Raping Children, Executing Criminals, and Second Guessing the U.S. Supreme Court
On most days, I believe that we should wholly eliminate capital punishment.
When eight-year-old L.H. arrived at the hospital, “a laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus,” wrote Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy in [Patrick] Kennedy v. Louisiana, which was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 16 and decided on June 25 of this year. He delivered the opinion of the Court, with which Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Hackett Souter, and John Paul Stevens concurred without further comment.
A specialist in pediatric forensic medicine at the medical center had testified in the Louisiana trial that “L.H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice.” Kennedy also wrote that “the petitioner’s crime was one that cannot be recounted in these pages in a way sufficient to capture in full the hurt and horror on his victim, or to convey the revulsion society and the jury that represents it, sought to express by sentencing the petitioner to death.”
Both L.H. and her stepfather had initially insisted that a couple of neighborhood boys had brutalized her outside their home; however, after several weeks, she identified him as the culprit. The evidence—mistakenly identifying the bicycle one of the boys supposedly used, the largely undisturbed grass where the rape allegedly occurred, her blood on the underside of her mattress, the stepfather’s telephone message that he could not show up for work that day, another call to a colleague in which he asked about getting blood out of a white carpet because she had “just become a young lady,” an urgent call to a carpet cleaning business, his failure to call 911 in a timely fashion—in the jury’s eyes, pointed in the same direction.
It convicted the stepfather of aggregated rape, and after more deliberations it unanimously sentenced him to death in harmony with a 1995 amended Louisiana law that allowed execution when the victim of this crime is less than twelve years old. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld these decisions.
He appealed to the nation’s final tribunal. It ruled that the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “prohibits the death penalty for this offense. The Louisiana statute is unconstitutional.” Therefore, “the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana upholding the capital sentence is reversed.”
This Eighth Amendment, which was ratified on December 15, 1791, mandates that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” It does not define “excessive,” “cruel,” and “unusual.”
In 1977, in Coker v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held that executing a man for raping an adult woman is disproportionate punishment. Since then, many had wondered if this meant that capital punishment for the aggravated rape of a child is also unconstitutional. Kennedy v. Louisiana gave the Court an opportunity to answer this question and it did.
In a way that closely parallels the use of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, or something like it, when interpreting an Old or New Testament passage, Justice Kennedy, self-consciously took four things into consideration. These were: (1) the Constitution as a whole [Scripture]; (2) precedents established by previous cases [tradition]; (3) his own thinking about the Eight Amendment [reason], and (4) current practices throughout the nation, as exhibited in state laws and various statistics [experience].
Citing the Court’s prior rulings, he repeatedly emphasized that at any given moment the precise meaning of “cruel” and “unusual” must be guided by the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” No one challenged that principle of interpretation.
The Louisiana Supreme Court had held that “[s]hort of first-degree murder, we can think of no other non-homicide crime more deserving of [capital punishment].” Kennedy saw this differently. “We cannot dismiss the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape,” he wrote. “It does not follow, though, that capital punishment is a proportionate penalty for the crime.” His more general claim was that “as it relates to crimes against individuals, though, the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim’s life was not taken.”
Associate Justice Samuel Alito roared in protest. “No matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record might be,” the Court’s ruling in this case holds, he objected. He delivered a dissenting opinion, with which Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas plus Chief Justice John Roberts concurred without further elaboration.
Alito challenged what he took to be the Court’s two main contentions: (1) that it has “identified ‘a national consensus’ that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child” and (2) “that imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with ‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’”
Because Coker v. Georgia had left many state legislatures uncertain about the constitutionality of the death penalty in cases of child rape, it is unsurprising that so few had passed laws permitting it, Alito retorted. What’s more, he implored, “is it really true that every person who is convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death is more morally depraved than every child rapist?” “I have little doubt that, in the eyes of ordinary Americans, the very worst child rapists—predators who seek out and inflict serious physical and emotional injury on defenseless young children—are the epitome of moral depravity.”
I agree with Justice Alito’s protest in a backhanded way. Although I sometimes waver, on most days I believe that we should wholly eliminate capital punishment for all the reasons that we frequently hear, plus one. But if we allow it at all, my view is that we should approve of it when someone is rightly convicted of the aggravated rape of a child.
My additional reason for opposing capital punishment as such is that in some instances it lets the criminal off too easily. This might be one of them.
David Larson teaches in the School of Religion at Loma Linda University.
