As for abortion itself, it is as great or greater an injustice than slavery. Who are we to take a life? The child did not do anything wrong in a rape or incest situation. We can’t choice to end that life, no matter what. God has taken many a child that many would have justified aborting and brought them into a place of prominent and fruitful service for the Kingdom.

I think politics is one avenue to end abortion legally but the root problem of unwanted children will remain until hearts are changed.

What about allowing that 10 year old victim of abuse/incest/rape take a morning after pill as she is being treated in an ER because of wounds from the abuse?

What about when the actual physical life of a mother is in danger?

What should the consequence be if an abortion is performed in these above cases and the government deems it illegal?

I oppose abortion on the premise that decent society has a moral mandate to protect the helpless. This also affects my position against euthanasia, and is rooted in the belief that God gives and takes life as he chooses. No man should make a decision as to when another man dies, in a peaceful society. I would even “vote” to protect the life of the child created by incest or rape. The child has no defense. The child is not at fault. I would vote for the “state” to underwrite ALL costs for adoption should be born by the state were this to be forced upon an unwilling mother – who SHOULD have been protected by the law to start with – but the rights of the innocent, unborn, and helpless child should not be compromised.

I am moderately opposed to the death penalty in principle, somewhat for the same reasons. However, I do not OBJECT and would not actively FIGHT the death penalty, due to the fact that the law is only allowed to administer it to violent criminals who pass a “high” mark for the type of crime committed. I believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to help prevent violence against the helpless. See the above paragraph for society’s duty to protect the helpless. If the existence of the death penalty serves to protect the helpless, I believe that society is within its moral duty to exercise that penalty.

War falls within a similar bound. I feel that no country has the right to send men to kill other men in a spirit of conquest or dominance. In the event that a nation is attacked, or if there are circumstances where a larger country is acting to protect the interests of a smaller, more helpless nation, I fully support the right of that nation to send soldiers to terminate the lives of the opposing forces with extreme prejudice.

I attach more importance to the protection of the helpless than I do to the arbitrary standard of “life”, even though I attach MUCH significance to life and respect for it.

In short, I will willingly kill any man who threatens my wife or children. I will respect his right to life only until he passes the boundary of my protective moral standard.

Is this a “Biblical” standard? I admit I cannot quote chapter and verse, but I also maintain that I have come to these opinions and conclusions based on many years of being surrounded by Biblical teaching and thought. As well, I “feel” that this train of thought has much more chance of standing in a “school” of thought where God is not recongnized or accepted.

I see a little better what you were trying to say, but I have to say I’m not sure I agree with the idea of allowing abortion in those cases.

Having said that, I’m honestly not sure what the role of the government should be in all of this. The government is supposed to protect the right to life, so I guess I would have to go with a position that says the government does not allow abortions under any circumstances.

I just can’t see how terminating a pregnancy resulting from forced sex makes anything better.

Abortion requires taking the life of an innocent human being who bears no responsibility for the situation.

Suppose you are in an auto accident where a drunk driver hits you, causing major internal injuries and putting you in traction. Because of the damage to your kidneys, you go on dialysis, but it isn’t enough and you have a 20% chance of dying if a donor isn’t found within a couple months. A person with a matching kidney is found, but they only have one already due to a genetic abnormality. If the law allowed it, would you kill that person to harvest their kidney and increase your own survival chances?

To do so would be cowardice and tremendously unjust. Sometimes people are faced with difficulties in life that nobody should be faced with. Taking the lives of other innocent human beings to better our own situation is not the right way to address injustice.

MB

Steve,

I made up the torture analogy based on reading interviews of people on the new religious left. People who are personally opposed to abortion, but believe in the government’s right to sanction what they ostensibly believe to be murder. It seems incongruous for people to be so laissez-faire about murdering millions and yet think torturing and wiretapping a small fraction of that number spells the end of civil liberties in this country.

MB

The reason I would tolerate the abortion of healthy babies conceived through rape or incest is that unlike in the vast majority of pregnancies, in such cases the mother bears no responsibility for the conception. Whenever sex is voluntary there is a chance of pregnancy, no matter how remote, and by making the decision to have sex a woman is implicitly accepting the responsibility of handling whatever consequences may result; it isn’t morally acceptable to kill another human being to spare yourself inconvenience brought about by your own actions. However, in cases of rape or incest where the woman does not consent, she does not bear any responsibility for the pregnancy and should not be legally required to carry the baby to term.

