Monday, October 24, 2011

How I wish the abortion-for-rape debate would go

Seeing the terrible dither and fog Herman Cain cast up when asked about abortion, I felt impelled to borrow a page from Trevin Wax and give my dream-version of such an interchange. We'll start where Morgan and Cain started, substitute fantasy-me, and make the rest up:

MORGAN: Abortion. What’s your view of abortion?

PHILLIPS: I believe that life begins at conception. And elective abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why

MORGAN: No circumstances?

PHILLIPS: No circumstances.

MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates — some of them qualify that.

PHILLIPS: They qualify but –

MORGAN: Rape and incest.

PHILLIPS: Rape and incest, maybe more.

MORGAN: Are you honestly saying — again, it’s a tricky question, I know.

PHILLIPS: Ask the tricky question. I ain't 'fraid o' no Q's.

MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?

PHILLIPS: As opposed to...?

MORGAN: < blinks > As opposed to allowing her freedom of choice.

PHILLIPS: Freedom of choice to...?

MORGAN: Well, to terminate the pregnancy.

PHILLIPS: Well Piers, every pregnancy terminates. You are a terminated pregnancy, I am a ter... I mean, it's not like our moms are still pregnant, right?

MORGAN: Yes, well, of course. That's not what we're talking about.

PHILLIPS: Oh? What are we talking about?

MORGAN: Abortion.

PHILLIPS: Okay, killing a baby before it's born. Or, if you're a Democrat, while it's being born. Or, if you're Senatrix Boxer, after it's born but before it's taken home. Yes, what is your question?

MORGAN: About rape. Would you make an exception for rape?

PHILLIPS: I'm not sure why you won't just say it plainly. Does your position embarrass you?

MORGAN:  No, of course not. This isn't about my position.

PHILLIPS: All right. Well, what is your position?

MORGAN: No no no, this isn't about me. I'm not running for President. What is your position?

PHILLIPS: On abortion? Didn't I already say? I'm pro-life. Innocent children should be protected.

MORGAN: Even in rape?

PHILLIPS: Why? What'd the baby do?

MORGAN: Sorry?

PHILLIPS: What did the baby do? I didn't even know you were pro-death-penalty, and here you're suggesting a death-penalty for the baby. What did the baby do?

MORGAN: It isn't about the baby...

PHILLIPS: < scoff > If they could speak for themselves as the blades get closer, I think they'd beg to differ with you, Piers.

MORGAN: So, the woman is going through this terrible experience, and you would force her to keep that child.

PHILLIPS: The woman is going through a terrible experience, because she is a victim. I don't see how I would help her by turning her into a victimizer, by suggesting that she make her baby a victim. Wouldn't you say that being torn limb from limb or burnt to death is a "terrible experience"? How does having her put an innocent child through a terrible experience help her with her terrible experience — if that is our concern?

MORGAN: But --

PHILLIPS: Hang on a moment. We all agree, I hope: criminals should be punished. I hope we also all agree that only criminals should be punished. Right?

MORGAN: Okay, but --

PHILLIPS: Work with me here, Piers. You'll get your straight answer about the What, plus at no extra charge you'll get the Why. So criminals, and only criminals. OK, there's been a rape. Who's the criminal?

MORGAN: The rapist.

PHILLIPS: The rapist. Not the woman?

MORGAN: Of course not! That kind of thinking...

PHILLIPS: Oh, I agree. The woman is not a criminal, because she did not deserve this. Last question: did the baby deserve it? Did he do something? Should he be punished for his father's crime?

MORGAN: So you would prohibit abortion even in the case of rape.

PHILLIPS: < chuckles > The jury will note that you don't want to think rationally about this issue. But to give you the promised straight answer: a Phillips administration would oppose death penalties for innocent victims, including children of rape.


149 comments:

DJP said...

Now, candor compels me to hasten to say that this is how the interview goes in my head, at my safe desk, with leisure to think.

In a studio under lights and in front of a hostile questioner and hostile cameras, my mouth might say "Uh... blub blub... varfman!"

But this is what my heart would be trying to say.

Jack said...

SO SO SO weird....I've just had a conversation with two people just on this topic. And...I'm a little bit of the crazy one. Candidly.

I have no problem with abortion in cases of rape. Sorry, but if my wife is raped there is no, 0.0%, NADA chance that that child is coming into this world.

People say ah, but isn't the child innocent. Yes...So? So what? Innocent people suffer all the time for the crimes of the wicked. How is this any different. Did the Aaron suffer when Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire. Did the family of Achan suffer as part of his sin. Yes they did.

None of this is to say, wait 6 months and then decide but really...are we going to say "No morning after pill" for a woman who was raped? I'm talking legally and politically here, because can you please tell me how the political position of no abortion in cases of rape makes it MORE likely that abortion in 99.99% of circumstances becomes illegal. All I think one does is make that position impossible for the vast majority to accept.

Chaotic Order said...

That is hilarious!! And very well done! Thank you Dan!!

DJP said...

What you're saying is already answered in the post, yet you're simply repeating it, without the least indication you've thought about it.

So, for what other parental crimes would you murder children, and that without a trial? You are saying that a father's crime is reason to murder a child. Why stop at birth? Suppose dad commits a murder when the kid is 2? Why not kill him then?

Biblical morality coheres and stands; emotional legislation is the key to bloody chaos.

Literally.

DJP said...

I was speaking, of course, to Jack.

DropTheH4MM3R said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Caleb Land said...

Dan, Excellent post, I wish someone would interview you. It would be nice for people not to be ashamed to be against the murder of children.

Jack, Really, really sad man. It is God who gives and takes life, not us. In the cases you listed, and there are many more, God took the life (and none were innocent, nor were those who suffered). Nowhere in the Bible were people ever justified in taking innocent life.

Dan's response to you is right on, where does this logic end? If life begins at conception (and it does) this is straight wrong. What if a Dad finds out when his kid is four or five that the child was conceived in adultery? Should he be able to kill the kid? And for that matter, the mother?

Bad arguments man.

4simpsons said...

Very, very well done! Pro-lifers need to quit apologizing for their views and start being more consistent.

You could have the same conversation about incest as well. And the incest in question is usually a form of rape (i.e., it isn't 30-something siblings attracted to each other) and the abortion hides the crime.

DJP said...

Perhaps the shortest response is simply the best, broken-record, to all the Jacks of the world:

Why? What'd the kid do?

DJP said...

The movie "Rob Roy" is unfortunately not a family-friendly movie.

But in it, a wife who may be pregnant by rape is telling her husband about it. She says, "I couldn't kill the child, husband."

His reply:

"It isn't the child that needs killing."

Barbara said...

Reading this, and Jack's response, I think it's understandable from a standpoint of human nature. You want to eliminate as soon as possible anything that might remind you of the crime done against you. It's a horrible crime, a violation of a woman and perhaps of a marriage.

But this crime resulted in a life, a God-created sovereignly ordained human being. Isn't this where sacrificial love is called for, to give up of ourselves and our pains and our comforts in order to love this child enough to bear the pains and the scars to bring him or her into the world? And if you don't want to raise the child, to provide a family with the opportunity to love the child and the child an opportunity to know love?

Not saying it would be an easy thing - not by a longshot. I'm reminded of Philippians 2 in this.It's the kind of thing that we cannot do apart from Christ, who gave Himself for sinners who nailed Him to a cross. But in the light of the Gospel, it would be something that would daily drive a woman or a couple to His side, seeking His heart, being further made into the image of the One who loves just that much. He is the only one who can sovereignly bring something beautiful out of the effects of sin.

DropTheH4MM3R said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJP said...

I think everyone's pretty aware of 180 by now; it takes a different approach. Let's just focus on this line of argument, for this specific, in this meta, pls, rather than everything that could be said for or against abortio.

Jack said...

You think you answer the question in the post...but look, the "child" is an unwelcome intruder. The Bible gives clear authority to take life in the cases of an unwelcome intruder into my home at night. See Exodus 22:2.

Back to abortion, no other parental crimes make it acceptable to take the life of the child. But look I'm not so hide bound by "logic" that this is a problem for me. There's a line, there it is...I see it. I'm okay with it. Ah but it will lead to a slippery slope? Where and how? What crime is so intimately (pun intended) bound up in the crime of the father.

Look here's the thing...Someone is going to suffer with this rape for the rest of their life...Either the child or the mom. It's not a question of "Hasn't there already been enough suffering" the "suffering" is built in. It's a question of who suffers...the raped woman or the child. I have no problem allocating the suffering to the child. Or better said allowing the woman (and potentially husband) to make the choice to allocate the suffering to the child.

Another problem is you say "Biblical Morality coheres and stands, emotional legislation is key to bloody chaos." AND I completely agree.

The thing is, I do not see Biblical Morality stating that a child born of rape has a legitimate claim to life. The Bible gives authority to men in cases to take life. Moreover Biblically, if the husband suspected the wife of being unfaithful (NOT RAPED just unfaithful) the husband had the right to compel the wife to drink water to make her...basically shrivel up and die (which would make it hard to bring any associated child to term).

