« Jesus the Logician | Main | Interview Follow Up »

August 07, 2007

Comments

“We can simply say, "I think women who get illegal abortions should be prosecuted according to the same standards we use to prosecute all other lethal harms.” Thanks for giving us a powerful line to say. I like the question answer style.

"As with any other homicide, the intent and premeditation of those participating in the abortion has to be taken into account."

I copied the above for the benefit of those of us who have participated in the various hate crimes discussions so unless you have a good reason for treating intent in homicide cases differently from other crimes, welcome aboard Steve.

Tortured explanations aside, what we have in an abortion is that a woman goes to a place from another place with the intent to hire another person to terminate her pregnancy at some point in the near future. This typically requires more than one trip plus a number of telephone calls.

If that doesn't meet the definition of premeditation I don't know what does. If the woman's parents, husband, boyfriend, or others physically coerce her then they would be guilty of murder. Otherwise I don't believe there is much of a defense here.

"Whether the woman or doctor knows the unborn is a human being may also be relevant to the legal calculation."

How in the world does one meet that standard in a trial? This is from section 189 of the California Penal Code:

"...To prove the killing was 'deliberate and premeditated,' it shall
not be necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully
reflected upon the gravity of his or her act."


"I think women who get illegal abortions should be prosecuted according to the same standards we use to prosecute all other lethal harms."

Sorry Kyl, given the qualifications above that statement, that reply is designed to mislead and evade. Steve's qualifications, developed after some deliberation, show the same ambivalence as the ambushed pro-lifers statements do with no prep time. The truth is that there is no logical answer to that question that just about anyone is wiling to actually impose.

Abortion laws are designed to allow women with the means to have access to safe abortions.

The simple reality is that if women are actors capable of moral choice and free will AND abortion takes the life of an innocent human being from a legal point of view AND we factor in the existing legal standards re: murder, then most abortions are first degree murder with special circumstances.

California Penal Code:

"188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act
within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite
such awareness is included within the definition of malice."

"190.2. (a) The penalty for a defendant who is found guilty of
murder in the first degree is death or imprisonment in the state
prison for life without the possibility of parole if one or more of
the following special circumstances has been found under Section
190.4 to be true:
(1) The murder was intentional and carried out for financial gain."

"190.2 (c) Every person, not the actual killer, who, with the intent to
kill, aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, solicits, requests,
or assists any actor in the commission of murder in the first degree
shall be punished by death or imprisonment in the state prison for
life without the possibility of parole if one or more of the special
circumstances enumerated in subdivision (a) has been found to be true
under Section 190.4."

>>I copied the above for the benefit of those of us who have participated in the various hate crimes discussions so unless you have a good reason for treating intent in homicide cases differently from other crimes, welcome aboard Steve.

Alan, just to clarify, the government must determine there was an intent to harm--that is, that it was done on purpose. From my understanding, motivation is different from intent (in the sense it's used here). The motivation the person had for harming does not play into the sentencing.

But I do agree with you that if the law at some time determines that abortion kills a human being with rights, then the woman's belief about the status of the unborn would not play into things. If that were the case, then, in the past, any crimes against black people on the part of those who thought them less than human would receive less of a sentence, and that's obviously unjust.

Thanks Alan. No matter how you may feel about Alan's other stands, he is exactly right. Here again, we've been confronted with a stark reality.
It's time for the Christians to step up. The Bible says that if some one lays in wait for anothers blood (premeditation), their blood shall be required of them.
Is there going to be a period of say 1 year, before anything other than manslaughter charges can be brought?
How serious are pro-life Christians about God's judgement for child sacrifice?
Don't get me wrong, I'm for making abortion illegal, but what if it was your daughter who got caught? Are we going to execute 4,000 plus young girls a day, not to mention the others involved?
Alan is exactly right, before you start throwing terms like 'lethal harm' around, you had better know what you're talking about.
Don't forget why sites like STR were founded. There is a whole generation that has to be introduced to the Bible before pro-life arguments from a Biblical point of view can make sense.
For thirty years now, kids have been told abortion is legal, and encouraged to get them by teacher, parents, presidents legislators, doctors, councilers ........and the list goes on. Now all of a sudden they are on death row?
Quick little talking points like those given above aren't going to get the job done.

