What About Abortion in Cases of Rape and Incest? Women and Sexual Assault

“We condemn the women who have them for one reason, plain and simple: The are murdering their own child for being inconvenient.”
__________________________________________________________

You “condemn”, yet, I will pray for you to have compassion, as I did, when taking care of these women who choose “murdering their own child for being inconvenient”, as you put it.

Abortions are sad and traumatic, but there are far worse things than abortion. Blaming 10YO girls for not wanting to carry a rapists baby, Daddy’s baby/ your own half-sister or half-brother is one of them. I find that offensive and call parents who do that “murdering their own child for being inconvenient” and being a victim of rape. I’m sure you have heard the statistics on that. If not, there’s always Google.

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

It is obvious that clause A refers to God knowing the person PRIOR to their construction in the womb. Therefore, to disrupt the child before the blood is formed is to do a few things:

1. It violates God's intent.

2. It ignores that life is, at that point, being SHARED with/by God Himself.

3. It violates "a man...be united to his wife and they shall be one flesh." Obviously, the man and woman are never the same person. Therefore, the one flesh they are speaking of is the uniting of their bodies to form a new human. That uniting is from the moment the sperm says "Howdy" to the egg. And it is a new "flesh" at that moment of their union.

Those 3 can only add up to the personhood of the conceived new human.

“Abortions are sad and traumatic, but there are far worse things than abortion. Blaming 10YO girls for not wanting to carry a rapists baby, Daddy’s baby/ your own half-sister or half-brother is one of them.”

Firstly, no one is going to hold a ten-year-old girl to adult standards of comprehension. Your attack on some unnamed people for supposedly doing something that in fact is never done (in this country) is, therefore, something of a mystery.

Are you just trying to slur people who disapprove of baby-killing, or are you really so misguided as to believe that pro-life people would actually feel malice toward a girl in a situation such as you describe? Either way, it is as offensive as it is false.

That said, you really think that “blaming” someone is as bad as *killing* a person? Really? Maybe we should make “blaming” a capital crime.

“I find that offensive and call parents who do that “murdering their own child for being inconvenient” and being a victim of rape.”

If you do say that, which I doubt, you should be aware that such a notion would be totally irrational—completely out of touch with reality in all regards.

“I’m sure you have heard the statistics on that. If not, there’s always Google.”

I’m sure that Google positively drips with made-up “statistics” on such things.

In any case, advising an innocent person not to commit or be complicit in the unjustified killing of an innocent person is hardly murder.

Personally, I find it terrifying to discover that there is a person who actually holds such opinions as you expressed here.

Those 3 can only add up to the personhood of the conceived new human.

While I agree with your logic and your position, nevertheless I think we need to concede that A does not necessarily follow B. The fact of the matter is that in dozens of places in the old testament God reiterates that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and therefore I think that those who make the case that the embryo is not fully alive until the heart begins to beat have a legitimate theological argument.

I came to the defense of Eagle Eye on this point as there were a lot of posters who were basically accusing him of being a Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid clone because he had made a valid theological argument in favor of holding off calling an abortion murder unless it actually stopped a beating heart.

I for one would be more than happy (and very satisfied) to support a law that prohibited all abortions where an ultrasound could detect a beating heart. That would eliminate 99.99999% of all abortions.

But some people will not be content until not only are all abortions prohibited, but that all contraceptive practices are met with equal disdain and punished either as if a murder had taken place. As shown earlier on this thread Jer 1:5 is used as a justification for considering artificial contraception to be in the same league with abortion.

Being new here, you may not have found that FR is anti-abortion. It may be illogical to you, but that’s how it is. As you see on this thread, there are any number of libertarians who want to pull our chain occasionally, but that doesn’t change the dynamics. Especially when their arguments are so vapid.

Sorry, but I can’t equate vague statements such as “Blaming 10YO girls for not wanting to carry a rapists baby” with the murder of one’s unborn child. Never could, never will.