The Logic ends where it is... at abortion in the first 30 days (or less) after a bona fide forcible rape. The underlying premise is that no person is compelled to bear a child to term that they had no choice in the underlying act accompanying conception, but in all other cases, no dice (except genuine life of the mother where right of self-defense become the issue). That logic does not affect the father murderer or any other such absurd situation that no one is arguing for.

I can give one example of a crime (at least) where a child dies for the sin of the father without a trial and it causes me no issue. Father drives intoxicated under the influence of bad shrooms and methamphetamine, 5 year old son is in carseat in back of car but, because dad is drunk son is improperly buckled, dad being drunk and an idiot is driving like a total maniac putting countless number of other drivers at risk of great bodily injury or death. Driving 100 on heavily travelled freeway. As Sergeant do you order the PIT manuever to stop the raging madman or do you let him go to kill some other family. I have no problem ordering the PIT. BUT THE KID IS INNOCENTTTTTTT...So what. So is everyone else on the road.

BUT The Kid is INNOCENTTTTT....So what...so is my wife.

Robert said...

Well, to stay in line with the post, why can't abortionists just own up to the fact that it is murder? Jack, I say this as lovingly as possible...you are condoning murder. Are you saying that it is OK for people to be murdered just because people are murdered all the time?

And if you are going to put yourself in the place of God (you bring up Nadab, Abihu, and Achan), then you have at it. God judged them, not Moses, not Joshua, but God. Just like David wouldn't kill Saul (he had two perfect opportunities) because he was God's anointed king.

Remember that Jacob told Rachel that God is in charge of opening and closing the womb. He had it right there at least, regardless of how wrong he was on so many other things.

Casey said...

Not to mention that if abortion were legal only in the event of rape, the numbers of alleged rapes would no doubt grow staggeringly high.

"I was raped!" is already an all-too-common non-sequitir used by at-risk teen girls to avoid consequences for bad behavior. If it could get someone out of an unwanted pregnancy as well, many would not hesitate to use it. And nobody would be able to question it, because for those who were legitimately raped it would probably be traumatizing to call their account into question.

So in addition to the air-tight moral argument against it, I don't see how abortion only in case of rape works out on a practical level. There is no sufficient test to prove rape.

Jack said...

Moreover, let's go back to Biblical Morality...If a man and woman were caught in the act of adultery, they were both taken outside and stoned...to death. Not stone the man, wait 9 months for the woman then stone the woman. The innocent child suffered at the hands of men without trial for the crime of mom and dad.

Frank Turk said...

I think that this line of reasoning will draw swift attention to the word "victim" from the advocates of abortion -- because in their common lexicon, only the woman is a victim. The stuff in her womb -- fetus, baby, parasite, etc. -- is also making her a victim, even if that stuff is another female and not a male. The line of reasoning behind abortion is that the only victim is the pregnant woman.

The question ought to be how to define the stuff in the womb as more than stuff -- a piece of moral reasoning only the Christian faith will do. There is a world-tilting Gospel in play here which, plainly, Jack does not know.

JackW said...

I would just like to point out that Jack does not speak for all Jacks in the world, though I can’t vouch for of the world.

Abortion-tilting at its best, Dan.

DJP said...

That's morally insane, Jack. The wife is an innocent victim of rape. The child is an innocent victim of rape. Nothing requires the death of the child. Your sole argument is that it would make her feel better to kill the kid for its father's crime.

In that case, she needs comfort, love, encouragement, and Biblical instruction. She has no authorization from God to kill a baby because of his father's crime. He is not an intruder, obviously, since he did not barge in. He was thrown in. Punish the father, don't wrong him and your wife.

The driving analogy is zero. It's more like this:

Driver A is driving safely and legally.

Driver B is driving safely and legally.

Driver C is drunk.

Driver C knocks Driver B into Driver A, crippling him for life.

You are proposing allowing Driver B to hire a hit man to torture innocent Driver B to death if he thinks it will make him feel better for a little while.

That is insane, and immoral.

Robert said...

Jack,

Look here's the thing...Someone is going to suffer with this rape for the rest of their life...Either the child or the mom. It's not a question of "Hasn't there already been enough suffering" the "suffering" is built in. It's a question of who suffers...the raped woman or the child. I have no problem allocating the suffering to the child. Or better said allowing the woman (and potentially husband) to make the choice to allocate the suffering to the child.

Watch this and tell me who suffered from this:

Unwanted

I can tell you that the world would have missed out on a lot if this child was not born...

Casey said...

Let's also not forget (though I assume it's already on the radar of many), that the child-by-rape can be put up for adoption. Thus, the traumatized woman is able to greatly bless a family who wishes to adopt, and she would not be burdened with having to raise the child that was forced upon her. I would think that doing something like that could really help many women in the recovery process.

DJP said...

Plus, to state the obvious, I reject the argument that the victim must suffer for the rest of her life unless she contracts for the murder of an innocent baby. Again, sheer insanity.

Brian said...

Jack - Why 30 days? What happens at day 31? My baby was alive before 31 days. You could even hear his little heart beating. When is it ok to murder someone Jack? Do you not understand the difference between law and grace? What other laws are you under, do you eat pork or abstain? What parts of the face do you shave? Help me out here, I'm not sure how you can use those texts to justify murdering someone.

Jack said...

There is a world-tilting Gospel in play here which, plainly, Jack does not know.

See this is part of the huge problem. The Fundamentalist church (of which I'm a part) has pretty much decided that to think that Biblical Morality allows abortion in cases of rape = Not Saved...what are you going to get... a lot of people that are afraid to say and have a genuine discussion in the church of whether or not the Bible allows abortion in cases of genuine bona fide rape. Thankfully, my pastor while disagreeing with me, has a genuine willingness to listen as opposed to pronounce "unsaved." But thanks for that.

That's morally insane, Jack. The wife is an innocent victim of rape. The child is an innocent victim of rape. Nothing requires the death of the child. Your sole argument is that it would make her feel better to kill the kid for its father's crime.

Nothing REQUIRES the death of the child, and Nothing requires me to kill an intruder in my home at night, but I have the right to do so for the home intruder. It is a personal election between the man and God. Look some people would say...I would never kill a Burglar. AND THAT's FINE...but I say, I have no problem with it, if the time comes (despite the fact that I do not own a gun and not because I have a problem with guns...I just would rather spend my money elsewhere).

Look you asked for ONE example of when it would be okay to take life of child for sin of father. I gave you two, now you say you don't like the analogy. Okay that's fine, but I met your requirement. I think my analogy fits...Father was the SOLE violater of the law, child committed no wrong attributable to him, but we're all okay (or so it sounds since you change the analogy instead of saying that such a decision would be morally wrong) with the death of the 5 year old.

Jack said...

Why 30 days? What happens at day 31? My baby was alive before 31 days. You could even hear his little heart beating. When is it ok to murder someone Jack? Do you not understand the difference between law and grace? What other laws are you under, do you eat pork or abstain? What parts of the face do you shave? Help me out here, I'm not sure how you can use those texts to justify murdering someone.

I'm not set on 30...5 days whatever. It is okay to kill when the intrusion is illegal in the first instance.

I do understand the difference between law and grace. Some Christians believe they could kill a burglar...some don't. I'm okay with both beliefs but I believe it is a matter of personal conscience.

Jack said...

Btw....A lot of people need to remember...the debate here is a political one, so the issue is not best vs. okay vs. not the best vs. really not a good choice.

It is a choice between criminalization and NOT...so go to Jail or not. Remember that because we are FORBIDDING something, not merely counseling against.

DJP said...

There is no analogy. To make an analogy, you would have to say that, while the father is raping the child, the only way to stop him is to take a time machine into the future and murder his child. That's absolutely nuts.

Again, to make your analogy, you would have to wait until the crazy-driving father runs out of gas, take his child out of the car, and murder it.

The rape has happened. The rapist should be punished. The child is equally victim to the mother, and does not deserve to be murdered.

Plus, murdering him will not prevent her being raped. Too late. Rape is the crime. Not pregnancy.

mikeb said...

Jack is assuming that the woman is further traumatized by raising the rape-conceived child. He has taken the world's view that raising a child, any child, is downright traumatizing. Also, Jack does not know that we all were "brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."

Jack, why the fist 30 days? Would you kill the child of rape when he's 6 months old? 5 yrs. old? If no, then why 30 days old?

Herding Grasshoppers said...

I have not been able to find it online, but I saw a video-tape (old, I know) of a Phil Donahue show where he interviewed four women who had become pregnant by rape. (There may have been five, but I can remember four.)

I'm assuming he was intending on the show garnering compassion for the women and for abortion in the case of rape, as you're discussing. One rape also involved incest.