Tim, if abortion was made illegal, there wouldn't be 4,000+ abortions each day. Making something illegal generally acts as a good deterrent.

Also, in the US we have laws that prevent new legislation from being used against people who did something prior to it being made illegal, so women who have already had abortions would not be subject to penalty. Only new cases could be punished under new anti-abortion legislation.

Regretfully, I do not think this answer cuts it.

First, it is very difficult to find any evidence that any serious number of women were ever jailed for abortion prior to Roe. Are you really going to be tougher now than then?

Next, abortion is never going to be illegal - 40% of the abortions in the country happen in states that legalized abortion before Roe; or are clearly committed to having them legal if Roe is overturned.

State-by-state it will be decided whether abortion is a crime, or not - and what the penalties will be - or not.

Finally, many states are going to allow health of the mother - and not just threats to her life - as a reason for an abortion - not to mention the health of the child as well as rape and incest.

So, if we really want to end abortion in the US (past about 50% of the current level), it is going to take winning hearts and minds, and not threatening jail time.

Frankly, I think we need to worry about making abortion unchosen right now instead of illegal - because there will always be a border to cross (or a double dose of birth control pills) if folks really do not have the status of the child in their hearts.

I should also say: about 1 out of 3 women in this country have had abortions.

In my own family, that is my mother (death of a fiancee one week before the wedding in pre-Roe Texas), guilt-ridden Catholic MIL, and two of my three sisters. When facing this law, everyone in this country is going to know some woman who had an abortion - and visualize their face behind bars. (and I know they are not going to jail)

Are you really sure you basically want to say - "yes, your sister would be doing time right now for murder/manslaugter/whatever"

I think pro-life folks need an answer to that question, but I am not sure "they will go to jail for some form of murder" works.

>Whether the woman or doctor knows the unborn is a human being may also be relevant to the legal calculation.

This makes sense to me.

Let's say you go deer hunting and you accidentally shoot your buddy and he dies. You definitely intended to shoot and kill what you were aiming at, but you didn't know it wasn't a deer.

The youtube discussion is typically stupid, void of any working logic and seated in PostModern emotion.

If you think about it the question is only grounded in the modern comfort and wide cultural acceptance of abortion. Here's what I mean:

Let's take a time machine back to the South when slavery was legal and on the brink of abolition. A reporter walks up to an abolitionist and asks, "What should the punishment be for a slave owner who lynches his black chattle?" It would be unthinkable at the time to answer that the owner should also be hanged. It's only because of the cultural comfort we WRONGLY had about the status of the black man. Leaning on the cultural horror of prosecuting slave owners isn't using reason.

I would ask the Youtube idiot how much prison time should a slave owner do? Or ask how much prison time an abortion doctor should do 150 years after the practice is made illegal and there is a general concensus that the fetus is a fully human life having all of our Civil Rights.

Hi Doug, the drawing of parallels between slavery, abolition, and abortion has been way overdone. There were executions for the murder of a slave (though rare) and a general recognition that slaves were human beings. The problems were more class based. Slave owners were wealthy and powerful, slaves were poor and powerless. The problem was more about the practical problems we still face when dealing with great differences in wealth and power as opposed to what we consider the victim to be. Consider this; were the defendants in the Duke case black and poor, they would be likely be in prison today.

There was a general recognition that the treatment of slaves was a problem. Imprisoning, not to mention executing, a woman for arranging an abortion for herself is simply beyond the pale for most people and that isn't going to change. Also the people who write the laws will always write them in ways that protect their wives, daughters, and girl friends.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that you are pushing on a string here? Changing social policy would accomplish the same ends with a lot less conflict.

