# Necessary defense and abortion



## chuckd (Jun 25, 2014)

Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?

A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves *and others*...

Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?

A. 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 defence*;

Vos commentary:
The 6th Comm. requires a just defense of human life against destruction by violence.

What rule prevents a Christian from defending a person about to be aborted? Including the use of violence? i.e. what does "just" and "necessary" mean in this context?


----------



## Hemustincrease (Jun 26, 2014)

Not altogether following you. Are you thinking about the defense of the unborn to the point of harm to the mother?


----------



## chuckd (Jun 26, 2014)

Hemustincrease said:


> Not altogether following you. Are you thinking about the defense of the unborn to the point of harm to the mother?



To a degree. I can't envision a case where I would have to HARM the mother or abortion doctor to defend the unborn, but restraining the mother or preventing a doctor from performing the procedure. I'm thinking if an infant or child were under attack and their life threatened, a Christian would be obligated to defend it.

disclaimer: I am not thinking about killing an abortion doctor or bombing an abortion clinic.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 27, 2014)

Now, now... this portion of the Confession is only used to justify the purchase of shiny new carry pistols, or bomb funny-talking brown people on the other side of the world by remote control on behalf of the magistrate. Here on PB we measure our confessionalism by how well we keep the Sabbath. You're making us a little uncomfortable. And to top it off, I saw this in my morning reading:


> Pro 24:10-12 If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small. (11) If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; (12) If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?


I think perhaps our priorities, and our ideas of what constitutes courage, are a little out of whack.


----------



## Hemustincrease (Jun 27, 2014)

chuckd said:


> I can't envision a case where I would have to HARM the mother or abortion doctor to defend the unborn, but restraining the mother or preventing a doctor from performing the procedure. I'm thinking if an infant or child were under attack and their life threatened, a Christian would be obligated to defend it.



Are you thinking about situations where you know the woman or the doctor on some kind of personal basis, or more of a general approach to the issue of abortion? For example, if a daughter was planning such a thing, surely our responsibility would be far greater to ‘practically’ defend the unborn baby, than would be our responsibility to defend the unborn babies of the millions of women whom we have no knowledge of? The defense of the latter would surely be better achieved through continual appealing for a change to the law. The former, by reason of familial duties, demands a more direct approach (ie locking her in her room until it was too late for her to murder her baby). 

I’ll be honest, I tend to feel utterly helpless whenever I consider this matter. I volunteered in a pregnancy counseling center whilst living in Louisiana and had the freedom (albeit a very fragile and fast running out freedom) to actively dissuade women from aborting their babies, which here in the UK, we simply do not have. Pregnancy centers here have to offer ‘unbiased’ counsel placing all ‘choices’ on a moral par with one another. 

Your question has definitely challenged me to think some more on this matter. Have you seen the 180 movie by Ray Comfort? He very powerfully compares abortion to the mass slaughter of Jews in Nazi Germany (and other places). What will future generations say of us (as a society) who daily drive past abortion clinics and ‘do’ (seemingly) nothing to prevent the mass murder going on inside? I certainly think about that question a lot, but even then, ultimately end up feeling helpless! The thing is, believers who defended the Jews did so on a very personal level. They could not hope to save them all, but the ones known to them they could and did help in whichever way was possible. Perhaps that is the same for us today? There is a big difference between one who actively joins the wickedness by pulling the trigger or performing the abortion etc and one who, whilst powerless to prevent the slaughtering, refuses to have any part in it whatsoever...even if that costs them their own life.


----------



## Toasty (Jun 27, 2014)

If you know someone who wants to get an abortion, then you can persuade that person from getting one. 

If there is an abortion clinic in your community, you can go to that place and stand near it in order to persuade women to not have an abortion. If you are not allowed on the premises of the abortion clinic, then you can go to a public place such as a shopping mall or farmers' market, set up a table, and hand out anti-abortion literature to passersby. You can also try to talk to them about why abortion should be illegal. 

