# Murder



## Scott Bushey (Dec 25, 2004)

My brother in-law and I had an interesting conversation this evening; He is an devout Bush supporter. 

Abortion was the subject matter......

Question posed: Is all killing necessarily murder? 

Would it be murder if the mother of an unborn aborted her baby based upon the fact that if she has the baby, she will not live?

[Edited on 12-26-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## matt01 (Dec 25, 2004)

Scott,

Interesting question. Does the mother know for sure that she will absolutely, without a doubt die from giving birth to the child? Who can know this for sure? Regardless of the answer, I think that I would still vote for the abortion to be murder. I say this with my wife in mind. We cannot take the place of God. If He wills to take my wife, while she is giving birth to my child, I would hope that I would still be able to say "The Lord gives and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord."


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 25, 2004)

Lets assume that it is determined by the physician that if the mom does give birth, she will die. She has 3 other young children also.........would the termination of this pregnancy, based upon the scenario, be considered murder.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 25, 2004)

I agree Matt, but I must sadly admit that I cannot say for certain that I would have that kind of faith. The Lord would have to give it to me at that very moment as I now cannot even imagine it!

[Edited on 26-12-2004 by houseparent]


----------



## andreas (Dec 26, 2004)

***Lets assume that it is determined by the physician that if the mom does give birth, she will die. She has 3 other young children also.........would the termination of this pregnancy, based upon the scenario, be considered murder.***


Unborn children are living creatures in the image of God, and voluntary abortion, except possibly to save the physical life of the mother, is in violation of the Sixth Commandment Exodus 20:13. 

Personhood begins at conception Psalm 139:13-16; 51:5; Jeremiah 1:4,5; 

The Bible forbids murder because man is created in the image of God Genesis 9:5,6. The Bible further says that succeeding generations of men are conceived in the image of God Genesis 5:1-3. 

I have no answer for your question.If we perform an abortion, then we violate the sixth commandment.If we do not perform the abortion and the mother dies ,again we violate the sixth commandment.

andreas.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 26, 2004)

I don't envy anyone in this position. I pray God I never have to face it.

I think that it would be OK for the mother to sacrifice her life for the child, or at least say, "It's up to the Lord how this works out." I incline toward the notion that that attitude is normal for the Christian.

However, if the doctor (who's honesty was above controversy) in his sober professional judgment gave _no hope_ of survival to the mother, should the pregnancy proceed toward full term (consider just how extraordinary these circumstances would have to be!)...
If the decision could be made with a clear conscience, if attitudes cleansed of selfish considerations obtained, _if there was a clear biblical case for the needfulness or just preference of the mother remaining alive,_ I can envision a God-honoring decision being made to save the mother at the expense of the unborn child. One must be able to say, after a due consideration of all the facts, "I/we are not sinning by this decision; I/we are striving to give God the most glory I/we can by it."

But think of how strong these convictions would need to be in advance! How horrible to be plauged by an unsettled or guilty conscience for decades afterward over the wisdom of that choice! Thankfully God never tries the true believer beyond his ability to make biblical decisions (1 Cor. 10:13). I don't think the decision would be the same in every possible setting or age or circumstance.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 26, 2004)

So Bruce, you are saying that if all the ducks are in a row, mom will not survive the delivery, it would then be ok to intervene and abort the baby; it would not then be considered murder?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 26, 2004)

I think we do well to remember the TINY percentage of times this situation ever comes up. I read somewhere that it's less than 1%


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 26, 2004)

Adam,
I am trying to draw a literal line in the sand. The point of the question is to see if we can define the terms murder and killing; is there a difference? Do circumstances define the terms.

For instance; Suicide. Is it murder? Can murder be assigned if no malice is part of the process? 

*My brother in-law feels that suicide in the example of a person whom has severe cancers and is in intractable pain, justified and that it does not have malice attached to it. hence, it is not murder. 

Example: Mom decides to sacrifice herself instead of the baby. Is this suicidal or malicous? Is it killing or murder (of herself) for the sake of the baby?


[Edited on 12-26-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 26, 2004)

Sorry Scott, I was focused on the abortion thing only and felt it was relevant to make that statement. I live with unregenerate kids who look for excuses all the time. I have a built in defense mechinism.

Anyways,



> Example: Mom decides to sacrifice herself instead of the baby. Is this suicidal or malicous? Is it killing or murder (of herself) for the sake of the baby?



in my opinion that is sacrafice and 100% biblical if that decision is made and not forced upon the mother making it.

Suicide is another story. Unless one is mentally ill I believe it has malice. Many times, from my experience, suicide is a lack of faith and trust. Not only in God, but in your friends and family as well. Just like alcohol and drugs can be used as an "escape" suicide takes that mind set as far as it can go.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 26, 2004)

Adam,
Then there is a difference between killing and murder? In other words, is all 'killing" murder?

