11-year-old Gang-Rape Victim: Should She Be Able To Legally Abort?

[Granite]

Forcing a child to serve as an incubator regardless of her wishes or her family's is as grotesque a nanny state intrusion as I can think of.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Forcing a child to serve as an incubator regardless of her wishes or her family's is as grotesque a nanny state intrusion as I can think of.

No, it isn't "Nanny state" at all. Outlawing murder even in extreme circumstances isn't "Nanny state."

Do you even have a clue how small my ideal government is?

 

[Granite]

No, it isn't "Nanny state" at all. Outlawing murder even in extreme circumstances isn't "Nanny state."

Do you even have a clue how small my ideal government is?

Sure it is. Intrusion into this issue is smothering and totalitarian. Funny how conservatives demand what they think is "small government" until it becomes inconvenient--usually when it comes to sexual practices they want to make sure are a police issue. If you were a consistent libertarian you wouldn't want the law, courts, cops, or anyone but a physician and the family involved. But consistency from libertarians is exceptionally rare.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Sure it is. Intrusion into this issue is smothering and totalitarian. Funny how conservatives demand what they think is "small government" until it becomes inconvenient--usually when it comes to sexual practices they want to make sure are a police issue. If you were a consistent libertarian you wouldn't want the law, courts, cops, or anyone but a physician and the family involved. But consistency from libertarians is exceptionally rare.

I guess a consistent libertarian wouldn't advocate for homicide laws either.

I don't see the difference.

 

[Arsenios]

Forcing a child to serve as an incubator regardless of her wishes or her family's is as grotesque a nanny state intrusion as I can think of.

It sure seems that way, doesn't it?

But the fact is that this pubescent 11 year old child has a baby growing in her womb, a child unborn, conceived in trauma and in the violation of the sanctity of her person... And the result of that violation is a child forming within her... You have not met that child yet...

So you can close your eyes to the child not seen, and try to prove those religionists wrong for caring about the one with no voice, or you can open your eyes to the fact that two lives are now involved, and children become adults very quickly in crises... This child is no longer a child, you see... That was taken from her when those evil men violated her... She can and will deal with the aftermath - Or she will not... It sounds like she has a loving family to support her... Some withdraw into themselves for a long time and become dysfunctional... All of which is irrelevant to the fact of another life growing in her womb...

She does not need to be again violated on the abortion table with knives and curretage and bleeding and the loss of the life that is in her, compounding her violation... She will know that life is gone, you know... And then she will have to deal with its loss to her... Forever...

The high ground is to be found, in ugly cases like this, in the dignity of the person of the rape victim, and in the preservation of the life of the unborn child within her as a result of her being so evilly violated... If going to term is going to kill her, then abortion is indicated... But a C-Section can perhaps save that dread day... And adoption can perhaps save her from having to raise the child if she doesn't want it...

But in the raising of the child, she may find a joy that forgives the evil men who did this to her...

Are you praying for her?

Arsenios

 

[Tambora]

So would you also reject the idea that you can abort to protect the life of the mother? You are still killing an innocent baby in that situation.

Yes, I would reject it.
For the same reason I would reject killing someone to "protect" myself if I needed a heart transplant to save my life.
You just don't go around killing folks just to save your own failing body.

Killing another in self defense would be because you fear they are "trying" to harm you.
A child in the womb is not "trying" to harm it's mother.
It is not the fault of the child if the mother has a failing body that is not strong enough to survive.

 

[Desert Reign]

Yes, I would reject it.
For the same reason I would reject killing someone to "protect" myself if I needed a heart transplant to save my life.
You just don't go around killing folks just to save your own failing body.

Killing another in self defense would be because you fear they are "trying" to harm you.
A child in the womb is not "trying" to harm it's mother.
It is not the fault of the child if the mother has a failing body that is not strong enough to survive.

Thanks. I'm glad that you are true to yourself. It doesn't convince me though that the law should reflect your particular view of morality.

 

[Doormat]

Not only is it right to lie in that situation but it is required.

From the stories of the Egyptian midwives who lied to spare the Hebrew babies from being murdered after birth and Rahab who lied to save the Israelite spies from death, we know that telling a lie can be the right thing to do in some circumstances; but doesn't your claim it is "required" inject absolutism based on a standard you see being applied in that context?

As to your second point, I understand. But I am not saying that it would be right for this 11 year old to have an abortion. I don't actually know. I voted yes to the poll because I wanted to give her that choice as it is her context, not mine. Because if you take her choice away, you have imposed a moral absolute on her and we get back to the point I made above.

Society takes her choice away every day by prohibiting her from killing whoever she might choose to kill. Even when her life is in danger there is generally a duty to retreat before using lethal force. A form of castle doctrine should not be extended to pregnant women based on age or how they became pregnant.

 

[Arsenios]

Thanks. I'm glad that you are true to yourself. It doesn't convince me though that the law should reflect your particular view of morality.

Law ALWAYS reflects a MORAL judgement...

This particular one is that human life is good...

And it proceeds from the premise that there is life in the womb of a pregnant mother...

That this life is defenseless...

That it cannot speak for itself...

