Necessary defense and abortion

Status
Not open for further replies.

chuckd

Puritan Board Junior
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
The Supreme court now allows people to pray or counsel people at clinics peacefully.... at least as of yesterday..
 
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?
 
I think tubal pregnancy where it's a lose lose, both mother and child would die, is a case.

1000061_10151463410373531_33454275_n.png
 

Attachments

  • 1000061_10151463410373531_33454275_n.jpg
    1000061_10151463410373531_33454275_n.jpg
    45 KB · Views: 11
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.

Moreover, if expectant management fails, the ectopic pregnancy does not spontaneously resolve, and surgery becomes necessary, the procedure to remove the ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion because the baby has already died.

A chemical abortion with a medicine called methotrexate is often recommended by physicians to patients with early tubal ectopic pregnancies, when the baby may still be alive, to decrease the chances of a surgical alternative being necessary later, but I have found this to be an unnecessary risk to human life. I offer the following true case to demonstrate this point.

One of my patients was diagnosed with a tubal ectopic pregnancy by her obstetrician, and he informed her that they were fortunate to have made the diagnosis early and that she should have a methotrexate abortion. The patient was strongly pro-life, and did not want to take the medicine, but the physician insisted. The baby was not going to survive, he argued, and a chemical abortion now could prevent the need for a surgical procedure later. The chemical abortion would lessen her chances of a life-threatening rupture of her fallopian tube and subsequent hemorrhage. The chemical abortion was also better at preserving future fertility than surgical removal of the ectopic pregnancy later. Feeling like she had no other reasonable alternative, she took the methotrexate.

However, there was a complication. Two weeks later, she still had vaginal bleeding and pelvic discomfort. A repeat ultrasound confirmed the physician's worst fears: his patient was pregnant with twins - one in the fallopian tube, and one in the uterus! He missed the uterine pregnancy in his ultrasound examination.

Expectant management would have seen spontaneous resolution of the tubal pregnancy or would have required surgical removal of the tubal pregnancy when the embryo was likely to be dead, but in both cases the uterine pregnancy would have survived. Methotrexate killed both babies, much to the dismay of this young pro-life woman.

I believe it is only ethical to remove the tubal pregnancy if spontaneous resolution does not occur after close monitoring and if the physician is 100% certain that there are no twins. At this point, the embryo in the fallopian tube is likely to be dead and an abortion is not performed, but rather, a surgical procedure to remove the dead baby. Methotrexate may still be appropriate once the physician has confirmed that there are no twins, but it is less likely to be successful at flushing the dead embryo from the fallopian tube at later stages in the ectopic pregnancy.

There are several examples that are also utilized to demonstrate that an abortion may be necessary to save the mother's life. If the mother has a severe illness that becomes life-threatening when she becomes pregnant, her physician may prescribe a therapeutic abortion to improve her chances of survival. A more specific example: if a mother has breast cancer and requires chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, a therapeutic abortion may be prescribed. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medicine that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, a therapeutic abortion is indicated, it is argued.

It cannot be denied that if the mother dies, her unborn baby certainly dies, and although the baby may die the mother's life can be saved. If both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother's life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother's illness the unborn baby inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic, but, if it is unintentional, it is not unethical and is consistent with both the Hippocratic oath and the law of God. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by an abortion is never necessary, even in these scenarios.

Let me illustrate this point: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of the severity of her disease.

I am convinced that much of the pressure physicians place upon ailing women to get a "therapeutic abortion" is fear of malpractice suits. Several female patients have reported to me that physicians unduly pressured them into getting an abortion because they had prescribed a medicine to them that could harm their baby if they got pregnant; the contraception failed and the woman subsequently got pregnant. The motive for prescribing an abortion in such cases is not compassion, but completely selfish. The potential of a malformed or mentally retarded child does not ever justify killing the child, malpractice threats notwithstanding. It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being, even if you are going to get sued if you let them live.

In conclusion, there are no occasions in which an abortion is justified. None. Not even for the life of the mother. Scientific fact and God's Word are clear: life begins at conception, and there are no exceptions to the six commandment. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all worth standing for.

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

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 

I didn’t read any of the Paul Hill letters but the one calling him to repent was extremely helpful. Thank you for sharing.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
What are you doing to defend unborn babies about to be slaughtered?
Not enough.
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top