[Edited on 12-26-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Adam,
> Then there is a difference between killing and murder? In other words, is all 'killing" murder?
> 
> [Edited on 12-26-2004 by Scott Bushey]



No. That is why every language, including Hebrew (with specific reference to Exodus 20) has different words for killing and murder. If all killing is murder, then God is a sinner (cf. Lev 10). God forbid!

By the way, Scott, your sig appears to have some kind of error in the Greek. What are you trying to put there?


----------



## JohnV (Dec 26, 2004)

Here's my two cents' worth:

There is also no malice in involuntary manslaughter, but the negligence is still a crime, and is called manslaughter just the same. There is also what is called second degree murder, which is the impulsive taking of life, without pre-existent intent.

I think that it is not wrong to view all abortions as killing or murder. All justifiable killings, like self-defence killings, are murder of some sort. It needs to be seen as criminal, but justifiable in some cases. 

So also in a war, where the taking of life is a normal and almost everyday occurrance. There are codes of conduct that still forbid the needless and merciless taking of life, and it is still called a murderous crime, even in war. That is why there are war-crimes tribunals. Do you think these are convened because traffic laws are not obeyed? Of course not. It is because in the midst of war there was also murder. 

So in the case of the woman with child, if she is given no hope in the professional opinion of the doctor, and one must die, it would be considered an exception that the woman did not sacrifice her own life for the child, for the sake of the rest of the family, and for her own life. The exception makes it not murder, not the general case. 

Legislated laws are meant to cover as broad a view of applicable cases as possible; it is the individual equity that makes judges and lawyers necessary to the application of the legislated laws to the individual case. They are only trying to apply the universal moral code or the higher constitutional rights that over-rides and governs the applications of all particular societal laws. 

So if I were a judge, or even a policeman, I would not hold it against a woman who allowed her unborn baby to be sacrificed for her own life; or if she sacrificed her own for her unborn baby's life. Either one is normally a crime; but the circumstances make the committing of a crime impossible, and the intent all along was to save both lives. 

It is outlandish that there is a small percentage of times that such a situation arises, and yet it is usedd to justify the now countless times that unborn babies have been "sacrificed" so that the mother may be free from the burden of an "unwanted" child; that it is justified because of the mother's sovereignty over her own body to the expense of the honour of life.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 26, 2004)

Fred,
The Greek is Mark 9:40.....where is the error?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 26, 2004)

GW Bush attributes this murder/killing idea in the cases of rape and incest also.......


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 26, 2004)

How does rape or incest account for sacrafice? If anything the mother needs to sacrafice her feelings for the child.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> The Greek is Mark 9:40.....where is the error?



This is what I see you have:







And this is what it should be:


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 26, 2004)

My opinion is that not all killing is murder. In fact, I would go so far as to say the only time when we could call it "murder" would be when someone is killing someone else out of evil intent: convenience, greed, thrills, perversion, hatred, money, jealousy, etc.

Therefore, I would not call suicide, "murder." Neither would I the abortion incident mentioned above.

People that commit suicide are not trying to gain at someone else's expense. They are terribly depressed, or in agony, or mentally ill, or have something else wrong with them that would cause them to seek such a remedy.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> My opinion is that not all killing is murder. In fact, I would go so far as to say the only time when we could call it "murder" would be when someone is killing someone else out of evil intent: convenience, greed, thrills, perversion, hatred, money, jealousy, etc.
> 
> Therefore, I would not call suicide, "murder." Neither would I the abortion incident mentioned above.
> ...



I honestly don't know what I think about the abortion incident mentioned above. But how can you say suicide is not murder? You say, "People that commit suicide are not trying to gain at someone else's expense." They're not? The action is certainly done for their gain--to escape their current misery--and I have yet to hear of a suicide that did not devastate and drastically affect the lives of family and friends. It's selfish killing at the expense of others. And if it's not murder, then is it even sin? If so, on what biblical grounds?


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 26, 2004)

(the other) Chris wrote:
" You say, "People that commit suicide are not trying to gain at someone else's expense." They're not? The action is certainly done for their gain--to escape their current misery--and I have yet to hear of a suicide that did not devastate and drastically affect the lives of family and friends. It's selfish killing at the expense of others."

Hmmmm.... you raise some good points, Amigo. I don't know what to say about your post. You've given me something to think about...