Comments
Difficult cases are those that end up in the Supreme Court and we often forget that the next president may have the opportunity, the duty, to nominate at least two new supreme court justices because of the age of two of them.
If you like the opinion rendered by the Roberts court: Alito, Scalia and Thomas, you will get more of the same with a Republican president who has already vowed to do so.
However, if the Democratic presidential nominee is given the same opportunity, he will likely appoint judges who may rule differently. But, we know from past experiences, that often who a president appoints turns out to vote very differently that he had previously expected. The newest justices have ruled much like some of us expected. If anyone is happy and would like more of the same, vote Mccain.
Not me!
That goes for me too.
Interesting incidental aside - I just had an exam in which I had trouble with a question about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Not any more!
Thanks for this thought-provoking piece. I need to sit in some ethics classes somewhere other than where I completed my undergrad degree and mull over topics like this one.
Jared
Thanks for this response!
If the WQ is easier to deal with now, great! And yet, even though I am one of those who really pushes it in our denomination, I don't think we should become fundamentalistic about it. All the more so because John Wesley never heard about it. I think it was Albert Outler who wrote that his studies suggested that this is how Wesley did his theological work.
This makes sense because he was a Church of England cleric till the day he died and it had long emphasized Scripture, tradition and reason. Wesley was concerned about experiential religion too. That was his "Methodist" contribution.
Thanks again!
Dave
It was clear to me that there was no national consensus or evolving standard against executing child rapists.
SCOTUS' evolving standards doctrine and the national consensus "standards" are both prone to this type of constitutional perversion - the alchemy of highly strained legal arguments derived from personal opinion.
See Jim Lindgren's, A “National Consensus” in Favor of the Death Penalty for Child Rapists"
http://volokh.com/posts/1214447764.shtml
And a July, 2008 National Poll
By a 55 - 38 percent margin, voters favor the death penalty for a person convicted of raping a child. Women and men are consistent in their support.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1194
Another excellent example of this type of phony consensus invented by SCOTUS is this,
A phony 'consensus' on youthful killers
by Jeff Jacoby in a Boston Globe op/ed
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/03/06/a_phony_consensus_on_youthful_killers/
As a firm adherent to the reality that incentives matter to most people, including criminals, I was concerned that if the sanction options were equal for child rape and child murder that some rapists would be more prone to murder their victims.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
""My additional reason for opposing capital punishment as such is that in some instances it lets the criminal off too easily. This might be one of them. "
I was feeling this through your whole piece and glad you said it, finally."
Since the editors and most bloggers here seemed to be against torture (see previous articles on it )I was surprised to hear this sentiment for it to be added -in this case. Or is it more accurate to say that torture is not opposed in principle by Spectrum, just certain uses of it by certain people.
Prof. Larson wrote:
My additional reason for opposing capital punishment as such is that in some instances it lets the criminal off too easily. This might be one of them.
Maybe.
Please note that Kennedy did everthing he could, not to suffer execution.
Virtually all criminal do the same. Please note:
What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
What percentage of convicted capital??murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.
This is not, even remotely, in dispute.
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
I tend to oppose the death penalty war and torture for the same reasons.
I ask myself if I would personally, physically, kill or torture someone? No, I don't think so (but a horrific case like the rape described in the original post might get me there). If the state represents "we the people" then the state's actions are, by extension, mine.
I don't support the state doing what I would be unwilling to do myself. So in my ethical framework, war, torture and capital punishment are wrong. I tend to operate in the Reason and Experience portions of the Weslyan Quadrilateral.
Citing the Court’s prior rulings, he repeatedly emphasized that at any given moment the precise meaning of “cruel” and “unusual” must be guided by the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” No one challenged that principle of interpretation.
-----------------------------------------------------------
More than a few people are mortified at this new yardstick: "Evolving standards of decency". What on earth is that?
From the Yale DailyNews two years ago:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/18885
The justice argued that the idea of a living Constitution restricts freedoms, as judicial decisions can limit rights as much as they can protect them. Instead of asking courts to rule based on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” — as the Supreme Court said in a 1958 ruling and has held since — Congress should legislate to reflect the concerns of the times, he said.
“I have no idea what the evolving standards of decency are,” Scalia said. “I am afraid to inquire.”
Neither do I.
This "living constitution" is coming back to haunt us. It being a species now, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection applies to it.