But choosing abortion simply for the convenience factor is the overwhelming reason for abortions in America today. And since you, by your own words, have apparently counseled women who have had abortions, I expect you’d know that.

In short, welcome to FR, but don’t for a moment believe that a pro-abortion stance will get any traction here. And by pro-abortion stance, I mean any agenda that allows room for the murder (for that’s what it is) of an unborn child.

You apparently missed my posts, as well as others, that showed the heart fully developed and functioning by the 21st day, and pumping even more blood by the 30th day. And as others pointed out, that’s well within the window of the time between conception and when a woman will likely discover her pregnancy; or very shortly thereafter.

Since you argue “God reiterates that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and therefore I think that those who make the case that the embryo is not fully alive until the heart begins to beat have a legitimate theological argument”, then I would expect you’d agree that at the 21st day, or possibly sooner, the embryo IS fully alive at that stage since there is both flesh and blood. Or by the 30th day at the latest. Therefore, our point, continuously argued against by Eagle Eye and ol’ Hank, that the abortion of a fetus is murder is a valid point since the vast majority of abortions occur beyond that point.

That’s my final say. I’m tired of this because it’s devolved into argument for argument’s sake, and has lost any real value of discussion. We’ve made our points and have refuted those made by naysayers. Anything else is a waste of time.

It is obvious that clause A refers to God knowing the person PRIOR to their construction in the womb. Therefore, to disrupt the child before the blood is formed is to do a few things:

First of all, God would certainly know who was and who wasn't conceived or destined to be born at all. Doesn't he already know everything, including what choices we'll make tomorrow?

Second, this seems to indicate that contraception is wrong. But again, on what basis? God already knows....

I'm detecting a very clear inconsistency on the declared Biblical morality and ethics amongst posters on this thread. They want to jump through hoops, squeeze through needle eyes, and swallow camels before they accept a couple very clear verses.

The people of that time did not understand the differing stages of embryonic development that is commonly taught in today's high schools, therefore their major distinction was the live birth and first breath. That was when life began and when a person exhaled for the last time that was their death. They didn't have stages of brain death or cardiac death, etc. One was either breathing or not.

Today we can split those hairs.

But if one wants to be Biblically accurate instead of building a philosophy of man, then one has to accept what the Bible says.

In regards to killing innoccents, as far as I know, Jesus Christ was the only truly innoccent blood that was ever shed. The rest of mankind was born tainted, dead in tresspasses and sin. The idea that babies are innoccent is not Biblical. We ALL were born dead in tresspasses and sin..they just can't have yet intentionally sinned. But they were born into sin.

And, btw, I hear a lot of the "sanctity of life" per the religious persons in the pro life movement, yet I see NOTHING in the Bible to support that, at least not as it is promulgated.

God directed Isreal to wipe out its enemies, down to the livestock.

On more than one occaission Isreal was told to rid itself of non Isreal/gentile wifes.

Jehu, well he did what God told him to do.

So knowing how God commanded theses massacres, it seems odd that anyone would promote the "sanctity of life"

I agree that eagle eye's nothing near a pelosi clone, and that his interpretation is made in an effort to be true to the bible and to balance theology and life. I have no bone to pick with him.

However, to say "the life is in the blood thereof" is limiting in a way that raises questions about what that line actually means. For example, I know there are instances when total transfusions are required for medical reasons. This alone makes me question any limiting of life(spirit) to an intra-body PHYSICAL carrier (blood).

If I were to say, "the red blood cells are in the blood thereof" you would say, "Yes, but...."