Well old Phil was caught completely flat-footed and speechless. All four of the women had carried to term - some had parented and at least one had given the baby up for adoption. The women did not know each other - hadn't met before the show.

ALL FOUR of them spoke positively of carrying the baby to term. Yes, it was difficult. One woman was raped by a man of a different race, and the baby was a constant reminder of the rapist. (I forget if she was the one who chose adoption.)

ALL FOUR of them agreed that adding the trauma and guilt of abortion/murder to the trauma of being raped would've exponentially worsened their situations. ALL FOUR of them agreed that having the baby was the only good and redeeming thing to come out of an awful situation.

All four.

You can imagine poor Donahue, groping for words.

God's truth is still true in difficult situations.

DJP said...

Mike, you are of course absolutely right in continuing to develop the moral insanity of Jack's position.

If it is morally permitted for her to have the child murdered at the 30th day (or third month) of her pregnancy, then why not at his fifth birthday? Suppose she decides she'll give it a try, gives him up for adoption... but then a few years later, decides that she just is really upset at the thought of a child of this criminal walking around. It makes her feel bad.

So, since in Jack's moral universe "feeling bad" is reason enough to have a child murdered, she puts out a contract for the torture-murder of her child.

And Jack says, "You go, girl."

Tough for the kid, though.

Eric said...

How can a conceived child be possibly compared to an unauthorized intruder? An intruder makes a choice to enter a home that is not his own for the purpose of doing harm. A conceived child makes no such choice and as such it is a fools argument to act as if a child conceived through rape and an intruder are on morally equal ground and subject to the same reaction/treatment.

DJP said...

By the way: I direct you all to this blast from the past, obviously still relevant. Unfortunately.

Eric said...

Jack sounds like the liberal Canadian judge in the case of the baby killed and thrown over the fence.

And no, Jack, this is not primarily a political argument - it is unquestionably first and foremost a moral question for which mankind must answer to his Maker.

DJP said...

Eric: because that's what you do when you come to a moral position by sheer emotion. You hold the position, and think up ways to rationalize it.

Eric said...

Agreed Dan. I cannot even fathom that a Christian would posit such a ludicrous idea.

DJP said...

Oh, Christians say all sorts of absurd things, sadly. That's why I don't conclude that Jack is not a Christian. Just either very badly taught, or not a great student. Which also happens.

Herding Grasshoppers said...

Oh, and btw, when you compound the raped woman's misery by offering her the opportunity to murder her child, you also greatly multiply her likelihood of getting breast cancer.

But, you know, as long as she feels better.

JackW said...

Dan, seeing how Jack being here is a result of unfortunate circumstances of others and that he is only a member of the blogger world for less than thirty days without even the time to develop a profile yet, I applaud your restraint in aborting not one of his posts.

Sir Brass said...

I think we're all missing something.

Jack has set up his own law, loosely based on God's law, and is playing by his rules. We're making the mistake of thinking that he cares what God actually says, when instead he's willing to eisegete the Law to allow the law about killing intruders to also be applicable to killing the baby which results from a sexual intruder.

Jack's problem isn't his unconcern for the 6th commandment, but for the 2nd.

Robert said...

Before Joseph discovered that the Holy Spirit had brought about the conception of Jesus, he surely didn't plan to kill Mary or the baby. He planned to divorce her secretly. They lived under the law, Jack.

And I notice that you didn't comment on the video. That is surely an example of how the mother and child didn't suffer and the effects of murdering a baby. That man has done much great work to prevent abortion and educate people on the issue.

Jack said...

Alright, I'm back after my commute enforced unavailability.

Let's begin with the question of why 30 days. The reason why I stated 30 days is because the decision is a huge one. I think 30 days to reflect and decide is a reasonable amount of time, it allows the rape victim to discuss the matter with possibly her pastor her husband, her family to come to a decision, and does not require a snap decision that may in fact be regretted for a long time (in either direction). I believe the same deliberation could be accomplished in 5 days, but 30 seems like a reasonable amount of time to reason and come to a decision that is not primarily emotional. This is somewhat analogous to the burglar example as follows...if you invite the burglar for tea and crumpets after the intrusion you can not shoot him if you change your mind about your initial decision. So there is some amount of time that the intruded person has to make a choice, but at some point in time that choice ends.

I will note, for example, to me, Dan's analogies fall woefully flat, but then I kind of realized why...I think that may be. To some rape ends when the ahem "entry" ends. However, I just don't think this is true. Rape is not just a physical crime. It is the intrusion of part of one into the personal part of another without that persons consent, it continues until the intrusion ends...in my mind. You don't have to be a police officer to know that many (most) women despite the evidentiary value of "retaining part of the man" shower and clean intensely after the violation.

Ah, but the child is not the man...but so says you, the child is part of the man...in fact we know that Biblically we are thousands of years before our birth in the loins of Adam, so that we all are guilty being 'in' Adam.

About Joseph...the thing is...the Bible clearly suggests he had the right to do more "under the law" but his graciousness caused him to go towards a different remedy. AND Again we're talking about the LAW...this is a political debate...So we need to talk about the law.

Let me state, that I do think, the position of a pastor should reasonably be to counsel the family towards keeping the child or giving it away in abortion, but I do strongly think that the civil law should permit Abortion in cases of Bona Fide rape.

I will note that I have been accused of emotionalism in coming to my position, but I feel the charge is unwarranted, I think I have shown more why there is no Biblical mandate for carrying the child. And in return, I have been told that my morality is "insane." Maybe so, but no one has shown that:
a logical premise I rely on is flawed.
Disagreeing with a logical premise is not a logical failure.

DJP said...

You haven't even begun to show any such thing. The crime is the rape. You haven't even come close to showing how murdering a child prevents the rape.

Jack said...

This post, certainly may be "moderated" as this post may be somewhat inappropriate but I do want to state this because it gets to part of the issue of what is "rape."

Let's assume a man takes a woman at gunpoint and uses a turkey baster to accomplish his nefarious purpose with ahem "his seed" inside the turkey baster. Would any sane person really say that was not a "rape" (Yes I know under the penal code it's a 289 instead of a 261). I think not...I think we'd all see that a substanially similar violation (and in fact 289 carries the same punishment as 261).

If that's the case, the fact that a "particular" object is no longer in the woman does not mean the "rape" is over. In fact, it continues (I think to the woman, and it would to me as the woman's husband) until every part of the intruder is removed.

MSC said...

I was once part of a college ministry in a church where a girl was raped by a man of different color and of course it was a traumatic experience. In either case, she kept the baby who, due to his different skin color from the mother, was a reminder to all of what had happened. But the situation was such that the grace of God was evident in the mother whose love for this child was tremendous. It became a living picture of the gospel to the college group and the church. What the rapist meant for evil, God meant for good.

Having said all that, a victim of rape who is a Christian may not be mature nor those around her. It may be difficult for her to keep the baby and understand why this is good thing. The pastorally sensitive way to approach the issue would not be to harp on the fact that aborting the baby was murder, but sensitively focus her (and others) attention on how God's grace can be abundantly manifested in many ways by her keeping the baby.

Jack said...

You haven't even come close to showing how murdering a child prevents the rape.

The rape is continuing until the unwanted part of the intruder is removed. A burglary continues as long as the intruder is in my residence, It ends...when the intruder "completely leaves." Or when the burglar is dead.

DJP said...

Yep, it is over.

A child is not a rape. See any dictionary.

DJP said...

MSC, all of this is focusing on how to make and evaluate the decision.

As to how I might speak to a sister who had made the sinful decision we are discussing, I did write on that (different) subject over at Pyro.

Todd Friehl talked about it... but I'm still not sure he knows anyone writes at Pyro other than Phil.

DJP said...

Again, Jack, that is simply insane, and viciously immoral. You haven't shown how the child could not equally be killed at 1,5 , 15, or 35. Plus, why stop with him? Why not kill the rapist's parents? They're far more responsible for the rape than the child. And what about people living within a mile of the crime? If they'd happened by, they might have stopped it. Kill them too.

"Ridiculous," you say. "They didn't do anything wrong."

Neither did the kid.

Jack said...

Jack has set up his own law, loosely based on God's law, and is playing by his rules. We're making the mistake of thinking that he cares what God actually says, when instead he's willing to eisegete the Law to allow the law about killing intruders to also be applicable to killing the baby which results from a sexual intruder.

Look, I could go all "You teach as commandments the tradition of men," but a. I don't think it is true, and b. it wouldn't advance the discussion.

What I think...is that Fundamental Christianity rightly diagnoses Abortion as a greivious and great pracitically unparelled evil. And thinks that politically "life begins at conception" is the best political argument for getting from Abortion on demand to Abortion is illegal.

Instead of realizing that in forming the CIVIL law...God did allow for the hardness of heart in men.

Incest...still illegal...two cousins who get drunk...no abortion, but Genuine forcible Rape? Really we want to say...Go to jail? You think you're ever going to get 50%+1 to go for that? I don't ever.