Dudley Sharp
Thank you for the additional evidence and for the line of questions that almost inescapably lead to the inference that for most convicts being put to death is the most severe punishment.
Perhaps we can learn more of your pesonal journey from opposing capital punishment to endorsing it in at least some cases. I think that the transitions often go the other way!
Others
I agree that we should torture no one. And that "revenge" is impossible to achieve and unworthy to try. Yet I would have thought that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole would be the worse possible punishment. But I guess not!
Dave
I am not an American, but rather an Australian, currently living in a country that has one of the highest--if not the highest--rates of rape and child-rape in the world: South Africa.
I am not terribly interested in the intricacies of the US supreme court's decision, but I'd rather like to see a deeper discussion of capital punishment itself--something sorely needed in America--one of the few countries that still has the death-penalty for minors.
I can understand the emotions & outrage present in many of the above comments; but I have some questions--under what system of theology or ethics can you justify capital punishment at all?
While David comes out against capital punishment at the end of his article, his final words disturb me greatly--that capital punishment may not be punishment enough. What would be? Should we then bring in legalised torture and perhaps disfigurement as appropriate? Under what system of theology or ethics could that be justified?
Given that a past wrong can never be undone--what would be the purpose of such punishment?
If SDAs believe in annihilationism because they feel it is out of character for a loving God to eternally torture sinners; why would we believe that it is OK for human beings to torture and kill in the name of punishment, deterrence, or vengeance?
I do not believe that capital punishment is ever justified under any circumstances. Is not the final word found in Romans: "for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Romans 12:19) Do we believe this or not?
I'm going to pick on Dave Larson for a minute, not attack, but if Constantinism is the mixture of government and religion, at least in Constantine's time, shouldn't the loathing of it, keep us from interfering with "Ceasar's" job of defending us, however their "job discription" is written. Or do we cherry pick which issues we push against when it comes to "Ceasar" and his role in our civilian lives, our protector, at least from a humanist standpoint, not from a "soul" standpoint?
I'm trying to get my mind around this "manufactured" word and it's validity or not. Catholicism is no longer the official religion, at least not of America. So that can't be the fear of this conjured word. Why not "render to Ceasar" or the Supreme Court their due respect to make decisions to protect us citizenry? We as Adventists, do we fear them about what they will do about the Sabbath or something else.
Douglas
Jeff...you say.
"If SDAs believe in annihilationism because they feel it is out of character for a loving God to eternally torture sinners; why would we believe that it is OK for human beings to torture and kill in the name of punishment, deterrence, or vengeance?
I do not believe that capital punishment is ever justified under any circumstances. Is not the final word found in Romans: "for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Romans 12:19) Do we believe this or not?"
1)The death penalty as practiced in the US is not "torture" but it is killing as is annihililationism.
2) I believe capital punishment is justifiable now for the state for purpose of maintaining order and justice under Rom.13:4,5... Rom.12:19 has to do with the final judgment and offended individuals as part of the kingdom of God can rest assured that individual evil against them will be repayed and this is to be a part of their patience in not personally seeking "individual" vengence now.(In the latter regard, I will personally forgive any Jesus does...just as He has forgiven me)
regards,
Pat
Pat says: "1)The death penalty as practiced in the US is not "torture" but it is killing as is annihililationism." Excuse me, but the electric chair is not torture? It has been shown that the use of the lethal injection is unlikely to be pain-free either.
However, my comment was specifically directed at those commenters previously that seem to espouse some sort of a violent eye-for-an-eye response; that the more violent and barbaric the crime, the more violent & barbaric the punishment should be.
Pat also says: "I believe capital punishment is justifiable now for the state for purpose of maintaining order and justice under Rom.13:4,5... Rom.12:19 has to do with the final judgment and offended individuals as part of the kingdom of God can rest assured that individual evil against them will be repayed and this is to be a part of their patience in not personally seeking "individual" vengence now.(In the latter regard, I will personally forgive any Jesus does...just as He has forgiven me)"
Forgive me if I'm a little confused here. Are we not as the body of Christ called to be a both a sign and a foretaste of the coming eschatological kingdom of God? How does capital punishment and torture fit into that calling? How does capital punishment maintain order in society in a way that life in prison does not? (And given that there has been shown to be racial bias in sentencing & numerous cases of innocent individuals being sentenced to death; surely one must question if capital punishment can ever contribute to bringing about a just society?) And on what basis do you distinguish between "individual" vengeance and societal? Where in Romans 12 do you find this distinction being made? How can society have revenge but the individual not? Furthermore, where in scripture does it say that either society or the individual are entitled to any vengeance at all?