You can volunteer at a pregnancy counseling center.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 27, 2014)

Hemustincrease said:


> Are you thinking about situations where you know the woman or the doctor on some kind of personal basis, or more of a general approach to the issue of abortion? For example, if a daughter was planning such a thing, surely our responsibility would be far greater to ‘practically’ defend the unborn baby, than would be our responsibility to defend the unborn babies of the millions of women whom we have no knowledge of? The defense of the latter would surely be better achieved through continual appealing for a change to the law. The former, by reason of familial duties, demands a more direct approach (ie locking her in her room until it was too late for her to murder her baby).
> 
> I’ll be honest, I tend to feel utterly helpless whenever I consider this matter. I volunteered in a pregnancy counseling center whilst living in Louisiana and had the freedom (albeit a very fragile and fast running out freedom) to actively dissuade women from aborting their babies, which here in the UK, we simply do not have. Pregnancy centers here have to offer ‘unbiased’ counsel placing all ‘choices’ on a moral par with one another.
> 
> Your question has definitely challenged me to think some more on this matter. Have you seen the 180 movie by Ray Comfort? He very powerfully compares abortion to the mass slaughter of Jews in Nazi Germany (and other places). What will future generations say of us (as a society) who daily drive past abortion clinics and ‘do’ (seemingly) nothing to prevent the mass murder going on inside? I certainly think about that question a lot, but even then, ultimately end up feeling helpless! The thing is, believers who defended the Jews did so on a very personal level. They could not hope to save them all, but the ones known to them they could and did help in whichever way was possible. Perhaps that is the same for us today? There is a big difference between one who actively joins the wickedness by pulling the trigger or performing the abortion etc and one who, whilst powerless to prevent the slaughtering, refuses to have any part in it whatsoever...even if that costs them their own life.





I hope all read your insightful post here for I am not sure a posting on FB is all Our Lord wants us to to in this matter. I think some peaceful civil disobedience against our government may be called for because our government prevents us from using just action to prevent the murder of our children. What to do I am not sure, but I know the current "actions" are not working for millions are being slaughtered.


----------



## Toasty (Jun 27, 2014)

Suppose you go to an abortion clinic and try to persuade the women who enter the clinic to not have an abortion. The manager of the abortion clinic says that you are not allowed to do this. What would you do?


----------



## earl40 (Jun 27, 2014)

Toasty said:


> Suppose you go to an abortion clinic and try to persuade the women who enter the clinic to not have an abortion. The manager of the abortion clinic says that you are not allowed to do this. What would you do?



If one disobeys the police and they punish you because you acted in faith to prevent an abortion I might visit you in jail. I'll let our pastors here chime in if they think you did something wrong.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jun 27, 2014)

I think it is a matter of jurisdiction of authority. You do not have that authority, the state does.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Jun 27, 2014)

I think tubal pregnancy where it's a lose lose, both mother and child would die, is a case.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Jun 27, 2014)

The Supreme court now allows people to pray or counsel people at clinics peacefully.... at least as of yesterday..


----------



## earl40 (Jun 27, 2014)

puritanpilgrim said:


> I think it is a matter of jurisdiction of authority. You do not have that authority, the state does.



I wonder if a lesser authority, like a local municipality, may usurp the greater authority if the greater is not acting in a just manner?


----------



## Tim (Jun 27, 2014)

whirlingmerc said:


> I think tubal pregnancy where it's a lose lose, both mother and child would die, is a case.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 27, 2014)

Tim said:


> whirlingmerc said:
> 
> 
> > I think tubal pregnancy where it's a lose lose, both mother and child would die, is a case.



I doubt Dr. Koop was speaking of tubal pregnancies....

Here is an edit and I take the above back. I love the net.

http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/ectopic-personhood.html


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 27, 2014)

> What About the Life of the Mother?
> This is the exception that most commonly seduces the sincere pro-lifer. The scenario in which this exception is most frequently packaged is an ectopic pregnancy, which is when the embryo attaches somewhere inside the mother's body in a place other than the inner lining of the uterus. It is argued that in an ectopic pregnancy, an abortion must be performed in order to save the mother's life.
> 
> What is rarely realized is that there are several cases in the medical literature where abdominal ectopic pregnancies have survived! There are no cases of ectopic pregnancies in a fallopian tube surviving, but several large studies have confirmed that expectant management may allow spontaneous regression of the tubal ectopic pregnancy the vast majority of the time. So an abortion of an ectopic pregnancy is not necessary to save the mother's life after all.
> ...



Are There Rare Cases When an Abortion Is Justified? | Right Remedy


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jun 27, 2014)

> I wonder if a lesser authority, like a local municipality, may usurp the greater authority if the greater is not acting in a just manner?



That is what happened in the case of the American revolution. If you interpret states right properly then you have a strong case.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Jun 27, 2014)

Seems like a tiny risk to the mother is enough to the secular world but it appears that even future 'wanted' children are at risk and in particular risk with multiple abortions. The mother, being at risk as well.