Jack said...

Again, Jack, that is simply insane, and viciously immoral. You haven't shown how the child could not equally be killed at 1,5 , 15, or 35.

I have...no person needs more than 30 days to reflect and come to a considered decision. We give 3 business days to refinancing up to a 40 year deed to "death" {aka mortgage}
If a person breaks into your home and you have a firearm you can shoot that person dead for a particular amount of time (That which is reasonable), but if you ratify the entry, saying stay a while have breakfast etc., you can't execute him because you come to find out you don't like him.

After 5 or 30 days (between or less) at some point the family says "okay" to the intruder, and the intruder is now a guest, and every right of a guest (to not get killed) attaches.

Jack said...

Any dictionary?

The elected people back when California was still sane by a overwhelming majority stated

"The essential guilt of rape consists in the outrage to the person and feelings to the victim of the rape. Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime."

(Complete meaning that it is no longer an attempt punishable by 1/2 the amount of time.)

Cal. Penal Code Section 263

Jack said...

You don't have to be a police officer to know that many (most) women despite the evidentiary value of "retaining part of the man" shower and clean intensely after the violation.

Let me ask you pointedly...Do you think this to be true or not?

Stan McCullars said...

Jack,
What if the woman thinks she would be OK giving birth to the child but then at age two, as the child starts to more and more resemble the father, she has a change of heart. Should she then be able to kill the child?

Or do insist on only killing very small children?

DJP said...

No, Jack, you haven't even come close to rationalizing the baby's murder. Your leap is in redefining the child's existence as a crime. So defined, 5 days is the same as 5 decades. He's fair game for the mom to murder at any point, on your redefinition of moral reality.

He's a child. He's not a crime, let alone a criminal.

DJP said...

Right, Stan. Going down Jack's untethered road, what if she thinks the child was her husbands, doesn't think he resembles him, has a DNA test at age ten, finds he isn't her husband's?

Define children as children (not crimes), and that's not the issue.

Stan McCullars said...

Jack,
You said regarding the child to be murdered: So what? Innocent people suffer all the time for the crimes of the wicked.

That's one of the coldest statements I've ever heard. It ranks right up (actually down) there with some of the things I've read from leaders of the Nazis in Hitler's day.

Then you're going to claim to be a Christian?

You need to seriously take a look at your heart. There is something seriously amiss. Murderers will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Jack said...

No, Jack, you haven't even come close to rationalizing the baby's murder. Your leap is in redefining the child's existence as a crime. So defined, 5 days is the same as 5 decades. He's fair game for the mom to murder at any point, on your redefinition of moral reality.

Look, the concept of ratification is legally hundreds of years old and is not at all foreign to us. In fact it's plain out Biblical, what's weird is that some claim it to be irrational. If I remember if a woman made a vow and was married her husband could upon hearing nullify the vow but if he chose not to nullify the vow he couldn't wait 5 years and change his mind. The vow was ratified and bound the woman. Why act like common sense is foreign to Scripture?

Noah said...

It's tough to keep up with what Jack is saying here because his logic has him running all over the place to justify his position (namely using the Law to justify the killing of a child but then saying this is a political/civil issue and the Law shouldn't be part of it),

but the question that keeps coming up is if the woman does murder the child as a way of dealing with the crime, why would the action of murdering the baby result in the woman being able to "get over" the crime committed against her? The experience would still be very much part of her life and now she would have an abortion experience in addition to that.

So how does murdering the baby solve the issue or bring about closure for the woman? It simply does not make sense. Besides, for the Christian, seeing as we answer to a higher law than the civil law, 1 Peter 3:9 is enough justification to end the evil where it starts instead of doing more evil.

Mark B. Hanson said...

I think a reasonable analogy to the rape situation Jack describes is this:

A man breaks into my house at night, does lots of damage, and leaves a boy child behind before he flees - a child that is not related to me.

I decide that my house was violated, and that in order to not be reminded of that violation every day, the child must be put to death - as long as he lives he will be a reminder. Keeping him until the police come is not enough - every second he is there reminds me of the violation.

The child is an innocent victim of this crime - so what gives me the right to kill him just to spare myself some further (theoretical) pain?

Now like all analogies this one is imperfect - the child will be at most present for a few hours rather than 9 months or longer.

One thing is clear to me: part of a man's defense for prescribing and defending abortion in the case of rape is to salve his own feeling of being violated in the person of his wife. And historically, a man will often insist on an abortion in such a case regardless of what the woman belives or feels. He can't stand the thought of the violator still being present in her womb, and (barring adoption) later in his home.

Into this situation, Jesus' call to love our enemies takes on a very radical shape - one that calls for laying down one's life. It's easy to see why some look for the less painful solution.

DJP said...

Easy. You made the fiat decision to identify the child's very existence as a crime. His life is forfeit. What's the expiration date on that, once you make that Biblically unwarranted leap?

You're just like any other pro-abort, or (for that matter) like Nazis or slave-owners. I'm not doing the Godwin thing, I'm just observing that you think a woman has the right to redefine a child based on her feelings, or based on another's actions; and on that redefinition, it's OK to kill the child.

If we grant (as no Christian should) that you have the right to play with God's image like that, then there's no expiration date on that redefinition.

In fact, it gets worse.

On your crazy logic, she can't do other than to kill the child. You're saying the child is a rape. On your crazy logic, all women are morally obliged to kill all children of rape — or they're saying that rape is OK.

Stan McCullars said...

Scott Klusendorf, in his book "the Case for Life", asks the question (which you, Dan, have essentially asked here): How should we treat innocent human beings who remind us of a painful event?

He goes on to state: If the unborn are human, killing them so others can feel better is wrong. Hardship doesn't justify homicide. Admittedly, i don't like the way my answer feels because I know the mother may suffer consequences for doing the right thing. But sometimes the right thing to do isn't the easy thing to do.

He then offers a good analogy: Suppose I'm an American commander in Iraq, and my unit is captured by terrorists. My captors inform me that in ten minutes they'll begin torturing me and my men to get intelligence information out of us. However, they are willing to make me an offer. If I will help them torture and interrogate my own men, they won't torture and interrogate me. I'll get by with no pain. Can I take the deal? No way! I'll suffer evil rather than inflict it. Agian, I don't like how the answer feels, but it's the right one.

Jack said...

You said regarding the child to be murdered: So what? Innocent people suffer all the time for the crimes of the wicked.

That's one of the coldest statements I've ever heard. It ranks right up (actually down) there with some of the things I've read from leaders of the Nazis in Hitler's day.


It may be cold to some, but for FAR too long, people argue against things by saying "think of the innocent children." And it's false argumentation, a. you and I both know the child is not in any Biblical sense innocent (I was born in iniquity and in sin my mother conceived me.) But it's all too common and its no better when conservatives do it. (You can't cut education spending...think of the "children." You can't encourage marriage by limiting welfare to unmarried parents "think of the innocent children born out of wedlock..."

Stan McCullars said...

Jack,
Are you really so dense as to not understand what innocent means in regards to a child conceived by an act of rape?

Besides, YOU are the one who stated So what? Innocent people suffer all the time...

Very lame Jack.

mikeb said...

Jack the abortionist, "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!"

Noah said...

"it's false argumentation, a. you and I both know the child is not in any Biblical sense innocent (I was born in iniquity and in sin my mother conceived me.)"

So, the child being a son of Adam justifies the murder of the baby. Where does that stop? Can anyone murder anybody on the ground that he's a son of Adam? That's where your comment leads. You are on terribly shaky ground and your reasoning makes no sense at all.

Stan McCullars said...

Jack,
Did you really create a blogger profile today in order to espouse the killing of babies?

Why not share your full name, city/state, email?

Or is it more comfortable to encourage the killing of babies while hiding behind a cowardly first name only blogger profile?

Hmmm.

Stan McCullars said...

Dan,
In all the excitement reacting to an apparent troll I forgot to say...

Great post!!!

I think you would do fine on TV in front of the lights. Sure you might squint a bit and see spots for an hour or so after the interview but America would know where you stand...without the need for clarification.

Barbara said...

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

Methinks Jack just likes to argue.

Jack said...

You're just like any other pro-abort, or (for that matter) like Nazis or slave-owners. I'm not doing the Godwin thing, I'm just observing that you think a woman has the right to redefine a child based on her feelings, or based on another's actions; and on that redefinition, it's OK to kill the child.

I haven't redefined a single thing. A. I have for the vast majority of this accepted the premise that the child is "innocent" in the matter.

My response is that that hardly settles the matter, because you have two innocent people who's interests may be opposed. So it isn't a question of is X innocent, but in the case of two innocent people whose innocence prevails over the others?

This is not a topic that can be dealt with by saying X is innocent, because so is the victim of the rape.

Hardship doesn't justify homicide Says you and him...but does that mean no homicide in the hardship of an intrusion in my home? I mean after all its just a "personal affront." And all he probably wants is my stuff. The problem is...Hardship does sometime justify homicide.