Jeff,
How about Gen.9:6 and the Mosaic Covenant.
Individual vengence taken into one own hand's today is generally called murder.
Societal vengence by law is the death penalty for murder.
If you are put to sleep by an Anesthesiologist be sure you let him know you are being tortured...the difference is murderers don't wake up. Hopefully we do most of the time Dr. Bob.:~)
As to, "Are we not as the body of Christ called to be a both a sign and a foretaste of the coming eschatological kingdom of God? How does capital punishment and torture fit into that calling?"
“The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40 “Therefore just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41 “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 “Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.” Matt 13:37-43.
regards,
pat
We've all heard the arguments for and against capital punishment and on balance it seems to me that the ones against it prevail. But I'm not absolutist about this.
Whilst [!] in Australia over the most recent Christmas holidays, I read a newspaper account of half a dozen full grown men in that nation who took turns repeatedly raping a prebuscent girl and then left her to bleed to death.
If I had come upon them doing that to her, and if I had been armed, I think [who knows for certain?] that I could have shot-to-kill each one of those men with a perfectly clear conscience, even if that meant I spent the rest of my life in jail.
I'm against torture, which I understand to be the practice of inflicting on a person more pain than that individual is causing him or her self. This is not acceptable.
But neither is it acceptable in my point of view always to spare a person the intrinsic consequences of his or her wrong doing. That's what the those who specialize in addictions call "enabling."
If I don't study, I don't get good grades. If I kill someone, I get to live with the horrible awareness that I did this for the rest of my life. No psychic escape to the "sweet oblivion" of death
One way to get at this is to apply the just war criteria to capital punishment. If we do that, I think we will conclude that it is virtually never acceptable from a Christian moral point of view. Yet that is different from saying it is absolutely never appropriate.
"Constantinianism" gets used in so many different ways! One is the actual reign of Constantine. A second would be the formal church/state integration in some nations, like the Church of England in England. A third is a more prevasive identitification of one's society's values with Christian values.
Example: Is it appropriate for us to feature our nation's flag in our church sanctuaries? How we answer this question might be as good a thermometer on how intense our Constantinaism is as any.
I admire the way the Campus Hill Church in Loma Linda deals with this question. Up front it features the flags of many, many nations from all around the world. In addition to the beautiful array of colors, this symbolizes that God can work through governments without identifying any one nation with the Christian cause.
Thank you!
Dave
Hi Dave,
Having seen that you could have "shot those men raping an individual" then I assume you would answer this non answered question that I asked Chuck in the affirmative.
Is it "love" when the police at times use violence (even death) protecting individuals from law breakers?
Can we see God as loving while doing the same? There comes a time when sin reaps continual disorder and pain. Patience will end and "love" will stop it.
Thanks,
pat
There is a difference between using violence to stop an act from taking place or continuing further - like Dave's example of shooting those in the act of raping - and killing them after the act is done. It would not have been acceptable (in my mind) for him to see what they had already done and shot them as they were walking away. One is for protection, the other for revenge.
If someone did to my 7 year old daughter what was described in the original post I would want the person to suffer deeply. And I'd probably want to inflict it myself. And yet I have a vison of a God who can move me beyond such realistically human feelings. I don't think that capital punishment has a place in a civilized society but I do think the society has a right to use violence sometimes to protect its citizens. It's kind of ironic that the more devoutly religious a country is (USA, Saudia Arabia) the more likely for capital punishment. Not sure what that means.
Beth,
You say,
"It's kind of ironic that the more devoutly religious a country is (USA, Saudia Arabia) the more likely for capital punishment. Not sure what that means."
Of course Saudia Arabia and US have different justice systems.
I suggest what it is about is the concept of justice.
As to Dave's situation...after the fact he could have held them until police were called (having a gun) and then they would suffer the consequences of a trial. In the US that might appropriately end in death in my view. It is both a "vengence" against "the act" and I believe a determent as I believe an above blogger pointed out on the part of most people death is feared.
regards,
pat
Pat
If I recall it correctly, toward the end of his book on the subject, Chuck says that if a crazed man is gunning down children in a school yard, it would be OK to use coercive power to stop him.