Tim wrote: "Don't get me wrong, I'm for making abortion illegal, but what if it was your daughter who got caught?"

Why is this relevant? If my daughter was caught murdering an adult with a gun, should my opinion on murder (and its penalties) change? To answer your question, I would be saddened that she made such a choice, and support her through the process of her paying the penalty for her actions, while not excusing or condoning her actions.

jchfleetguy wrote: "So, if we really want to end abortion in the US ... it is going to take winning hearts and minds, and not threatening jail time."

This is partly true -- we must "win hearts and minds" in order to get laws overturned or created to protect the unborn, but those laws are then enforced with the threat of penalty (e.g., jail time). We don't keep people from raping other people by just "winning hearts and minds", we do it with the threat of force.

... and then ... "Are you really sure you basically want to say - 'yes, your sister would be doing time right now for murder/manslaugter/whatever'"

The pro-lifer can certainly say that what "your sister" did was wrong, but it was legal. If "your sister" committed the act in direct defiance of the law, then why should we have a problem saying that she should go to jail? Do you apply the same standard to robbing banks?

"I think pro-life folks need an answer to that question, but I am not sure 'they will go to jail for some form of murder' works."

How about: they will pay the penalty for the act of taking human life, in direct violation of the law in the state in which she lives. How about: they will be held accountable for taking a human life, just as if they were to severely beat a pregnant woman to the point that the unborn child died.

Alan wrote: "Also the people who write the laws will always write them in ways that protect their wives, daughters, and girl friends."

Unfortunately, they don't write laws that protect their *unborn* daughters. Alan, what do you mean by "changing social policy"? Pro-lifers see the changing of laws as the way to enact social change. Legalization of abortion made it socially acceptable (or at least "not socially dispicable") to have an abortion, so why wouldn't illegalization have the reverse effect?

The problem with responding with the casuistry of "classification of murder" to mitigate the consideration that an abortion-minded mother should be put in jail is found in the response a clever Anne Quindlan would come back with:

"Let's say the pregnant mother is a top professional in her field and a vibrantly active member in her community. She has been married for a number of years, stable relationship, bringing up three other children who are bright, mature, doing well in school.

"She flatly declares, 'I will murder the child as a fetus in my womb, and I will get the help of a medical professional to do it.'"

What kind of classification of murder is that?

Yes, of course Steve Wagner, like everyone else who uses the World's means to rationalize behavior, simply doesn't know. And all the pro-lifers in that forum blithered and blathered and couldn't answer the question because the Law is wholly inadequate to do so.

Here's an idea. How about if those who say their Christ's made a defense of protecting the life of an unborn child from the Kingdom instead? Here's the response a follower of Christ would have (and trust me, I'm not so bright to know this-- it is right there in Scripture...)

"If the abortion-minded mother knew Jesus Christ, truly knew and understood Him and who He was, abortion would not even be a thought in her mind to begin with. Those without Christ live by the World's standards and thus engage in human sacrifice as a matter of practice.

"Throwing the Law at an emotionally ambivalent mother is just like putting thousand pound bricks on her chest. What she needs is the flesh and bones of someone who is Grace and Truth, and that only comes from someone who knows Jesus Christ."

When you get a bunch of "pro-lifers" who don't know Christ, you get what Quindlan faced: diddly squat. Worse, you get nowhere with what-- or rather Who-- people really need.

If we are fighting a legal battle and arguing about the law, we should have a legal answer to the punishment question. I don't think it's good enough to say, "Leave it to the lawyers." I think the best answer is that we already have laws on the books for fetal homicide. That answer forces someone to focus on whether a fetus is a human life. And from there it's SLED time...

LTI Blog has an entry on this topic and a link to an NRO symposium discussing the issue.

