynecologtists and obstetricians to submit their employer post addresses, telephone numbers, etc. so they will be liable for performing abortions in the wrong building.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

That's what we have doctors for. It's actually pretty obvious when the mother or the child is literally about to die.

No it isn’t, just as your statistic about about the number of non-medical emergent abortions, but that is neither here nor there.

 

[SPF]

No it isn’t, just as your statistic about about the number of non-medical emergent abortions, but that is neither here nor there.

Can you explain why it's not obvious when the mother or child is literally about to die? And let's try to keep it in context of what I was saying.

And my statistics are quite accurate. If you would like to provide some sources that suggest otherwise, you're welcome to do so.

For example, in 2018, 1.48% of abortions in Florida took place because the physical health of the woman was at risk. But also keep in mind that it doesn't necessarily mean life threatening. And while these debates tend to eventually focus on rape, the reality is that rape accounts for an extreme minority of abortions - 0.14% of abortions in Florida, for example. That's 14 tenths of 1 percent.

But any way, the topic of this particular thread focuses in on the specific question of:

"If abortion is murder, then should the parent(s) who aborted their child be held responsible by law?"

And for me, the obvious answer is only if abortion is illegal. As a Christian, I can go ahead and say that abortion is certainly a form of murder. But whether or not someone is held accountable by the law obviously depends on whether or not the law considers the act of abortion illegal. Which as of now, it does not. So as of now, I would not hold women/doctors who abort their children responsible by the law. Though I certainly would be in favor of the law changing.

 

[SkyWriting]

...then should we punish the parent(s) who aborted their children?

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image."
- Genesis 9:6
​

It seems to me that it is inconsistent for prolifers to be about ending abortion, because it is murder of an actual human being, but don't believe it is right to punish such a crime.

It's not a murder unless a person is tried and found guilty.
The local law comes first.

1 Peter 2:13-17
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It's not a murder unless a person is tried and found guilty.
The local law comes first.

Total nonsense. Such a belief screams ignorance because many people who actually did kill somebody are acquitted based on secular law. This happens for several reasons:

1. There was not enough evidence to prove the defendent is guilty.
2. The defendent's pre-trial plea was "not guilty by insanity."
3. Application of the Second Amendment in the not-guilty verdict.