One thing I will say is, I don't think we can be too dogmatic where the Bible isn't; however, your points are still valid and need answering. In defense of those who commit suicide, I think the INTENT is different than that of a "murderer." For one, even though the person is leaving behind a trail of pain and devastation, they usually think that those left behind are actually going to be BETTER OFF without them. Oftentimes they're simply soooo depressed that they feel they are sacrificing themselves, at their own expense, for the benefit of others. Perhaps like Samson (killing himself in order to do a greater good).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 26, 2004)

Here's some guidance on the various related subjects that have been raised from the Westminster Larger Catechism:




> Question 136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
> 
> Answer: The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge;all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 26, 2004)

Childbirth has been natural and risky since throughout history. Even a mother having a perfectly normal pregnancy and delivery runs the risk of still losing her life by the time the delivery is said and done. The uterus could decide to clamp up on the cord, she could bleed out, get a quick moving infection, etc. And in many cases where DRs swear that the mother or child will die...the Dr ends up being the one to be dead wrong. Also the process of abortion is as or more dangerous to the mothers in most cases than going through the pregnancy itself. Especially in partial-birth abortion. (take it from a woman who understands childbirth in a sense that men can't and who has also nearly lost her own life due to delivery as well as knowing other women who have nearly lost theirs as well)

a couple of books that I would recommend (and they aren't up your typical alley that I've seen you guys on this board read...but they are worth it)

The Atonement Child (fiction by Francine Rivers)
Gianna (biography)


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 26, 2004)

I read Gianna and have given it to girls I work with as a gift!


----------



## JohnV (Dec 26, 2004)

"Though rules of law are formulated to cover an indefinite number of like cases, the cases to which they must be applied by the judicial process are far from uniform." Adler here is presenting a general overview of the application of law as discussed in the Great Western Books series. He is considering the writing of the early Greeks, Montaigne, Aquinas, Pascal, and a host of others. 

If what we tend to do is try to make a law out of a particular case and try to apply it widely, then I think we are making a mistake. We need to work from a particular precept in law and work toward its applicability to the individual case. There may be other laws at play as well. 

On the whole, though, I think that we are merely trying to see the morality in a particular case. It is a moral conundrum, but one the vicissitudes of life due to our fallen nature places on our laps from time to time. Maybe sometimes it is exaggerated in order to justify a wider application of this one scenario, but I think we can all see that this is a backwards application of law to justify the immorality of wanton abortion. Much like the scenario of a teenage daughter being cruelly raped by a drunken father, being applied so as to elicit feelings for the distraught nature of the girl, and steering us away from any feeling for the conceived child, making the conception the thing that is most at fault more than the rape itself; this being used to justify countless abortions on the notion that the pregnancy of many young girls is of the same kind of nature, even though the conception came not through rape by a father, but more often as a result of a drug induced sense of temporary carelessness, or even just wanton promiscuity. It is again the making of a law based upon one incident and applying it widely into many incidents, most of which are only vaguely similar. It is, in fact, the making of a new morality; or better put, the over-riding of the higher laws on the back of a lesser law. Laws must have a hierarchy, so that a speeding by-law does not over-ride an emergency situation. 

As long as we stay away from any tendency in that direction, I think we can apply the moral laws that we know so well to this particular incident. It is true that the doctor may be wrong, but yet we are usually in the position of having to trust his professional opinion. Yet we must also know that that is all it is, a professional opinion, unless he can categorically state that the mother will surely die if the pregnancy continues. In that case, we know that the taking of one life will save another, and our options are clear. But this case places one life against another, meaning that the life of the child and the mother will remain viable until the child is sufficiently capable of life outside the womb. And there have been miraculous cases that have turned out incredibly in favour of both.

I am thinking (and I am going strictly by memory here) of a case in Eastern Canada a number of years back, in which the mother was terminally ill with some disease that was eating away inside her. Her last wish was to be allowed to come home and be with her husband and family. She stayed home for a number of weeks, but then had to return to the hospital. Her turn for the worse was a new development, and the doctors could not figure it out at first. But one doctor found out she was pregnant. 

Their immediate response was to abort the baby. But the mother said no. She said there was no harm in seeing how far the pregnancy could go, and that maybe the child may have a small chance if she is able to endure. It turns out that the pregnancy had the effect of stopping the disease, and the mother was able to carry the child to full term. And to top it off, the effect had been so beneficial to her own body that she was found to be free of her disease after the baby was born, and she was able to return to her husband and family, and later even to carry on with her life. 

If I recall, this story was republished from a local paper by Reader's Digest. This is my recollection of it. I can't remember the disease, but I seem to recall it being cancer, but I am not at all sure of that anymore. It was an incredible story to read. And it shows that we cannot discount hope at any time. And doctors may be sincere and yet turn out to be wrong in their predictions, even if right in their medical diagnoses.