( I suspect Koop put tubal pregnancies in a separate category )


----------



## chuckd (Jun 27, 2014)

Hemustincrease said:


> chuckd said:
> 
> 
> > I can't envision a case where I would have to HARM the mother or abortion doctor to defend the unborn, but restraining the mother or preventing a doctor from performing the procedure. I'm thinking if an infant or child were under attack and their life threatened, a Christian would be obligated to defend it.
> ...



I guess both. The confession seems to say that defending someone can involve violence, including deadly force, used against the attacker if necessary. Even lesser, that we should restrain them. Obviously Christians do not do this. Is it in submission to the government? Is it ok for Christians to use self-defense, and the defense of others under attack because it is lawful in some degree in the U.S.? But the unborn it is not, so it is not lawful for Christians?


----------



## chuckd (Jun 27, 2014)

Toasty said:


> If you know someone who wants to get an abortion, then you can persuade that person from getting one.
> 
> If there is an abortion clinic in your community, you can go to that place and stand near it in order to persuade women to not have an abortion. If you are not allowed on the premises of the abortion clinic, then you can go to a public place such as a shopping mall or farmers' market, set up a table, and hand out anti-abortion literature to passersby. You can also try to talk to them about why abortion should be illegal.
> 
> You can volunteer at a pregnancy counseling center.



These are peaceful solutions. My question has to do with using violence against the attackers. What rule is given to Christians to not defend them physically against the doctors and their mothers? Laws of the land? Different rules apply to the unborn?

I think those who take measures into their own hands are extremists, but I don't know why.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 27, 2014)

Google Paul Hill and his writings for one perspective on violence used to protect the unborn:

A Time to Kill - By Michael Bray

Paul Jennings Hill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Time to Kill: A Study Concerning the Use of Force and Abortion - Rev. Michael Bray - Google Books

Mix My Blood with the Blood of the Unborn

Here is also a letter urging Paul Hill to repent:

Social Issues at Reformed.org


----------



## Miss Marple (Jun 27, 2014)

Henry, for the sake of argument, let's say my neighbor's child is drowning in the pool.

I could give swimming lessons to the community. I could promote child safety at fairs. I could lobby in congress for mandatory fences around backyard pools. These things might actually save lives, and be worth doing.

But it wouldn't really help the kid who was actively dying.


----------



## Hemustincrease (Jun 27, 2014)

We cannot jump in and save every child drowning in every pool, nor should we (and likely none of us do) feel a duty to do so. We would not feel it was our duty to defend the lives of every single person whose home was being burgled and their lives threatened. Yet we would certainly be wrong to sit back and let somebody inflict violence upon our own family in front of our own eyes. 

There isn’t an easy answer to the opening question, other than the cross of Christ Jesus. It is not unheard of for entire nations to repent of something (think Nineveh!) and surely national repentance in this matter is what we must be earnestly striving in prayer for?


----------



## Miss Marple (Jun 27, 2014)

Well, my analogy was, my neighbor's child. I know I can't search the country for drowning children all day. But if they are right next to me, in my neighborhood, and I know it's happening at the moment.


----------



## Hemustincrease (Jun 27, 2014)

chuckd said:


> Is it ok for Christians to use self-defense, and the defense of others under attack because it is lawful in some degree in the U.S.? But the unborn it is not, so it is not lawful for Christians?



The life of the unborn baby is fully bound up in the life of the mother. To do violence to the mother would be to do violence to the unborn baby. This renders the matter of ‘necessary defense’ something very different to that of (for example) defending our family from a violent intruder.


----------



## Hemustincrease (Jun 28, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Google Paul Hill and his writings for one perspective on violence used to protect the unborn:
> 
> A Time to Kill - By Michael Bray
> 
> ...



I didn’t read any of the Paul Hill letters but the one calling him to repent was extremely helpful. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Toasty (Jun 29, 2014)

Miss Marple said:


> Henry, for the sake of argument, let's say my neighbor's child is drowning in the pool.
> 
> I could give swimming lessons to the community. I could promote child safety at fairs. I could lobby in congress for mandatory fences around backyard pools. These things might actually save lives, and be worth doing.
> 
> But it wouldn't really help the kid who was actively dying.