Erythropoiesis is the development process in which new erythrocytes are produced, through which each cell matures in about 7 days. Through this process erythrocytes are continuously produced in the red bone marrow of large bones, at a rate of about 2 million per second in a healthy adult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell#Life_cycle
So, red blood cells are also found in the bones. That doesn't mean that "red blood cells are in the blood thereof" is wrong. It isn't. It just isn't the total story.
I don't see anything in the verse: "the life is in the blood thereof" to say to me that that is the total story. And especially so since we are talking about "spirit" and "physical."
So, we would be wrong to attack eagle eye for a legitimate effort to correct scripture. We would also be wise to determine if that interpretation is partial or complete.

Abortions are sad and traumatic, but there are far worse things than abortion.

Like what?

I find that offensive and call parents who do that “murdering their own child for being inconvenient” and being a victim of rape. I’m sure you have heard the statistics on that. If not, there’s always Google.

What statistics are you referring to? There are approximately 4000 to 5000 pregnancies per year as the result of rape and not all of these women choose to have abortions.

There are a handful of women each year who are actually in danger of dying if they don't have an abortion (the actual number is so low that no statistics even exist).

There are OVER 1.3 MILLION abortions in the United States. An American baby is aborted EVERY 24 SECONDS.

So, there are AT MOST 5000 abortions in America each year that are the result of rape or actual medical necessity. But there are still over 1.3 MILLION abortions that are strictly for convenience, what is you opinion of those? What is "far worse" than those abortions?

Wow. Long post. Yes, I'm going to cherry pick a few items.

What is inconsistent and illogical is for people to use the Bible for their ethical choices but yet ignore sections that do not jibe with their line of ethics. We raise the red flags when the global warming people do this!

People of Biblical times didn't understand the basic science we have today. One was either breathing or not, and this is probably why the penalty for causing a miscarriage was not the same as for killing or murder.

The Biblical support for life at conception is not there and is consistent with science. No blood, no life, not murder.

Is something permissible just because it is not murder? No. There was still a penalty for causing a miscarriage, just not the same as for killing or murder.

Miscarriages are spontaneous abortions. And there are countless that occur in the first weeks as the egg either fails to implant or is rejected and shed with the monthly cycle.

If abortion isn't murder, it's no different from plastic surgery, or putting you cat to sleep:

I'm sorry you feel that way. Some of us do not.

But I'll repeat myself: There is no reason to oppose abortion, unless you think it's the same thing as murder

Again, I'm sorry you feel that way. Some of us do not.

The fact that I have to explain all of this to you makes me wonder whether you are telling the truth about all that pro-life activism.

Sadly, but predictably, when you don't like or agree with the message you have to attack the messanger.

Most of my 'activism' was in Florda, some in Kentucky.

Probably one difference in my attitude and many others is that I do not feel it is up to me personally to stop all abortions. I do not feel the need to control or confine other people. Those others will be accountable to God one day....I am not accountable for what they do and do not feel the need to impose my will on them.

And one thing that most people seem to overlook is that the Bible was written and is for those who want to believe it. The non believers are not bound by it. You can not impose your 'sanctity of life', 'life begins at conception' rules on them any more than you can impose no dancing, no smoking, no drinking, no oral sex, Blue Laws, etc etc ethics that you may volunteer to abide by in your church.

Whether or not abortion is legal, there will be some who seek it out. They and those involved will have to answer for that someday because the legality of it does not alter the morality of it one bit.

I would suggest looking at ‘life is in the blood’ as a true or false statement.

I’ll go with true because God had it put there in the scriptures.

Any nit picking and hair splitting on my part will lean towards the ‘true’ selection, not making the statement false.

And yes, I’m very aware of the significance of blood in the Bible from representing life to its part in convenents.

Although I’ve been accused of it, I’ve never said that abortion is anything but wrong.

But I don’t believe that the Bible supports it always as murder.

I’m pretty sure that it can be wrong and not be murder although some have specifically told me that if it isn’t murder then it isn’t wrong.

You can not impose your 'sanctity of life', 'life begins at conception' rules on them any more than you can impose no dancing, no smoking, no drinking, no oral sex, Blue Laws, etc etc ethics that you may volunteer to abide by in your church.