Go here:

http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2007/08/why-only-prosecute-doctor-serge.html

I can see there are practical reasons not to penalize women who seek abortions, but do those outweigh the moral concerns? Abortion is the premeditated, intentional killing of a human being. It makes no sense to prosecute perpetrators of all other premeditated, intentional murders, but not women who kill their unborn. Some sort of punishment seems necessary in light of justice, even if their punishment is less severe than the abortionist who performed the abortion.

It would be nice for Steve to chime in on this discussion.

Alan,
"Hi Doug, the drawing of parallels between slavery, abolition, and abortion has been way overdone. ...The problems were more class based. Slave owners were wealthy and powerful, slaves were poor and powerless."

I see why you'd think the parallels between the unborn and slaves are overdrawn given the first trimester fetus is so rich and powerful.

"Consider this; were the defendants in the Duke case black and poor, they would be likely be in prison today."

Um, not. Though you shouldn't imply that because they were black and poor that they were more likely to rape a stripper.

"There was a general recognition that the treatment of slaves was a problem. Imprisoning, not to mention executing, a woman for arranging an abortion for herself is simply beyond the pale for most people and that isn't going to change. "

Yeah, and if we free all of those pesky slaves the Southern farm economy would collapse. Who cares?

"Also the people who write the laws will always write them in ways that protect their wives, daughters, and girl friends."

In your little world there's always a rich powerful white guy behind every questionable act. That's not a good standard for grounding morality though Marx did give it a go.

"Why is it so difficult for you to understand that you are pushing on a string here? Changing social policy would accomplish the same ends with a lot less conflict."

Personally, I thought it was smarter of Lincoln to start a Civil War over having a bakesale, but I'll take your advice under consideration.

For me, the problem is this is not yet a legal/law discussion - it is a moral/ethical one.

This is about a law that cannot be written in stone because of Roe and Casey - it can only be written on folks hearts.

Until you can garner enough support in Congress (2/3) and the States (3/4) to pass a Constitutional amendment against abortion - you are trying to convince pregnant women that, to use one of those slavery analogies, the fetus indeed has rights they are bound to respect.

Talk to me about law when you can garner more than the current 1/3 of the population who want Roe repealed - and when that number approaches the 60-70% that it really takes to legislate morality even half effectively. Then, we will get to see whether the mechanisms to provide alcohol during prohibition are better, or worse, than those to provide abortion after it is made illegal everywhere.

Frankly though, we are twenty years away - if ever - from making abortion illegal in the whole of the United States.

How do we convince women to not kill babies even though they have the right to? That is the question. The question of how many years to make the mother do in prison is a distraction from the moral and ethical discussion to a useless legal discussion.

jchfleetguy,
I should probably let Steve Wagner give you the exact numbers but are basically where you think we're going to be in 20 years. It depends on how the poll question is asked but if the public is asked if abortions should remain an absolute right for any woman at any time during pregnancy (as it is now) you get 60% who are for overturning it.

We aren't 20 years away, we're one Supreme Court vote away and that could happen under Bush's watch or under another conservative's watch assuming Christians aren't foolish enough to go for fringe third parties or follow Tony Campolo down to the altar of Hillary.

While I admit Giuliani is a wild-card on the subject, he has publicly said that he wants a strict constructionist on the court without an abortion litmus test. His favorite judge is Scalia.

Once Roe is overturned, THEN it goes to a state by state vote about when a woman is allowed to personally decide when human life begins. It would likely cut our abortion numbers in half and at least make the public debate and think about what they're doing instead of lean on a poorly decided court case from 30 years ago that frankly, never stuck among the general populace.

Romney, Thompson or Giuliani will appoint more constructionist judges than either Obama or Hillary. that's the main thing you need to know. I'm with Alan on exhausting other social forms of ending abortion in the meanwhile, but it's the Supreme Court that got us into this mess and it will be the Supreme Court that gets us out of it. If a judge or 2 retires under a democratic presidency then yes, abortion will not only be with us for the rest of our lives but it will likely be expanded even farther.