It's tough to keep up with what Jack is saying here because his logic has him running all over the place to justify his position (namely using the Law to justify the killing of a child but then saying this is a political/civil issue and the Law shouldn't be part of it),

Look, I think I'm running around answer 12 different questions because I'm trying to be a good sport and answer a variety of different questions coming my way each underpinned with different logical underpinnings (from different supported ideas in Scripture).

For example - right of person possessed of property to harm an univited intruder (Exodus 22:2)

Aspect of Human relationships that a failure to act in prescribed period of time works an acceptance (Numbers 30 ratification of vows)

Aspect that Civil Law does not mandate what may be Morally Best but does allow room for hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8)

Aspect that in cases of illicit sexual morality child is not permitted to come to term before execution of immoral (Deuteronomy 22:22)

You made the fiat decision to identify the child's very existence as a crime. His life is forfeit. What's the expiration date on that, once you make that Biblically unwarranted leap?

You made the "fiat" decision to identify the child's very existence as "an innocent victim of the rape." He may be an innocent beneficiary, but I see no sense that he or she is the victim.

Under the law of vows the husband/father had ONE day to decide. ONE. I think 30 is more likely to lead to more saved lives than not, but Biblically, a person had a single day to decide.

I still don't feel like I've gotten an answer to the question to whether or not Dan thinks most women shower after rape and if so why so.

kateg said...

Great post. I think Jack's comments are an application of the foundational assumption of our world; that we are free to be anything we want...in this case, that a woman should only HAVE to have the children she plans. There is no sense that God is the author of life and really no sense of the child as ‘life’ at all until it is determined by the woman. You can be guilty of murder if you hit a woman who is pregnant and the child dies, because the woman wanted that baby, but that same woman can deem that child "tissue" and have him killed. It is the woman who determines whether it is a child or tissue, not objective fact. Not to make light of the whole issue, but we smile at the irrationality of the woman who wants pickles and ice cream during her pregnancy because of the hormonal flux she experiences, yet the life and death decisions made during that same time are viewed quite differently.

DJP said...

"whether or not Dan thinks most women shower after rape and if so why so"

In what universe does that have the remotest relationship to the issue of murdering a child for his father's crime?

DJP said...

kateG: "Not to make light of the whole issue, but we smile at the irrationality of the woman who wants pickles and ice cream during her pregnancy because of the hormonal flux she experiences, yet the life and death decisions made during that same time are viewed quite differently"

Sharp observation. Good thing God already thought of that in pronouncing the life of the unborn sacrosanct, no? If only His wisdom were sufficient for those professing to believe Him.

Jack said...

Did you really create a blogger profile today in order to espouse the killing of babies?

Nope, it's been around for a while, but for some reason it's saying it's new.

In what universe does that have the remotest relationship to the issue of murdering a child for his father's crime?

It goes to what the meaning of the word "Rape" really is. It goes back to the point I made long ago in turkey baster example, that rape is not just the combination of two organs, but instead the intrusion of part of one into the most personal space of another.

DJP said...

And as you know, in neither case will "rape" mean "a child."

Jack said...

Sharp observation. Good thing God already thought of that in pronouncing the life of the unborn sacrosanct, no? If only His wisdom were sufficient for those professing to believe Him.

Show me. Please. End this topic, show me where Bible says No abortion in cases of rape, I mean I get that life beginning at conception is a logical deduction from the fact that God states that in our mother's womb he formed us. I accept that:
a. Life begins at conception
b. Abortion ends a human life
c. Human life is made in the image of God.
d. That sometimes, humans have the right/obligation to take the lives of other humans. They include, but are not limited to, when one human places another into peril for life, sometimes it can be for a violation of rights to property in nighttime situations.

e. The issue then...is what is the case of a raped woman dealing with taking the possibility of a child from the rapist. Because let's be clear the most I've said is 30 days after the rape. And at the very beginning I stated "morning after pill." And I've only stated Bona Fide Forcible Rape.

DJP said...

Already done, Jack. Murder is outlawed in all ages (Gen. 9:6). The child is innocent. You have to prove him guilty of a crime worthy of (A) trial and (B) execution. Then there is the whole issue of due process.

Read the comments, it's a done deal many times over.

Jack said...

And as you know, in neither case will "rape" mean "a child."

No, but it may very well mean the "seed" of the man in the woman. Because here's the thing at what point do we say...oh no...now you have to let "nature" take it's course. I mean we could be talking here 24 hours after the rape. Because again, no where have I stated that beyond the first missed cycle would anything be acceptable.

(I hate using the word nature because it connotes a contradiction in God's sovereignty nevertheless I use it a. to provide clarity that God is the author of the rape)

DJP said...

No, we're saying don't murder the child. The pregnancy will self-terminate. They always do.

Jack said...

The child is innocent. You have to prove him guilty of a crime worthy of (A) trial and (B) execution. Then there is the whole issue of due process.

Completely disagree with your interpretation ...the intruder in the home did not have to be put to trial.

NOR for that matter did any manslayer, if the manslayer was found outside the city of refuge the avenger of blood had the right to take his life WITHOUT Trial...the manslayer had the right to flee to the city of Refuge to obtain a trial. Just for two examples.

DJP said...

Already been answered. Your analogy is a reach, but even in it, the child isn't the intruder, the rapist is. You don't get to kill unarmed, innocent child - especially since dad's long gone.

Stan McCullars said...

Dan,
While you're at it, can you give me a list of Bible-approved methods and situations where I, as a private individual, can murder someone (after careful planning, of course)? You never know when a list like that could come in handy.

DJP said...

In Jack-morality, Stan, you can murder someone if a third party victimized both him and you by the same act, and you feel like murdering your fellow-victim.

In Biblical morality, you don't do a second wrong to address a first. You do a Matthew 7:12, and show your fellow-victim the same compassion you want for yourself.

Jack said...

Already been answered. Your analogy is a reach, but even in it, the child isn't the intruder, the rapist is. You don't get to kill unarmed, innocent child - especially since dad's long gone.

You and I disagree I see father and child as illegal intruders, the child has NO right in the first instance to be there as the father had no right to put him there.

That's why I have continued to say that if the intrusion of the child is ratified, then it's done but if is acted against with customary haste it's fair.

While you're at it, can you give me a list of Bible-approved methods and situations where I, as a private individual, can murder someone (after careful planning, of course)?

For some of course wild times...See Judges 3 and see Judges 4:21.

Both men were executed in a nonjudicial settings outside of the acceptable boundaries of war. Both were acceptable.

DJP said...

Again, the child did not intrude. The rapist did. That's been answered.

Next?

Stan McCullars said...

So we don't commit murder that grace may abound?

Jack said...

In Jack-morality, Stan, you can murder someone if a third party victimized both him and you by the same act, and you feel like murdering your fellow-victim.

See...the child of the rape "fellow victim." Just my opinion, is that if you told a Rape victim that the 8 hour old child in the victim is a fellow-victim there is no way that would go over well.

Jack said...

Again, the child did not intrude.

intrude v. to thrust oneself without permission or welcome: to intrude upon their privacy

Let's examine this...did the child have permission...I don't think so. Did the child enter upon a portion of the woman (it is a necessary part to come to term for the fertilized egg to implant).

So, you and I disagree. I think by definition the child intruded, you disagree. Hence, the end of our logical train ends at different stations.

Phillip said...

God is just and holy.
God created man in His image.
Man sinned.
Sin begets sin.
All men are sinners.

Fill in the blank:
It is OK to sin against God when __________?


Rape is sin.
Abortion is sin.
Both rape and abortion are sins against specific people created in the image of God.
However, both rape and abortion are ultimately sins against a just and holy God.

Fill in the blank:
It is OK to abort the baby when __________?


Person A's sin against me cannot excuse my own sin against Person C which is ultimately compounded sin against a just and holy God, although God may still give my seared conscience over to such sin to discipline me and compound my own judgement of my own accord and to no responsibility of his own.

See also Rom 1:28-32 & Rom 6:1-2

Robert said...

Jack,

What about Mary?

Stan McCullars said...

Dan,
Jack calls a child (conceived by an act of rape) an illegal intruder. Where exactly is a baby supposed to start his/her life if not in his/her mother's womb?

Oddly enough, the child (conceived by an act of rape) did not even exist at the time of the crime.

Sir Brass said...

"(I hate using the word nature because it connotes a contradiction in God's sovereignty nevertheless I use it a. to provide clarity that God is the author of the rape)"

Sorry, but God is not the author of sin. That does not take away from His use of secondary causes, however.

But God did decree that in that act a child would be conceived. The rape still remains a sin the rapist is responsible for, but the child had no willful choice in the matter. In all your examples, Jack, that is the key difference. Those killed HAD a choice and they made a fatally sinful one. The child made no choice. He or she is innocent of the events by which he or she was begotten.