Actually Eagle, you can. Blue laws were standard laws in nearly every state at the time of the Constitution and nothing in the constitution or the Bill of Rights interfered with the State's right to impose Blue Laws or general morality laws upon the citizens of the states.

If a State were to make a determination that life begins at conception and that the State's obligation to preserve and protect that life also began at conception, then the State would be perfectly justified in outlawing all abortions except in those situations where the carrying of the pregnacy to full term would likely result in the death of the mother (in which case rules of "justifiable homicide and self defense would fall into play).

So you are wrong that Laws cannot be enacted to protect and preserve the life of the unborn. Indeed, if Life is defined as beginning at conception, then the State would have an obligation to protect that life by outlawing abortion except for a very few exceptional situations.

Where you define life beginning is where you should determine that the State has a duty to protect it. You had earlier argued that the "Life is in the Blood" and therefore unless there was blood, there was no ending of a life in an abortion. You now seem to be arguing that it really doesn't matter when life begins because the State should not have a right to interefere with the right to have an abortion any more than it has the right to tell a business that it must be closed on Sunday.

Your position now is one of fatal inconsistency. If indeed, as you argued so persuasively, the life begins when the blood begins to flow, then you should likewise believe that the state has the right, indeed the obligation, to protect that life once a heartbeat is detectable.

I can therefore only conclude that your prior argument was not serious and that it was merely a straw man argument to counter the biblical position that life begins at conception.

So if you truly believe that life begins at the moment of the first heartbeat, then why would you argue that the State has no obligation to protect that life?

Now, is the “life of the flesh” the ONLY life that is within a human being?

I would think it would be the only "life" that the State would have an obligation to protect. I don't think the State has a right or a duty to protect the life of a disembodied spirit or a life that cannot be perceived as "flesh".

In order for the state to have a duty to protect life, it must first have a basis for determining that "life" is present.

From a strictly biological perspective I believe you can say that life begins at conception.

From a Biblical perspective it can be argued that there is no life if there is no blood.

But at some point the State must make the determination of when life begins and once that determination is made, the state would be obligated to use its power to protect that life, even at the expense of the liberty of others.

P-M don’t be surprised if you asked whether you support stoning those who desecrate the Sabbath.

I would support stoning people who jaywalk. If that were the punishment, I don't think we'd see a lot of people crossing the middle of the street.

I doubt very seriously if many people were ever convicted of that crime and stoned to death for the reason that (because of the severe threatened penalty) most people were happy to obey the law.

Additionally based on the rigorous testimonial requirements in the Old Testament, obtaining a conviction for such a crime would be very difficult to obtain. The procedures for carrying out a death penalty were very onerous on the Judges and the rules for testimony required the uncontradicted testimony of several witnesses. If one man's testimony contradicted another man's testimony, the testimony of both would be thrown out.

FWIW, there were about 50 violations of those procedures that occurred in the various trials of Jesus. If they had followed their own laws, they would not have been able to convict Jesus and sentence him to death.

For instance Jesus did not argue that the woman who committed adultery should not have been stoned. But for the mob to stone her would have violated the Law as much, if not more than the adultery itself. Indeed, anyone who would have thrown a stone would have been guilty of murder, since the woman had not been tried under the law, but she was being dragged off to be stoned by a vigilante mob.

Now, is the “life of the flesh” the ONLY life that is within a human being?

What died when Adam sinned?

I'll say his spiritual life if one agrees that when a man is whole he is body, soul, and spirit.

Since God had to put his spirit upon certain men in the OT there is the implication that since Adam man has been born only body and soul with John the Baptist being the single exception, being filled with holy spirit from his mother's womb.

Natural man of body and soul is absent God's spirit. That spirit cannot be given by man nor can it be taken or regulated by man.

So in reality, I don't think the question is really relevant.

Do I need to repeat that I don't think abortions should happen?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.