Doug

I haven't looked lately, but the last I did - while 2/3 of the country wanted abortion restricted from its current level - only about a 1/3 wanted Roe overturned. Last I knew, slightly over 50% of women considered themselves pro-life vs pro-choice. Oregon, which passed a DOMA, defeated Parental notification fairly soundly.

Certainly, 50% is possible - but once it starts getting the state by state toss-up I do not think it will be 50. Certainly, many many people will simply go to one of the states that keeps abortion on demand. It will make it difficult for folks who cannot afford to travel - but I am not sure that is our intent.

No, I really do not think we are there yet - and those numbers have been fluctuating between about the same limits for quite a while - so while we have made progress over the last 10 years there hasnt been much movement over the last two or three.

This is certainly true if theologically conservative Christians expect to both make abortion illegal; and restrict birth control education in schools.

Frankly, I do not think it is a given that Roberts or Alito is going to vote to reverse Roe - they both are respecters of precedent - so more than one justice may be needed.

Anyway, it will get interesting - but I think making abortion illegal is going to be like Egypt was to Isreal - a broken reed in our hands. It will have been a long fight to achieve little - and then get to threaten to jail scared poor women (no plane fare again) in the end; while folks who can afford it fly to California or New York.

So, the question is: does all of that give us a chance to make moral/ethical headway with wavering pro-choice women?

I misspoke above. It is Casey the Supremes would be really reversing - and I think stare decisis (sp?) is going to be tough for Roberts and Alito to give up.

Great post. I gives a concise response to the question at hand.

A few points need consideration here.

First, the civil law draws from, but does not always mirror the moral law. Not everything contrary to the moral law need be punished in the civil law.

Second, the legitimate goal of the civil law is to eliminate abortion. Is punishing the woman necessary to accomplish that goal? The answer to this question is ultimately a political one which must be guided by the virtue of prudence.

Considering the current climate and the current methods of obtaining an abortion, a good case could be made that punishing only the abortionist would be sufficient to accomplish the goal.

There would be inconsistency between how the law treats pre-birth and post-birth killings, but it might be a legitimate, imperfect, solution.

In fact, carving out a different type of wrong in the civil law is exactly what was done with partial-birth abortion bans. Not one of those bans treats partial-birth abortion as a homicide. Some of them, however, apply the same penalty as a homicide, but only to the abortionist. If we insisted only on legislation that that made no distinctions in the civil law, with regards to description or penalty, between all post-birth and all pre-birth killing, we would not have the partial-birth abortion bans or other opportunities to change the Roe/Casey precedents.

The best answer to the question is: "That's a loaded question. There may not need to be a punishment for the woman."

"If we insisted only on legislation that that made no distinctions in the civil law, with regards to description or penalty, between all post-birth and all pre-birth killing, we would not have the partial-birth abortion bans or other opportunities to change the Roe/Casey precedents."

This is just another way say if we were honest and truthful in presenting our case we wouldn't have much support. The campaign to present the woman as a mindless victim is just a continuation of this. Before you react please note this statement by Doug:

"It depends on how the poll question is asked but if the public is asked if abortions should remain an absolute right for any woman at any time during pregnancy (as it is now) you get 60% who are for overturning it."

Is that an accurate statement? What decision does he wish to overturn?

cdk, simple justice (a basic concept of our system that goes back to Roman and Jewish law) demands that those who break the law are punished. If we have a person from conception then we are bound by the law as it currently stands or we have to change the law to exempt some murderers, which, BTW, raises Constitutional issues. Y

You all have had days now to come come up with a clear answer to a simple question and all I see is waffling and cynical political calculation.

If I had this much trouble dealing with a simple policy question, especially one that I felt so strongly on, I would check my premises. So far we started off with a canned "answer" that was designed to evade having to make an honest reply and the last reply above throws out the whole Western tradition on law.