The rapist alone was the intruder. Yes his seed was planted, but his seed is long gone too (that sperm died after fusing with the woman's egg), and in its place a human being was created, innocent of the sins of its father. God does not punish the son for the sins of the father, even if the effects of the sin remain for generations to come, the guilt of that particular sin belongs to the father alone, and not the child. Therefore the child is NOT to be punished (killed) because he is a bastard by rape.

The bible speaks clearly to this in application. Your justifications fall flat before you even make application because of your gross misuse of their interpretation.

Barbara said...

..wondering now if Jack was circumcised on the 8th day, has a parapet on his house, and if he expects to be put to death if his dog bites his neighbor a couple of times and how often he marches up to the temple to offer his goat...

oh, wait.

“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either....And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. ... But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

(Luke 6:27-36 ESV)

It takes too many pharasaic hermeneutical gymnastics to re-create the child into an "unwanted intruder" when a sovereign God, the only one who can create life, has the child there for a God-ordained reason. Even if the presence of the child is unwanted, it's still about loving our neighbor (including the baby) as ourselves. We're called to self-sacrificial love - it's not all about ME.

honestybecomesme said...

I find this really interesting... I should be cleaning.

Jack, I think this is the FIRST thoughtful argument for an instance of abortion given by a Christian I have EVER read.

Everyone else. Calm down people. I am a woman with a husband and child and abortion makes me want to vomit. But so does the idea of a man forcing his will upon me, violating me and my family, causing us incredible sorrow, and THEN to top it off- to carry the baby who reminds me day in and day out that a man held me down and forced sexual intercourse on me. What would that do to my husband? And then a baby...

I know this is an emotional appeal and emotions should not dictate morality.

With that said- I agree that under no circumstances is abortion good. None. But I also will not stand stand in judgment of the family that chooses the morning after pill for their raped 13 year old little girl. NEVER WOULD I EVER.

God will take care of them. And I believe he will take care of those babies.

I praise the Lord that this qualifier is such a tiny percentage of abortions. It is used as an example of morality to cause people to see that their reasoning is wrong. I see that. However, most women who choose abortion were not raped.

Jack, Thank you for this line of argument. My unsaved mother had an abortion, not for rape. I have a sibling in heaven and while it breaks my heart and I wish she had not done it, I know that it isn't the end of the world for my mother or her child.

When David and Bathsheba's son was born and died, he said the child was then in God's presence (or Abraham's bosom or something). Being Hebrew didn't save you. Faith did. Still in the inspired word of God he said his son was then with God.

I pray that, if ever faced with this, I would not give into the temptation of an "easy way out". I pray I would stand strong in the Lord, trust that in his sovereign will use all good and painful circumstances to bring himself glory and conform me more in to the image of his son- which is his will for my life.

Thank you Jack. My hate for abortion isn't lessoned after reading this, but neither is my compassion for those who have painful circumstances outside of their control which cause them to contemplate this awful option.

DJP said...

Yes, honesty, rape is a terrible thing.

But actually, your question is answered in the post. You'll find that above Jack's comments (which have also been answered, many times). Please read it when you get a chance.

Craig Dunning said...

It appears that someone might be working through a night course at law school and is simply trying to get a handle on argumentation.

Having said that: said person would do well to go back a semester and repeat a basic course on fundamental definitions. That way he may have a better chance of rational argumentation and not appear to simply argue for sport.

Eric said...

honesty,

Calm down people? What a condescending and foolish comment. People here are passionately advocating for the protection of God's created human life and you have the audacity to say "calm down"?

And to call Jack's argument thoughtful is to mislabel a convoluted morally bankrupt argument.

Jack has been arguing that the child can be killed because the rape is ongoing as long as a "part" of the offending man is still in the woman. Hogwash. A sperm ceases to exist as a sperm as soon as it combines with an egg - it is now a new and separate life that in God's wisdom must be nurtured through the woman's body. The conceived child is a distinct being, and not merely a part of its mother and a part of its father. You and I are not appendages of our parents, but distinct beings, and likewise so is the conceived child. To argue for the murder of that child that could not have intruded (despite Jack's ignorant and obstinant insistence) is not only not thoughtful, but is it is the essence of thoughtlessness and evil.

DJP said...

Jack, in conclusion:

I've had people commending me with how patient I've been with you, which is kind of a new experience for me. But one of the reasons I have a (A) moderated (B) blog is to teach, inform, and not have ensuing conversations hijacked by folks who just don't want to change their minds.

In that vein, then, I have to point out that in all your many comments, you never have said one thing that wasn't already anticipated and refuted by the post itself. You have talked a lot, but you haven't gotten past this one question of fantasy-candidate me —

PHILLIPS: Why? What'd the baby do?

Nothing. Not one thing.

Now, you create a moral universe where being unwelcome is a capital offense. In God's value-system, it isn't. The child has done nothing wrong. The child poses no threat to the life of the mother. The child is the second innocent victim in this situation.

Grant that being unwanted = a capital offense, and every rabid abortionist nods in agreement, because that's their anti-God argument. Mom's will is in the place of God.

You are like the guy who asks a girl whether she'd have sex with him for a million dollars. She thinks, says "Yeah, I guess."

He says "How about for five dollars?"

Shocked, she says "What do you think I am?"

The answer, of course, is "We've already established what you are. Now we're haggling about price."

You are a pro-abort. You think Moms can kill babies if they want to.

You're just haggling about price.

And if you have nothing new beyond repetition or further rationalization for contracting babies' murder because of their fathers' crimes, you're done.

Eric said...

honesty...,

Is this what you would call thoughtful?


"I have no problem with abortion in cases of rape. Sorry, but if my wife is raped there is no, 0.0%, NADA chance that that child is coming into this world.

People say ah, but isn't the child innocent. Yes...So? So what?"

Nothing says "thoughtful" like boasting that you would choose to kill an admittedly innocent child (which you will later claim is an intruder to justify your malevolence) to save yourself and/or your wife from hardship. Heartless. Cruel. Morally despicable.

JD said...

Jack: What about Deuteronomy 22:28-29?

In this case, not even the rapist is being put to death. So where do you think that leaves the child?

JackW said...

Vote DJP.

We'll go back to just using initials again!

100

DJP said...

Well, we've already demonstrated why I could never win and hold elected office: I'd give straight, non-political answers.

Or, if I won, I'd be assassinated in short order. By someone who I make feel bad, so he'd redefine me and exterminate me.

Ironic, eh?

Stan McCullars said...

Since Honesty brought up the subject of a tiny percentage, I thought I would put my somewhat mathematical mind to work.

There were approximately 6,000,000 Jews murdered by the Nazis in the 1940s.

They comprised only 0.26% (barely over 1/4 of 1%) of the world's total population at the time.

Honesty, a tiny percentage?

Stan McCullars said...

Honesty,
One more reference to a tiny percentage:

Of all the females in the United States, approximately 0.0542% (a little over 1/20 of 1%) of them were raped in 2010 according to FBI crime statistics.

Being such a tiny percentage, should we not consider it a serious problem?

Honesty, be assured that I consider rape a horrible crime even if there are relatively few of them.

Doug Hibbard said...

DJP--

Pick someone more like that than you are for your VP, and even your enemies will toast your health for 4 years.

After all, there's got to be explanation for Gore and Biden. It's not like they were qualified---they were there to keep the President safe.

DJP said...

Oh boy, Doug, a whole universe of potential jokes yawns open at that. But they're all in bad taste, so I'll make myself move along!

Susan said...

As flawed as my analogy is going to be, it's going to be a bit more precise than Jack's (I'm just tweeking it a bit).

Jack keeps comparing the rape-conceived child to the willing burglar. Like the rest of us here, I fail to see the two equating because the child did not willingly "intrude" upon the rape victim. For the sake of argument, if the home invasion example must be used, the child's counterpart should not be the willing intruder--it should be a small child that the intruder a
has brought along for the burglary (call me mad, but y'all know who drove me to this). The child is extremely young and has no clue what is going on. If we go with Jack's line of thinking here, he'd think it's okay to kill that child willingly and intentionally because the child had set foot in his house without his permission...right?

DJP said...

That's right, Susan.

Or even more: the child says, "Give me a minute, I'll leave on my own and you don't ever have to see me again."

The owner says, "No, I don't want to wait," and shoots the child.

Or, the owner says, "No, I can't bear the thought of you being somewhere and keeping alive the memory of this break-in," and shoots the child.

Jennifer said...

Has anyone asked Jack's wife what she would want? Would forcing her to have an abortion upon discovering conception as the result of a rape be helping her at all? Does Jack not understand how traumatic an abortion is? It is a kind of a rape, especially for a woman who feels pressured into having one. I suggest that the scenario he offers would destroy his wife emotionally (and possibly physically) and the marriage itself. God demands mercy, not sacrifice.

CleanFlea said...

