Another abortion question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Earl,

Yes, that appears to be the same position paper that Tim posted above.

Yes, it does concern ectopic pregnancies. They dismiss the issue with the statement "almost any pregnancy can be carried to term" - certainly not the case with ectopic pregnancy. Sure, its not faced "regularly," but it is faced.

This is not adressing etopics.

"It is necessary first of all to reduce the emotional character of this "special case".......

It must be pointed out that there is a vast difference between the threat of death to the mother and the certain death (intentional) of the baby in the alleged special case for abortion. .....


We have not dealt with these particular cases with the exception of where the mother's life is threatened."


The quotation marks make this clear that they are not speaking of etopics but to the "emotional character" that proponents of abortion make.
 
After reading this closely I will agree some revisions should be made in the language as highlighted below.

"4. An exception is not made even in the extremely rare case in which in the judgment of competent medical authorities, the unborn child's continuing presence inside the mother's body will necessarily lead to the mother's death. In such a case, the premature removal of the unborn child may be justified, provided that all medical wisdom, judgment, and skill are used to preserve the life of the child as well as the life of the mother. This premature removal of the unborn child shall be at that juncture of time where the greatest possibility for recovery is indicated for both mother and child. If life is lost in such a case, and the death occurs not out of criminal negligence, but merely out of the limitations of human knowledge and skill, all has been done morally that could be done. If we cannot save both lives, we are nevertheless morally bound to save the life we can."
 
I think you're forgetting the fact that prior to Judah saying this, his own track record (morality) was nowhere near sparkling.

True!! But none the less, I think it fair to say he wouldn't have ordered her twin 3 month olds burnt with her.

He just had sex with what he thought was a roadside prostitute. He raised two sons so wicked that God put them to death. He lied to a woman whom he gave a pledge to regarding a new husband so that she would continue a lineage (meaning that she would remain childless and would be considered cursed among the society she lived in).

I think it's fair to say there'd be 3 month old twin fricasee prior to God showing him (Judah) his own publicly sin via this woman.
 
Sorry it seems my question caused some kind of arguing.

But someone please help me sort out my question:

Quote

Also for "kill", according to Strong's

OT:7523
ratsach (raw-tsakh'); a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:

KJV - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).

Does it cover murder as well as manslaughter?

end of quote

When I asked this question, I was facing a real life situation:

One couple in our church aborted their child, the child was diagnosed with multiple
deformation and the doctors told them the child would either die in the womb or
within a short time after born.

Now we have a problem, some people say it was an act a killing (maybe murder),
other people would rather not use the word "kill" and they definitely would not
use the word "murder".

So my question is:

Could we say this was at least a case of manslaughter, even though
we are unable to determine the intention of this couple, whether they
premeditate the killing of the baby (I guess even they didn't know,
they wanted to keep the baby and at last they made the painful decision
and they were very sad).

Does Deut. 19:5 falls under the jurisdiction of 6th commandment?

Did this couple break the 6th commandment? some people say yes they
did, some people say they are not sure.

Please help me so we could help this couple.

This can be a difficult topic, because there is emotion and pain, and because there is so much at stake.

We tend to look at things in a utilitarian way, from our point of interest only, as if we have perfect knowledge. This is only "natural", as we are fallen, limited creatures. But faith is needed.

If you look at the sixth commandment, the best translation is something like "thou shalt do no murder." Different terms applied for soldiers in war, for accidental death, etc.

Biblically, killing a child in his mother's womb is a violation of the sixth commandment, the only question being whether there is a right to self defense by the child's mother which includes contracting someone to kill the child in the womb if, and only if, death is likely to happen to mother if the child is delivered.

At this time, this particular case is not clear to me medically, let alone biblically.

The common law, derived from a biblical basis would include killing a child in his mother's womb usually as an act of manslaughter, a lesser and included offense within the crime of murder. Circumstances do mitigate culpability and degree, and almost all states viewed it this way before judicial activism intervened in Roe v. Wade. So "killing," based on degree and circumstances can range the gamut of punishment from no punishment (self defense) to less than a year in a local jail for involuntary manslaughter (killing someone through your negligence) to execution by firing squad for pre-meditated murder with aggravating circumstances (such as in connection with a rape or robbery).
 