Doug, please research what the laws actually were (on the books at least) in ante-bellum America re: the treatment of slaves (I have).

ctdkitefrog

Thanks for your reply. It was supported by this from someone else somewhere else

"For example, the quite restrictive new South Dakota law spells out clearly that:"

'Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.'

"It's never been about punishing women."

That is a great answer to the question; and it is the answer it took to get an abortion law passed even in conservative South Dakota.

"No, I really do not think we are there yet - and those numbers have been fluctuating between about the same limits for quite a while - so while we have made progress over the last 10 years there hasnt been much movement over the last two or three."

jchfleetguy,
here's why I think we're ready for an over-turn...not quite, but if people ever really understood the argument we would have an even bigger majority to overturn Roe and Casey. Check out this poll:

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

It basically reveals how broadly the numbers fluctuate depending on how the question is asked...and NONE of the questions actually pose the truth of the question which would charitably help our side. Not "should we end abortion" but "should abortion go back to a state by state basis?" etc.

Here's an example from earlier this year:

'Now I would like to ask your opinion about a specific abortion procedure known as a 'late-term' abortion or 'partial-birth' abortion, which is sometimes performed on women during the last few months of pregnancy. Do you think that the government should make this procedure illegal, or do you think that the procedure should be legal?"'

(again, they didn't describe the procedure as delivering the body of a baby and puncturing the skull to scramble it's brains...)

Illegal
66,

Legal
28,

Unsure
5,

(now compare those numbers from the exact same people with this:)

'With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?'

Pro-choice
45

Pro-life
50

Unsure About
Terms (vol.)
2

Mixed/Both/
Neither (vol.)
2

Unsure
1

Only 28% of freaks think Partial Birth abortion should remain legal but a full 45% call themselves "Pro-Choice". What if the 45% who call themselves Pro-Choice understood that voting accordingly was the only thing that kept the Partial birth Abortion procedure legal?

If you asked people if they would appoint a pro-life judge that would end brain scrambling, government endorsed infanticide while returning the legality of abortion to a state by state level you'd probably get well over 70% of the population on your side. It's this 70% that I think will get more and more Pro-Life the more educated they are on the subject, which why I put so much in education movements like Steve Wagner and Klusendorf...and not the voting record of Alan Aronsen.

"Doug, please research what the laws actually were (on the books at least) in ante-bellum America re: the treatment of slaves (I have)."

Alan, my point still sticks if the general public horror over slavery is greater today than it was in the times of antebellum or Dred Scott.

You need look no further than Dred Scott, perhaps the only Supreme Court decision more wrong than Roe:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html

'Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."'

The general public in the SOuth and our Supreme Court had an innaproprite amount of outrage against what we now know to be a gross injustice. Even after the Civil War it took a long time before the black man could vote and it was met by a collective American yawn.

The fact that we do not have the moral resolve to prosecute abortionists is in not way a determining factor of the morality of the punishment. That's my point, it still sticks and it directly applies to how America once viewed blacks compared to today.

(though I think you've got it particularly backwards in that you seem to charitable to rich whites in the past but today they all want to falsely accuse black students of rape)

Alan said: "You all have had days now to come come up with a clear answer to a simple question and all I see is waffling and cynical political calculation."

I take it you have not had the chance to check out the link I supplied.