A tangential thought- (DJP, feel free to delete if too far off topic)
Abortion is a sin. That point has clearly been made, and I am not attempting to diminish that. However, every person who has posted today: me, Dan, Jack, all of us are sinners. All of us have offended God. All of us are in need of the mercy and grace that God offers. His grace covers even the stain of abortion.

Stan McCullars said...

Dan,
If Romney is on the Republican ticket you will be getting my vote!

DJP said...

Check this comment, flea.

Jugulum said...

Jack,

"intrude v. to thrust oneself without permission or welcome: to intrude upon their privacy

Let's examine this...did the child have permission...I don't think so. Did the child enter upon a portion of the woman (it is a necessary part to come to term for the fertilized egg to implant).

So, you and I disagree. I think by definition the child intruded, you disagree. Hence, the end of our logical train ends at different stations.
"

Really?

A thief enters someone's home, carrying an infant. He sets the infant on the floor, and leaves.

You think that Exodus 22:2 justifies killing the child, because it's an intruder?

Stan McCullars said...

Jugulum,
Under the State of Florida's Castle Doctrine, the homeowner would NOT be allowed to kill the child.

Jugulum said...

By the way: I'm pointing out a horrible problem with Jack using the "intruder" analogy to justify killing the child--I'm not suggesting that breaking into a home is even remotely an adequate analogy for rape.

Todd said...

Jack,

I was wondering how much someone would have to Hate their wife or daughter to want to add the torment and guilt of murder on top of being victimized by rape.
I personally love my wife way too much to allow her to do something so egregious in her time of grief and suffering.

Just my two and ½ cents….

DJP said...

Mark Hanson: sorry, for some reason I didn't see your comment until just now. Sorry for the delay in publishing.

Pastor Pants said...

Late to the party - just a few things to add:

1) Even when I was a clueless, young Christian wandering far from scriptural light, compromising on all sorts of issues, this one was settled rather easily for me. I had a friend who was the product of a rape - the birth mother gave her up for adoption. Mixed race too, plus a gang rape so she couldn't even be sure of which race the father was (they were of different races). Smart girl - she was studying at Cambridge University, on a scholarship too if I recall correctly.

2) Dan's argument is pretty solid, but Jack's is better - better that is at convincing me of Dan's position. Am I the only one who thinks that Jack might be playing Devil's advocate to show the absurdity of his position?

3) I think that even if we fully agree with Dan's stance on this issue we can all be prompted to self-examine on the basis of this gem from the meta at 8:05 from DJP:

"When you come to a moral position by sheer emotion. You hold the position, and think up ways to rationalize it."

Doug Hibbard said...

DJP:

all I can say is that I've mentioned on my blog that I'm available for VP in 2012 and beyond. Email's in the profile. :)

christianlady said...

I'd adopt the baby or help my friends who cannot have children adopt the baby. I'd raise money to support the mother through the birth, and help with medical bills somehow. I'd be there to help her in birth if she needed it. I'd include her if she wants in my family. I'd also allow her to have her baby at any time if she wants. I'd do everything I could to help her cope. I'd side on the life side every time. If I were raped, I'd have the baby. I'd take care of the baby. I'd love the baby. It would be made clear the baby is a blessing created by God.

Mark B. Hanson said...

One thing I have not seen mentioned in this whole discussion is Romans 8:28. To insist that abortion is a legitimate way out of a pregnancy due to rape is to deny implicitly God's ability to use that one of "all things" for good.

Abortion is an idol. Its use is saying to God, "you can't solve this problem - I have to take it into my own hands (or put it in the hands of the god-doctor)." This is the sin of the Molech worshipper in the Old Testament.

It's easy to see how our culture could (and does) buy into that particular sin. What isn't clear is how anyone in the church can.

Michael Card sang: "Every generation hears the voice that comes from hell: 'Sacrifice your children and for you it will go well.'" God protect us who believe from that lie!

Robert said...

The question I have is: Who opens and closes the womb? Who knits us together in the womb? And if we choose to kill a baby in the womb, do we realize Who really created that baby? We might be the means that God works through, but that doesn't make it any less His handiwork.

CleanFlea said...

Thanks for pointing out that link, DJP. The insights you expressed there were exactly what I was trying to say.

rockstarkp said...

someone needs to make a video of this and Wax's conversations with those cartoon videos like this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5MDqUAfPcI

it'd be great for sharing :)

DJP said...

You mean except not stupid, cliched and wrong?

Yeah, that'd be great!

Seth said...

Judgement belongs to God alone. I cringe when Jack associates his pride with the teachings of his church...

Here's another analogy... Fred and Angie have been married for 27 years, are active in their community and enjoy traveling the world. Fred was fortunate to retire early and through many blessings has accumulated an impressive nest egg.

On a trip to the grocery store, Fred's car is t-boned by a drunk driver, and Fred survives ... as a quadriplegic with short-term memory loss. Fred can no longer dress, bath, eat or manage his bodily functions without assistance.

Angie is overwhelmed with the realization that her husband needs so much attention, and she is heartbroken to know that their plans to visit Asia and Africa next Spring will never come to fruition.

Angie never married Fred to be his live-in nurse, and she decides to euthanize Fred, enabling her to move on with her life, and still have much of their vaunted nest egg to cushion her life. And of course Fred will thank her for releasing him from his bodily imprisonment.

Well Jack, let's hope this isn't your story.

Robert said...

Seth,

One could also apply that same type of thinking to an "unplanned" pregnancy. It doesn't always have to stem from rape or incest. Which goes back to DJP's analogy with the man offering the money to sleep with the woman. All that is going on is bartering over what the value is. So, how valuable is life? When does it cease to be valuable? When is it OK to murder somebody who poses no imminent threat to you or anybody else?

Jonathan said...

"Moreover Biblically, if the husband suspected the wife of being unfaithful (NOT RAPED just unfaithful) the husband had the right to compel the wife to drink water to make her...basically shrivel up and die (which would make it hard to bring any associated child to term)."

I noticed Jack brought up a favorite of the "progressive (I loathe that term, don't you? They're liberals! The label "Progressive Christian" strikes me as nauseatingly pretentious, but they use the term of themselves.) Christian" crowd. I am pretty sure he is referring in this spiel to a test for adultery mentioned in some detail in the fifth chapter of Numbers.

Numbers 5:11-31 NASB


Firstly, according to a fair reading of the text in question, there is no abortion taking place here. Second, the woman herself did not shrivel up and die, her womb did, if she was found to have committed adultery. No one dies in this "test".

Obviously, there is a supernatural element to what is happening in this ritual. The concoction she is told to ingest is derived from holy water and the dust on the floor of the tabernacle. That's it! If the woman consumes the drink and has had sex with someone other than her husband, the drink affects her by making her a "curse among her people." That is she becomes infertile/sterile. If she has not committed adultery the drink has absolutely no affect on her and she remains fertile and able to have children with her husband.

Give the text a read for yourself and don't let the pro-abortion advocates toss Sacred Writ around as being in their favor. It truly is not.

Daryl said...

Pastor Pants...

"Am I the only one who thinks that Jack might be playing Devil's advocate to show the absurdity of his position?"

I think Jack is Dan, arguing both sides to demonstrate the rightness of the original argument.

Could happen...

I realize judging someone's eternal condition is not for us to do (generally). But sometimes its a difficult thing to avoid...

Seth said...

@Robert: Your response has totally befuddled me... maybe that doesn't take much. You said "When is it OK to murder somebody who poses no imminent threat to you or anybody else?"

Is that a question that isn't covered somewhere in the ten commandments?

Abortion doesn't "undo" rape—it amplifies it. Jack is wrong.

Emily said...

The question comes down to .. "What is it?" If it's a human being, unique DNA, separate from the mother, and is a person, then no matter the circumstance it is not right to kill it. What if I let the child of rape be born, would it be okay for me to decide when he is 2 years old to kill him, because he "reminded" me too much of the rape? No? Why not? Because he is...... a HUMAN! Just like the baby. Location does not change human-ness.

semijohn said...

If these things have already been said I apologize for my redundancy (I have followed the thread but might have missed something). In the literal intruder situation, it is a potential life or death situation, with not a lot of time to react. A child of rape is not by nature a physical threat to the life of the mother because it is a child of rape.
Jack says the rape is still going on after the rapist is long gone. He doesn't make the distinction between action and effect. The rape is over, but the effects of the rape are ongoing. And the baby is not the same as his/her father (Ezekiel 18, etc.). Another thing about the intruder analogy. Jack seems to think or imply this gives ongoing freedom to kill, at least for 30 days. Forgetting the above distinction for one moment, the right to kill in an intruder situation lasts only as long as the possibility of physical threat (if not clear) cannot be ruled out. If before the owner can kill the intruder it becomes clear that the intruder is no threat, I think the right to kill is rescinded. The law did not give carte blanche to kill people for mere tresspassing.

Sir Aaron said...

@Dan: this conversation/post assumes the host would actually allow you to answer before calling you a fundamentalist, racist, uncompassionate Christian.