That the Law therefore should protect it...

As the Law protects also those who CAN speak for themselves...

Like you and me...

Arsenios

 

[Lighthouse]

Can you see why what you have written above is illogical?

I pointed out to you earlier that the Bible says 'Thou shalt not kill'. That's what it says. But you immediately found two very good exceptions to that, self-defence and capital punishment.

Murder is a crime by definition. But that doesn't advance the argument. It is obvious that you are good at thinking up situations where the commandment in the Bible doesn't apply. My question is simply this: is it not permissible to think up a few more?

The original Hebrew word is rightly translated "murder," not "kill."

רָצַח

 

[Arsenios]

The original Hebrew word is rightly translated "murder," not "kill."

רָצַח

That would rule out Desert Reign's argument utterly...

And as usual, he has no answer...

When Christ came out of the waters of Jordan, He went into the Desert and fasted 40 days and nights... Because THAT is where the reigning powers are demons - They create a desert wherever they go... And that is where Christians go to overcome them...

Although of late, they seem to have found comfortable homes in civilization... So now we do not have to travel so far...

Arsenios

 

[gcthomas]

The original Hebrew word is rightly translated "murder," not "kill."

רָצַח

That would make the Commandment unnecessary. Murder specifically means unlawful killing with premeditation and malice. Why would you need a commandment telling you to avoid unlawful killing? No other commandment tells you to follow the law on some issue.

Deut 4:42 uses the word ratsasch for an unintentional killing, for example, so it is likely there is not an exact one to one translation of the work, so while it may mean 'murder' often, it is not obvious that is the precise meaning in the Commandment.

 

[Christian Liberty]

"Murder" means to kill those who do not deserve to die, it doesn't have anything to do with legal positivism. Remember that Israel was an anarcho-theocracy at the time.

 

[Granite]

I guess a consistent libertarian wouldn't advocate for homicide laws either.

I don't see the difference.

Because you think being an absolutist is the same thing as having principles.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

11-year-old Gang-Rape Victim: Should She Be Able To Legally Abort?

No, and the reason is simple: You do not kill an innocent person because of a crime that someone else committed. The baby does not know from whence he came. He is an innocent baby. If you want to kill someone, kill the rapist, not the child.

 

[gcthomas]

"Murder" means to kill those who do not deserve to die, it doesn't have anything to do with legal positivism. Remember that Israel was an anarcho-theocracy at the time.

I didn't imply legal positivism. I expect they were realist at the time.

Murder definitions have unlawful in them. Deserving is no part of it. If I killed a violent criminal, for example, after he had been improsoned, he may deserve to die, but it would be murder still.

And remember, they didn't speak English either in Israel, so they never used the word murder, which is the whole point of the current discussion. The word they used cannot be uniformly translated to murder, since sometimes it did just mean kill or something else related. Murder is a very tightly defined English word, unlike the original Hebrew word.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....Murder definitions have unlawful in them......

There was a time when the Supreme Court said that a slave counted as 2/3 of a person. That was the law. But was it correct? No.

Lawful, Shmawful. The laws on abortion do not reflect scientific fact, which is that the child in the womb is a human being with a DNA uniquely different from the mother. And size does NOT matter. A little person is just as human as a big person.

 

[WizardofOz]

I guess a consistent libertarian wouldn't advocate for homicide laws either.

I don't see the difference.

:nono: Libertarian does not = anarchist.

Murder transgresses the liberty of another. A consistent libertarian would have no problems with homicide laws.

This is exactly why there is not necessarily a conflict when someone is a pro-life libertarian. They may feel the liberty of a human (albeit unborn) is being impeded by elective abortion.

 

[gcthomas]

There was a time when the Supreme Court said that a slave counted as 2/3 of a person. That was the law. But was it correct? No.

Lawful, Shmawful. The laws on abortion do not reflect scientific fact, which is that the child in the womb is a human being with a DNA uniquely different from the mother. And size does NOT matter. A little person is just as human as a big person.

That's why you should steer clear of the word murder in the commandment as I was discussing, and in abortion as you are discussing.

I know that expanding the definition of murder to include lawful but immoral acts helps the cause, because most everyone thinks that murder is wrong, but it represents a novel usage that most do not agree with, if the dictionary compilers are to be believed.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

There was a time when the Supreme Court said that a slave counted as 2/3 of a person. That was the law. But was it correct? No.

Lawful, Shmawful. The laws on abortion do not reflect scientific fact, which is that the child in the womb is a human being with a DNA uniquely different from the mother. And size does NOT matter. A little person is just as human as a big person.

That's why you should steer clear of the word murder in the commandment as I was discussing, and in abortion as you are discussing.

I know that expanding the definition of murder to include lawful but immoral acts helps the cause, because most everyone thinks that murder is wrong, but it represents a novel usage that most do not agree with, if the dictionary compilers are to be believed.

Well, let me go back to my slavery comparison. If a slave owner killed a slave, it probably was not legally called murder since the slave was the slaveowner's property, right? But in reality, you and I know it is - or was - murder, correct? A man kills another man for no good reason, thats murder, and damn the law if it says it isn't.