I think abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest, but I don’t necessarily think such abortions are desirable or morally acceptable. That’s a more difficult question, and in general I think it would be best to tolerate the unasked-for inconvenience (and risk) of pregnancy in order to protect the life of the baby. However, I wouldn’t force a woman to make that decision.

What do you think Steve? Is it okay for a 10 year old victim of sexual abuse and incest to protect/defend herself? Should such an innocent victim have no rights to defend herself after criminal action?

Some mentioned Jim Wallis — even though I am familiar with Jim Wallis, I have never read his stuff or examined what he is saying. I didn’t realize he had already brought up some of these issues.

Mama’s Boy, I thought your torture analogy was excellent and very thought-provoking. Thanks for sharing that. Did you develop that on your own, or did you hear it somewhere?

For the record, I’m pro-life in every way that I can imagine right now. I am anti-death penalty (even though some have given some great food for thought here as to why the death penalty can be defended with a certain amount of reasonability), anti-abortion, and anti-war.

As I mentioned in the post, I wasn’t always this way. But I have become that way in recent years.

Kansas Bob, I would be interested in further thoughts from you about how you feel aborting the product of a rape is “self-defense”. I didn’t follow that line of thinking. Either I completely misunderstood you, or — if I did understand correctly — I am adamantly not in agreement with what you said!

Anyway, thanks for the input, everyone. It was interesting to see the various views presented. Kind of made my title of this post (“various shades of pro-life”) even more appropriate!

The issues of pro-life/death penalty/war are linked to the tension between Justice and Mercy. Justice without Mercy ends up harsh and legalistic, often seems like tyranny. But Mercy can be extended so far that it leads to injustice (news archives are full of stories of criminals released or paroled who commit similar or worse crimes–we had a case here in Indianapolis a few months ago where the captured suspect had been out on bail awaiting trial). God is probably the only One in the Universe who can balance Justice and Mercy perfectly; humans don’t seem to do “balance” very well in any area for long. Even in non-criminal matters, Mercy can go too far: twenty-odd years ago I knew an older pastor who loved to help people, and had been given his own benevolence fund so he could do it without going through committees and such. He told me he had had to learn to be careful in helping people, because too many times he found out over time that he was getting in the way of what God was trying to do in an individual’s life–his “helping” actually enabled them to avoid facing things in their lives that they really needed to face up to.

There is an apparent disconnect between being anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment. But my personal belief is this happens because we are looking at it from man’s perspective. So what does it look like from God’s perspective? He created man in His own image, and He has set a value on human life–and He values it enough that when someone willfully and deliberately takes a human life, the only commensurate consequence is for the taker to surrender his own life. But when the state exacts that penalty, it must not be done carelessly or lightly. While the endless appeals and stays in our modern courts seem to stem more from the “squeamishness” I mentioned in this morning’s comment, the OT Law required the testimony of two or more witnesses to condemn a suspect–no “circumstantial evidence” or conjecture–from what I understand of the US and European legal systems, the Hebrew Law actually set a higher standard of proof.

What about war? The early Christians tended to be pacifists (service in the Roman army required participation in pagan ceremonies). But when soldiers came to John the Baptist, he didn’t tell them to get out of the army; Jesus healed the centurion’s servant and even commended his faith, without criticizing his occupation; and Cornelius got no rebuke either from Peter. The sad truth is, in a fallen world there may be times when a nation has to fight a war to protect its people. Again, it must not be taken lightly or carelessly (the Confederate States were MUCH too eager for the Civil War, and they paid dearly for it before the war ended). This does not mean all wars are justified, nor is war a glorious thing in itself. But it is sometimes necessary.

But why does the OT Law prescribe death for adultery and rape? I think the answer lies in God’s use of the concept of marriage to illustrate His relationship with His people. The OT prophets spoke of Israel and Judah as an unfaithful wife; the NT calls the Church the Bride of Christ. I even think that God instituted marriage in the first place with this in mind (I also believe that the act of sexual intercourse is just as binding in God’s eyes as any marriage ceremony). And because of this when anyone ignores the importance He puts on this relationship, whether by means of divorce, sexual promiscuity outside of marriage, adultery, male or female homosexuality; he/she is taking lightly something that God takes very seriously indeed. I know this would not be a popular view in today’s society, but it is at the root of the tension between Christians and and secular society.