Do you think it would be a good idea to volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center or try to persuade women who walk into abortion clinics to not get an abortion? The way to help the unborn who will die next week is to find the women who are considering getting an abortion.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 29, 2014)

So, are we pacifists when it comes to defending unborn children, and yet not so when it comes to defending the kingdoms of men? Is it just me, or does that sound a tad feeble? After all, to do the first, one would have to have the courage to stand pretty much alone against the well-armed forces of leviathan. To do the second all one would need to do is join them.

I'm no pacifist, but if I'm going to support taking up arms, I think it'd be more appropriate to do so in defense of babies rather than in the service of the magistrate permitting their destruction. Until I see that level of integrity in a man, it is difficult to put much stock in anything else he has to say. Cowards always have well-formed arguments to justify their cowardice, but all the rationalizations in the world just don't do much to quiet the innocent blood that cries up from the ground against the nations engaged in this holocaust.


----------



## Hemustincrease (Jun 30, 2014)

Mushroom said:


> I'm no pacifist, but if I'm going to support taking up arms, I think it'd be more appropriate to do so in defense of babies rather than in the service of the magistrate permitting their destruction. Until I see that level of integrity in a man, it is difficult to put much stock in anything else he has to say. Cowards always have well-formed arguments to justify their cowardice, but all the rationalizations in the world just don't do much to quiet the innocent blood that cries up from the ground against the nations engaged in this holocaust.



What are you doing to defend unborn babies about to be slaughtered? 

What is your definition of a coward with regards to this matter?


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 30, 2014)

Hemustincrease said:


> What are you doing to defend unborn babies about to be slaughtered?


Not enough.


Hemustincrease said:


> What is your definition of a coward with regards to this matter?





> Pro 24:10-12 If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small. (11)* If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; *(12) If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?


----------



## Hemustincrease (Jul 1, 2014)

Mushroom said:


> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> > What are you doing to defend unborn babies about to be slaughtered?
> ...



Can you explain that in relation to abortion? I’m right there with you (as I am sure all believers are) insofar as grief and disgust with the current laws on abortion and feeling so very helpless and useless in terms of ‘doing’ anything about it etc but I’m not entirely following you with regards to what you think we as God’s people _should_ lawfully be doing about it. Are you saying that not taking up arms against abortion doctors/women who have abortions is cowardice? Do you see the proper defense of the unborn as something which can only happen by use of arms/violence as opposed to appealing for changes to the law/peaceful demonstrations/counseling pregnant women/tracts etc etc?


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 1, 2014)

Is it ever lawful to take up arms? In what circumstances? Is the wholesale slaughter of millions of the defenseless one of those circumstances? These are matters best decided by the men the Lord has appointed to Church Office rather than lay-folk such as ourselves, Jo.

I could easily descend into bloviation on this matter, particularly this week wherein the nation in which I reside is engaged in much self-congratulation, but then the visage of tiny, lifeless babes enters my mind, and I come to a shuddering stop. May God have mercy upon us.


----------



## earl40 (Jul 1, 2014)

Mushroom said:


> Is it ever lawful to take up arms? In what circumstances? Is the wholesale slaughter of millions of the defenseless one of those circumstances? These are matters best decided by the men the Lord has appointed to Church Office rather than lay-folk such as ourselves, Jo.
> 
> I could easily descend into bloviation on this matter, particularly this week wherein the nation in which I reside is engaged in much self-congratulation, but then the visage of tiny, lifeless babes enters my mind, and I come to a shuddering stop. May God have mercy upon us.



Bloviation is an apt word. So easy to do, but to put feet on such would take rightfully chosen government representative to lead any righteous revolt against the higher authorities. In other words, it is not going top happen. Wondering if a new WCF should be written up for our type of governments today knowing it (the WCF) was written for a government run by those who fear The Lord.


----------



## Hemustincrease (Jul 2, 2014)

Mushroom said:


> Is it ever lawful to take up arms? In what circumstances? Is the wholesale slaughter of millions of the defenseless one of those circumstances? These are matters best decided by the men the Lord has appointed to Church Office rather than lay-folk such as ourselves, Jo.



I for one, am extremely glad that this is indeed the case.


----------



## chuckd (Jul 3, 2014)

earl40 said:


> Wondering if a new WCF should be written up for our type of governments today knowing it (the WCF) was written for a government run by those who fear The Lord.



I think WCF 23.4 shows they considered "infidel" governments.

I'm still not seeing a rule to forbid us from defending the unborn. Is it a case by case basis? i.e. it is not necessary to *always* defend ourselves and others if for a higher purpose? (e.g. martyrdom)


----------

