Here are a few ethics questions I've been asked concerning the abortion issue. I'll try to keep it concise but here is my earlier article.
To begin, murder, by definition, has three parts. It has to be 1) killing 2) an innocent 3) human being. If you kick an innocent person in the shin, it's not murder. If you kill a person who is trying to choke you to death, it's not murder. If you kill an innocent fly, it's not murder. But if you kill an innocent person, you've murdered.
Does abortion meet these terms? I think so. It is destroying a living thing to the point where it ceases to function. It is done to someone who has made no offense. It is done to the unique, distinct, and growing embodiment of a being with full and complete human DNA.
If you accept my premise, an abortionist murders. The ancient Greek physician Hippocrates equated abortion with poisoning people and both actions are forbidden in his Hippocratic Oath.
Q. What if the child is handicapped or has a disease? Or what if they are unwanted, because of rape?
A. What makes a person valuable? If I cut off a finger or a leg am I less human? What if I'm paralyzed from the neck down or debilitated by Parkinson's, has my uselessness forfeited my right to life? What if my wife and kids reject and abandon me, may I still be permitted to go on? And what if a parent decides they don't want their toddler anymore, may they kill him?
Your nature is not determined by the physical state of your body or by the opinions of others. You have intrinsic value which I believe is endowed by God. Regardless, you are a human being and words, politics, theology, and emotion do not change that.
What kind of life would a handicapped person have? Ask Stephen Hawking or Ludwig van Beethoven. We do not have the right to determine which handicapped children will have an impact on this world, even if they only live for mere minutes.
Q. Shouldn't we show compassion to the mother who would be reminded of the rape?
A. Yes we should, and part of that compassion is preventing a second dreadful act. Aborting the child will not undo the rape but it will add the additional burden of guilt; multiplying the anguish of the women. Anyone can see that murder is a greater victimization than rape, so why compound one evil with an even greater one? It becomes a ticking time bomb, gnawing at the heart perhaps for years and decades.
I am not forcing the women to have the baby; the rapist did that. But I hope to prevent her from complicity in an even greater injustice, which leads me to my final point:
What about compassion for the child? Why should the innocent receive the most severe punishment?
12 comments:
YES!! You're sounding like Scott Klusendorf, who presents some of the most compelling arguments against abortion. His article at: http://www.prolifetraining.com/abortion-debate.htm is an excellent read. There is no doubt in my mind that abortion is murder. When I was a nineteen-year-old college student, facing an "unplanned" pregnancy out of wedlock, some thought I should "choose" abortion. I thank God every day that I did not, and my heart breaks for the young girls who are pressured into abortion without understanding the truth. Like you said, abortion only adds to a woman's pain, regardless of how she became pregnant. Abortionists would have us believe that they are liberating women. What a lie. They are only imprisoning souls and tightening the chains that bind. Praise God, there is freedom and forgiveness in Christ!
I totally agree that abortion due to a rape is wrong. However, your statement that "Anyone can see that murder is a greater victimization than rape, so why compound one evil with an even greater one?" does not sit right with me. No one, except God himself, has the authority to say that one totally heinous crime is worse than another. Especially the "Anyone can see" part. I am someone, and I can't clearly see that. Talk to someone that's had their 12-year-old daughter brutally raped, and tell me they can clearly imagine a worse crime.
Wouldn't it be worse for that parent to have lost that 12 year old daughter due to murder? I think that I would be thankful that even though it was horrible that she were raped I would be so grateful that she were alive. Do you believe that she would be better off dead? A worse crime would be that her life was taken.
Allow me to clarify, I said anyone can see it, not that everyone will see it.
But let me explain with a question: Does murder take away more or less from the victim than rape or assault or injury? Life itself is a greater thing than freedom, virginity, health, etc., all of which are parts of the greater whole called life. To lose one of the above is to seriously diminish life, but to lose your life is to lose all of the above, thus murder is the greater crime. It is worse by both category and degree.
However, I sense that you meant that it's hard to imagine something that would feel worse than the rape of a child. That's a perfectly legitimate emotion.
Nevertheless, murder is quantifiably worse than rape.
Anonymous said, "No one, except God himself, has the authority to say that one totally heinous crime is worse than another."