At this time, this particular case is not clear to me medically, let alone biblically.

Scott, I like the summation in the last paragraph, but in the case in Duncan's church it seems, from his thumbnail sketch, more like euthanizing a pet cat that had gone blind than anything that would have threatened a mother's life.
 
Sorry it seems my question caused some kind of arguing.

But someone please help me sort out my question:

Quote

Also for "kill", according to Strong's

OT:7523
ratsach (raw-tsakh'); a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:

KJV - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).

Does it cover murder as well as manslaughter?

end of quote

When I asked this question, I was facing a real life situation:

One couple in our church aborted their child, the child was diagnosed with multiple
deformation and the doctors told them the child would either die in the womb or
within a short time after born.

Now we have a problem, some people say it was an act a killing (maybe murder),
other people would rather not use the word "kill" and they definitely would not
use the word "murder".

So my question is:

Could we say this was at least a case of manslaughter, even though
we are unable to determine the intention of this couple, whether they
premeditate the killing of the baby (I guess even they didn't know,
they wanted to keep the baby and at last they made the painful decision
and they were very sad).

Does Deut. 19:5 falls under the jurisdiction of 6th commandment?

Did this couple break the 6th commandment? some people say yes they
did, some people say they are not sure.

Please help me so we could help this couple.

I just am a tad curious. What kind of help do they need? It sounds like to me they know what they did and I would just be there and be a friend. This is a tough situation and I would ask them to come to you for advise before they do an act they may regret later.
 
I still have a related question, the following is from an online discussion:

quote

the bible says to kill a woman who is pregnant from adultery or fornication. they didn't want any bastards to be born. so the bible doesn't see a problem with the death of fetus. not to mention how many pregnant women they killed during territorial fighting in the name of their demon god.

end of quote

How to respond to "the bible says to kill a woman who is pregnant from adultery or fornication" stuff?
 
How to respond to "the bible says to kill a woman who is pregnant from adultery or fornication" stuff?

You could ask "where?" The verse about Tamar was used by me only to provide data to support the view that ensoulment occurs at the nanosecond of conception is fairly modern. Under Moses fornication has as it's penalty a fine or marriage. So under Biblical law Judah was overstepping his bounds since Tamar wasn't married. And even when the death penalty applied in case of adultery burning was only for the daughter of a levite or someone who slept with both a mother an her daughter, so Judah's sentence would have been doubly illegal under Biblical law.

So, ask the guy for the Scripture he is using.
 
How to respond to "the bible says to kill a woman who is pregnant from adultery or fornication" stuff?

You could ask "where?" The verse about Tamar was used by me only to provide data to support the view that ensoulment occurs at the nanosecond of conception is fairly modern. Under Moses fornication has as it's penalty a fine or marriage. So under Biblical law Judah was overstepping his bounds since Tamar wasn't married. And even when the death penalty applied in case of adultery burning was only for the daughter of a levite or someone who slept with both a mother an her daughter, so Judah's sentence would have been doubly illegal under Biblical law.

So, ask the guy for the Scripture he is using.

Thanks for answering, I'm thinking about Deut. 22:20-24.
 
You could ask "where?" The verse about Tamar was used by me only to provide data to support the view that ensoulment occurs at the nanosecond of conception is fairly modern. .

You of course do know that science today can help us understand our wonderful creation more fully than the "old timers".

Just curious...what does your conscience tell you concerning your idea about when the soul comes into existence? Mine screams you are so wrong in your thinking.
 
Is there any possibility of pregnancy in these cases?

Right after the wedding night? Or a few days after a woman is taken in adultery? Sure, and I suppose that would give ammo to those who don't insist on ensoulment at the nanosecond of fertilization. As to the genocide, that's a whole different subject, and has to do with God ordering something He specifically forbids men to do on their own.

We're talkin' 'bout three months, brother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top