----------



## andreas (Dec 27, 2004)

Chew on this for a while;


Under Section 300 of the QLD Criminal Code, Murder is defined as a killing which is not justified, authorised or excused by law. The case of Wilmont No 2, stated that Murder itself cannot be proved without the element of intent,and intent was defined as, "Intention to bring about a specific result". 


andreas


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 27, 2004)

This will probably raise some hackles. I just need to add another  . I guess that makes 4, total. Sorry, nothing personal. I'm not looking for an argument. But this whole thread is far, far off base. Here's what I mean:

I think there's a lot more murdering going on than killing, in all these circumstances we're sniffing into, even in war. We're not standing around in a clean environment, questioning one circumstance in a thousand--or ten thousand--and trying to come to grips with it, and offer up a biblical (albeit difficult) decision. No, we are trying to find formulaic solutions to descrete, queer little problems we have here, when we're standing knee-deep in blood!

I say: what we need are radical solutions, that torniquet the hemorrage all around us. We are so far from meaningful answers to these minor questions minor in the comparative sense), because our peceptions are skewed. Badly. And not just because we have the agreed-upon misfortune of living among a people where the blood of millions of unborn children cries out against the land. No, as Christians we don't hate bloodshed _*enough.*_

Well, what about the war, you ask. Let's not bother getting a foreign angle on it, whether from news or from those experiencing it, as enlightening as that might be. How about from an embedded reporter, or an American journalist under the thumb of the police-state information bureau. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17630 The writers (I won't speak for the reviewer) clearly have little or no political axe to grind. They are simply being honest, and end up bewildered, conflicted, and ambiguous.

We don't have to be ambiguous. And when finally we are not, and we have perhaps had our own blood shed, then, perhaps we will be in position to answer clearly the hard questions and exceptional circumstances others put to us.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 27, 2004)

Bruce,

How is what is described in the article any more indiscriminate than the wars of the OT. You've read about seiges of cities, I'm sure. War brings famine and famine sure death. And I am not even talking about the commanded slayings of civilians by the Lord.

What we have here is not murder, it is the results of federalism.

On the other hand, I do agree that it is a bit of a stretch to be concerned about the exceptional, exceptional case when we are knee deep in the blood of abortions.

[Edited on 12/27/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 27, 2004)

Fred (my brother),
I have a fairly standard 'redemptive-historical" answer to the question you posed, but first, allow me a retort:

How is what is described in the article any more indiscriminate than any other of the grinding wars this world has seen? Because those boys in the article were trying harder, or had overall better fire discipline? Because its _our_ (federalism!) war? Because "God is on _our_ side?" Because its just? I never accepted any of those premises. Where is it written that the US is "the rod of God's anger" against the Middle East, or Iraq in particular, or against Muslims? All I see is violence, blood, the stirring of a pot to a boil. In one sense, it really doesn't matter much what our attitude is to all the deaths. They see them as murders needing revenge!!

I don't want to hijack this thread, and I don't want to politicize it, but before we as believers sign on to _any_ war, and somehow expiate the guilt (Ex. 30:12; Num. 1:2-3; cf. 2 Sam. 24) of tens of thousands of dead men, women, children, aged, infants, we better be for sure God is on our side, or we are damned, for sure (federally speaking). When someone invades you, you shoot all of "them;" if any survive, "lucky" for them. When you invade someplace else... putting a whole populace under the gun for "crimes" of its head... a head God instructed them to submit to... a nation innocent of (recent) agression... how much "unlucky" blood spoils the operation?

I'm positive we as a nation must start empathizing with those caught in the conflict, until the anguish is more than we can bear, and we leave off (2 Ki. 3:27). When I read about a family who've seen their hope lying cold on a steel tray, covered in blood, I see my own daughter's face in a masque of death. I feel for the soldier in the grip of his nightmares, because I've been a soldier. Don't stifle those feelings, of shared humanity; nourish them.

Here's my redemtive historical response: God put our fathers under Moses' political system, set them inthe midst of nations, ordered them at times into conflict, raised up defenders, judges, and kings, in order to bring in the Messiah, and to leave us indellible flesh and blood examples for our instruction, in the age of the Spirit. We find only a limited number of times God ordering a holocaust or putting an entire entity under a ban of annihalation. Despite these exceptions, the concept of mercy in wartime is clearly well-known in the OT. It would shock me to find that an Israelite army was not a thousand times more merciful to enemies than the idolatrous nations around them. God showed to (among other places) wicked Nineveh, his own merciful nature in caring for over 120,000 pagan children, and many amimals, living in a place he had marked for destruction. God certainly did not bless every case of Israelitish war, and after the conquest of Canaan, we do not read of him awarding them additional land. He often gives them victory in battle against agressors; he makes them the head, and not the tail, during periods of faithfulness. The brutality of ancient warfare is an object lesson in the pages of Scripture, especially as it was conducted _against_ the faithless people of God. Jehovah visited the bloodshed of faithless Israel and Judah back on their heads. Whence come our wars? Do "they" really hate us because we are so virtuous?

I, for one, will not equate a US army in AD 2004 with an army of Israel in the OT, were they never so disciplined, full of human compassion, or judicious. The large disparities overshadow the points of comparison.

And I've said too much already...


----------