Ok.
Lev. 24:21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death.
Deut. 22:28,29 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her… he shall pay the girl’s father… He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
I do agree that a life lost is worse than rape. However, saying which is the worser "victimization" is different in every situation. When a person is raped, a lot of times it is as if a part of them did die. Many victims struggle so hard living day to day, that often times they lose their faith and fall away from God. Which is the worser "victimization" here --temporary death or an eternity without God?
You may not realize that I'm not actually saying what you disagree with. I'm defining objective terms so that sound and true decisions can be made. You are referencing subjective experiences and feelings.
I agree that when someone is violated, they may feel like a part of them has died. But it has not. It can often times be restored or at least mended. Anguish and despair does not make this untrue, just rather hard to realize
The impact on each person is different and often crushing. Remember, counseling the wounded is a significant part of what I do each week. But regardless of how they perceive the crime (and how this perception changes over time), a reality exists about what happened and what didn't happen.
And rape victims have the hope of recovering, however distant that goal may seem.
Oh, and it's absolutely essential that we all understand that no other person can bear responsibility for our losing our faith. No matter what they do to us, up to and including torture and death. That choice is ours and ours alone.
Please explain this passage.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27
V25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
V26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
V27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
The Mosaic Law proscribed the death penalty for many crimes, including murder, rebellion, idolatry, kidnapping, some kinds of rape, et al. Here the rapist had to die for his crime, because not only did he violate the woman but he violated the sanctity of marriage (she was engaged, which was legally binding then). This crosses a line that demands death and leaves no options to alleviate the situation.
But the Law makes a clear distinction between the criminal and the victim. In this case the woman is completely innocent and shouldn't be punished in any way. She called for help and no one could save her.
This is much clearer in other translations. That looks like it may be the King James Version – 400 years old and as clear as mud. Try comparing a few different English translations for the best sense of what the original Hebrew (or Greek) was actually getting at.
Thumper
I would like to put my two cents into this discussion.
In your rebuttal to Anonymous (which I quoted below) you used Deut 22:28,29 to show that GOD has stated which crime is worse than the other.
----Quoted Text-------------------
"Anonymous said, ‘No one, except
God himself, has the authority to
say that one totally heinous crime
is worse than another.’
Ok.
Lev. 24:21 Whoever kills an animal
must make restitution, but whoever
kills a man must be put to death.
Deut. 22:28,29 If a man happens to
meet a virgin who is not pledged
to be married and rapes her… he
shall pay the girl’s father… He
must marry the girl, for he has
violated her. He can never divorce
her as long as he lives.”
----Quoted Text-------------------
After reading Deut 22:25-30 as a whole (and not as separate statements) I do not agree that Deut 22:28,29 supports your argument. The way I understand it is that the only reason that the rapist is kept alive is so he can pay restitution for the woman he has violated. This would be unnecessary if the woman was engaged because her fiancé would be the one taking care of her. So, I disagree that raping a woman that is engaged “crosses a line that demands death and leaves no options to alleviate the situation.” I look at it in a different way. The only option when a man rapes a woman that is not engaged is to keep him alive so that he can take care of her.
To analyze this matter further I think that we need to discuss the reasons why a rapist will be kept alive (when he rapes a woman that is not engaged) and a murderer will be executed. As I understand it, if a woman loses her virginity outside of wedlock then she is considered unfit for marriage (this would include being raped). So, to make sure that the woman is taken care of the rapist must be kept alive. It is not the same for a murderer. For example, if a man murders another man (who is married) the widow can be remarried. So there is no reason to spare the murderer’s life.
Anonymous #2
Wasn't the original topic abortion? Just curious. I think that no matter where you look in scripture abortion is wrong.
Excellent observations, anon#2.
I was only trying to establish that in fact God does have different approaches to "heinous" crimes.
Also, I don't know how far one can take the for-restitution-only angle, as we could come up with hypothetical restitutions for crimes that God punishes with death; personally I'd have to look a lot closer at the issue. Nevertheless, you made the superior argument, looking at everything in its context.
I may have to summarize some of this in a new post if this gets much longer. Thank you for the excellent comments.
Post a Comment