@ Jack - I understand your arguments. They aren't really new. Many unsaved Jewish theologians take the view that abortion is not as serious a crime as a murder due to a terrible exegesis of Exodus 21:22-25. You've taken it a bit further by stating the child is not innocent due to original sin and therefore, a woman may "assign" her suffering to the unborn child. There's no Biblical authority for this view. You mentioned intruders but even the Mosaic law sets forth conditions under which an intruder's life may be taken and when it may not be. There's also not much evidence to indicate an abortion will reduce or prevent future suffering.

Your pragmatic argument about what the populace would accept as a law is not relevant to the question of right and wrong. Most of us recognize that we pass laws that require parental notification and ultrasounds, not because we believe abortion should be allowed after such actions are taken, but because these laws are pragmatic steps towards ending abortion. Many of us might disagree on what moral laws should be enforced or can be enforced as a practical matter. But that doesn't make something right.

Whether I can empathize or understand why a woman or husband would want an abortion in a rape case also doesn't change whether it is right or wrong. I could empathize with a father whose daughter was raped gunning down the rapist in an act of vengeance. I'd probably feel like giving him a medal. But his actions were still wrong, just as an abortion is wrong.

eulogos said...

I am afraid that Jack's problem is that he thinks he owns his wife's body and doesn't want another man using it to produce HIS child rather than Jack's. I deduce this from his frequent use of the house and burglar analogies, and from how he said the woman may use abortion to "take the possibility of a child from the rapist" (as if that's what the rapist wanted, to perpetuate his seed).
Damn it, Jack's wife's body is going to be used to perpetuate Jack's seed and no one else's, see?

I haven't heard Jack say one thing about how his wife would feel about this, that he wants to protect her from having to bear the rapist's child and so on. No, it is all about him and his property rights.

If we believe that there is human life from the moment of conception, that's it, period. No matter how tough it is, we can't kill that new life because it is painful for the woman, OR because her husband feels that his property rights in his wife have been violated.

No matter how the child got there, God is its creator, and God has chosen for it to be conceived and to live. It is God's child that Jack wants to kill, when you come right down to it. Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these my brethren, you have done it to Me. And who is the very least of the brethren? The unborn child, the newly conceived child.

Think about that, Jack.
Susan Peterson

B Barnes said...

Jack: Let's examine this...did the child have permission...I don't think so. Did the child enter upon a portion of the woman (it is a necessary part to come to term for the fertilized egg to implant).


Sounds like abortion could be valid in any case, using your argument. When would someone ever consider abortion unless the child is unwanted, and hence doesn't have permission?

DJP said...

There y'go, B. The principle surrenders the whole argument. See also this comment.

Robert said...

If you believe that God opens the womb (Genesis 29) and shuts it (1 Samuel 1) as the Bible says, a pregnancy that follows a rape is not an accident or a judgment (or a "punishment" as our President called it) or an evil. Nor is such a child an intruder--he or she has been placed in the womb and fashioned according to God's purpose.

Gilbert said...

Question to Jack:

Whose body is it? Ours or the Lord's? And if the latter, and he tells us we must not murder...game, set, match.

Those against God say "it's my body, and I have a right to do with it as I please". This is about as far into rebellion against God as it gets. Denying ownership. 1 Corinthians 6:20: for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. -ESV

You were bought. Ownership is not yours. You cannot kill a baby for any reason. That's God's call to give life or bring death.

Michael B. said...

It is consistent with the pro-life position to not allow abortion in the event of rape. What is troublesome however, is a lot of the comments on here seem to take in account the burden on the mother who has been raped, as if this is somehow relevant to the question of abortion. If the unborn is a person, why is the mother's hardship relevant to the question of whether you can kill the unborn? Some responses on here claim that it is actually better for the rape victim to not get an abortion. Fine, but what if somebody else disagrees? I happen to believe that having a rapist's child will greatly hurt the rape victim's emotional well-being. You may disagree, but suppose I'm right -- is it then okay to have an abortion? Pro-lifers must be willing to say without waffling that the unborn is fully human, and that no amount of suffering on the expectant mother's part justifies the killing of the unborn.

eulogos said...

Michael, I think you are right. But people want to feel that in God's world, everything fits together. God cares about both mother and child, so He will make the mother's attachment to the child strong enough to overrule it's connection to the rapist in her feelings.

It is similar to the abortion and breast cancer argument in a way. (Maybe there is a connection; I am not commenting on the facts here but on the attitude behind citing them.) If abortion is bad, it must cause bad things like breast cancer. And the fact that it causes breast cancer shows that abortion is bad. Sort of like homosexuality and HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, or loose sex of any kind and STDs. These aren't seen as merely organisms taking advantage of a way to jump from host to host, but as a sign and a proof that the actions involved are bad.

I don't think God enjoins chastity because it prevents STD's. I don't think, either, that doing the right thing is always in accord with what makes us most comfortable and happy. It isn't even always true that doing the wrong thing has immediate terrible psychological consequences, at least as far as one can observe. Sometimes it does, and sometimes one just has to do the right thing for its own sake, because it is right, even if it is a terrible burden.

I do think there is something to the fact that women grow attached to their babies as pregnancy progresses, and their love for them isn't always dependent on their feelings for the baby's father. Some women do separate their feelings about the rape from their feelings for the baby. Others do not; they should give the baby up for adoption. I don't doubt that there are some women who would be happier in the short term if they could abort the child of a rapist. I do believe they will be happier people in the long term if they do the right thing. Kalepa ta kala-The good is difficult.
Susan Peterson

DJP said...

There's no need to make compassion for the mother and valuing of the child an either/or proposition.

It's simply a reflection of the perverted state of the debate, and the resultant list of options.

For instance, if a husband turns abusive, we might list out things the wife could do in response: she could do A, B, C, D...

But "kill all his children" would not be on that list. Yet.

So why is it on this list?

MSmith said...

Todd & Tony read it on Wretched yesterday.

Great dialogue!
Thanks,
Marc
Salt & Light Perspective

Michael B. said...

Many pro-lifers will make the argument that abortion is wrong because in addition to killing the unborn, it also harms the mother. They will bring up breast cancer, the emotional trauma of abortion, and try to sidestep the hardships of having a child the mother didn't plan.

This is a losing strategy. First, it completely undermines the principle that the unborn is a person, and thus the hardship of the mother is irrelevant to the question of life. If a toddler was ruining a mother's life and she wanted to kill it, no one would would start trying to deny those hardships aren't real as an attempt to stop the killing. Second, it's just a plain lie. It's far much easier for a mother to just abort the unwanted child and wash her hands of the mess. Pro-lifers can't pretend like doing the Biblical thing is the easiest thing. Pro-lifers must admit that having a kid is going to be an extremely difficult route for the mother in many circumstances, or else people will think they're just really ignorant.

desert_rose said...

Ok, as a rape victim, I am going to give my perspective here. I did not get pregnant as a result of the rape, but I still suffer from the memories. It was about 15 years ago, and the memory is STILL there and STILL hard. So, anyone saying that by having an abortion it prevents the mother from suffering the rest of their life, you're wrong. Don't use this as an excuse to kill a child, it's invalid because no matter what, the mother faces suffering. Next, as a woman who is medically unable to have children, I can tell you, there IS another option, adoption. Let the child be Adopted by someone who cannot have children of their own, there are plenty of us out there. This way, the mother does not have to "face" this so boldly day in and day out, nor does she have to live with the well known guilt that abortion tends to bring on. I have two families members who have had abortions, and they will tell you, if they could, they would go back in time and give the child up for adoption. So after being a victim of rape, they are then made victims by their own choices made under extreme stress and emotion. This is something they also have to live with. Why double the burden???

DJP said...

I'm very sorry for what was taken from you. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

desert_rose said...

I have no problem in sharing my testimony. It is not an easy one to share by any means, but if it is one that will help people to see the truth than by all means, I will share. I responded hastily earlier and want to elaborate on a couple of things. First, I stated I am medically unable to have children. In that God has provided me with two beautiful children that I am forever blessed by. I did not conceive them, rather I adopted them. Not in your conventional manner no, they are my husband's children. No matter the means, GOD PROVIDED.

One more thing. Philippians 4:6 "Do not be anxious about anything, but in EVERYTHING by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." Before we do ANYTHING, we should always go before the Lord in prayer. So no matter our "understanding" of whether or not abortion is Godly or ok in any circumstance, all circumstances, or no circumstances. If ever we find ourselves in that position, as Christians we should seek God first!!! Let God lead you, and your understanding just might change. God is not of THIS world, therefore it only goes to follow his wisdom is not wisdom of this world. As Christians, we should be remembering, that God has chosen us out of this world, but that we no longer belong to the world so we should be living in the Kingdom of Heaven NOW.

southerngospelyankee said...

Bravo! Can I vote for you as a write-in candidate next year?

DJP said...

What do you want to get me assassinated?!