I'm amazed that very little scripture is used by anyone.
Read Mica 6:6,7,8.
The reason there weren't 4'000+ abortions before Roe is because it was illegal. It's been legal for 30 years, we've encouraged sexual activity in young girls brfore marriage, we've invented 'safe sex'.....etc., etc.
By making abortion illegal, abortion then will fall under current state statutes. It will be premeditated murder.
In the culture as it exists today, what will be required is that through the 'sex education' programs that exist, it will be need to made clear that abortion is no longer an option if a girl gets pregnant. Further, it would also need to be made clear that anyone such as parents or boy friends who facilitates an abortion can be charged as well.
Finally, by overturning Roe, the Federal Government will be effectively turning the issue back over to the states where it belongs. If the Christian community is going to be on the leading edge, then it seems to me we need to have laws ready to deal with the issues in accordance with the Mica refference. Ultimately the references like Jer32:35 that speak to child sacrifice and God's view of it as an abomination will have to be taken seriously if this nation is going to survive. As I see it we can take the way Jesus did with the woman in the temple, or we can go directly to the law; execute some young girls and those who facilitated the abortions. The first way simply requires some time and forethought. In other words Christians need to get up to speed on how their state governments work and get involved at the local level at school board meetings. We need to take control of the curriculum at all levels of government to start, the ultimate solution though is Christ, we as Christians have a lot of work to do.

Discussions like this one about abortion should reveal to us our spiritual condition-that is, we continue to hold on to the old covenant. Pro-life or Pro-Choice, you are holding hope to the law rather than Christ gift of salvation in the New Covenant. There is no law that will fix the problem and no punishment for however the law gets written that overcomes the gift of Jesus Christ. We have got to stop arguing the law and focus on living Christ. I plead with Christians-work out your salvation. Your salvation is in Christ, not law. Be thankful in the faith in Jesus Christ, as the alternative results in death for all of us as not one of us has kept "the law". As Christians, Christ does not hold us to the law but to grace (Rom. 6:14).

So you say-but what about abortion? Abortion is never desirable except as a result of sin-primarily rape or conception without marriage. Both of these sins have existed even back into the time of the law of God through Moses. It went on then and it goes on now. If you want to be "righteous" about it, if you want to align yourself to biblical law about it-you have to be ready to stone the guilty to death at the outskirts of your city. Don't want to do that? Me either. I choose Christ!!!

There is no doubt that abortion is an abomination before God. So is idolatry, greed, coveting, adultery, need I continue.....We love to point the finger at others sins. As Christians we must point the finger towards Christ and stay focused on Him. Once you do you will begin to see this more clearly. Abortion is absolutely painful for God to watch us do. He is also pained over our desire to seek our own advise and come up with our own conclusions. We argue the science of when life begins as though we have something to do with it. Don't you know that conception only occurs when God breathes life? If God breathes life, then to abort this life is to abort God's very breathe. Let us teach others about Christ so that they will come to know Him and know God through Him. We must come to know God and respect Him. If He chooses to breathe life-who are we to stop it!

Let me leave you with this thought...

How important is God's plan that I must endure these circumstances for His will to be fullfilled.

I've been wrong about so many things through my life so I don't want to sound like I'm sold on my opinion, but I would like some feedback on it. If I were somehow injured or otherwise afflicted with a heart attack, for example, my death would be determined primarily by my pulse. Do I have a heart beat? Isn't that the case?
A fetus, I've read, has a heart beat as early as 10 days after conception, but on average at day 18. Why do we not determine life in the same way we determine death?
What does independence from the mother have to do with anything? That baby will be dependant on someone well after birth, so why does the mother have a magic timeline to decide whether it lives or dies?

As far as the argument that, "women should have the right to make the decision because it's their body" doesn't hold to logic if it's considered under todays laws. No one has the right to commit suicide or do drugs, for instance. If the argument, "it's my body so I have the right to..." were the rule then drugs and suicide wouldn't be regulated either.

That is really just the beginning of my argument but I'm interested in how people rationalize themselves around this point.

Morality can not be legislated into existence. Victorian England had the highest abortion rate in the history of the world, and abortion was illegal. When the bumper sticker stating "the Moral Majority is neither" came out, 40% of abortions in America were performed on young girls who came from "good christian homes". We need to focus on prevention and adoption. The current party in power is more interested in bringing more poor unwanted babies into the world so they can be denied health care by the way.

The comments to this entry are closed.