Yet I think he might distinguish between a police action like this one and war, especially as wars are now fought with no protection for non-combatant citizens.
I'm not certain what the implications of this are in his view for how God will relate to incorrigible sinners. My initial reaction is that they are different topics; however, I can't speak for Chuck.
Beth
I think your distinction between using lethal force to stop a horrible crime, on the one hand, and using it to exact revenge for it after it is over, on the other, is exactly right.
Try though we should, in cases like this we can never "make the punishment fit the crime." It's hopeless and therefore perhaps we should decide the matter for other reasons.
There are so many ethical and logistical problems with capital punishment we might as well discontinue its practice, I think. That would obviate the need at great time and expense to see if it dovetails with the crime at hand.
Douglas
One of the problems we have in the United States is that a significant number of people on death row did not commit the crime for which they are committed. To my way of thinking this is a very serious part of what we must consider today.
Thank you!
Dave
Douglas,
deterrents. the best deterrent is torture or pain, not death. At least that's what I hear from my patients. (That usefulness doesn't make it right, of course.)
Dave,
"There are so many ethical and logistical problems with capital punishment we might as well discontinue its practice, I think. That would obviate the need at great time and expense to see if it dovetails with the crime at hand."
Is life imprisonment actually cheaper in time and expense for society over the death penalty?
Dave, the judicial system in certain parts of out country may be inadequate to convict properly. The solution isn't to eliminate capital punishment, except temporarily, while in that state, proper elected officials know how to place judges or DAs. I disagree with the total elimination of Capital punishment for your reason given. This is why the elcetion for Presdent will be so important, the placement of supreme court justices and how thay will rule.
Douglas
Good points, one and all.
But should it not give those of us who are Americans opportunity to reflect when we note how very much alone we are in the family of nations like our own in continuing to practice capital punishment?
Are those nations much worse than ours for having abandoning it? Are they more violent? More dangerous? More murderous?
The key words here are "for having abandoning it." It is notoriously difficult to isolate the practice of capital punishment from other variables that contribute to a society's weal or woe.
Yet I think there is one thing we can say with confidence. This is that if we compare in this nation states that frequently practice capital punishment with those that don't, and if we compare this nation as a whole with other ones, we cannot establish with certainty that its practice enhances societal well-being. It may have no impact or perhaps a slightly negative one. But it certainly does not have a positive one.
At least that's how I understand the numbers at this point. Dudly Sharp, who posted above, could probably help us with them.
Does anyone know how to get him involved again?
In reading Dudley Sharp's statistics I had wondered if they indicated as much as anything that the inmates were not suicidal. Even in the face of slow and sure death by disease people will choose to fight for life.
Dick
Yes, that surprised me. Maybe I project my own preference to die than to spend a life in solitary confinement upon others who would make the opposite decision. But also it might be that I would change my mind were I actually faced with this horrible choice.
Dave
I can't imagine the horror of being raped as a child, especially the brutal rape described in this case. One of the reasons why I agree that the death penalty should not be applied in a case like this is that it seems like it sends a message to rape victims (child and otherwise) that the crime that has been committed against them is as bad as if they had been killed. Wouldn't putting a rapist to death indicate that they had essentially taken a life and that healing wasn't even possible?
hi
for example;if someone rapes a woman,then this woman
becomes pregnant,i should like to know is,what is the god's
advice to this situation;is this woman imposed to get this baby;this child is not welcomed,her mother does not will her.
what this woman will do;without breaking god's law to solve
this situation; there is a correct way to solve,or not;
nic or larson can help me
laercio
laercio
In the United States today, for all practical purposes the laws allow a woman who has conceived subsequent to having been raped to have an abortion. This is true in many other countries too.
When it comes to Christian ethics, we can identify at least three options. The most restrictive is that abortions are immoral unless they are the unintended and unavoidable side effects of attempts to save the pregnant woman's life. This does not allow for abortion following rape.
We should notice that this position does not say that when they are in mortal conflict the doctors must choose the fetus over the woman. In the vast majority of relevant cases this wouldn't be medically possible in the first place.
The most permissive alternative invests in the pregnant woman the right to determine the matter enitrely as her conscience deems best. This right is considered essential to what it means to be a human being in the full sense of the word. We can't take it away from her without destroying her moral selfhood.
There is a moderate position between these two extremes. It contends that the Christian moral case against abortion is very strong, so much so that anyone who advocates it in some situation bears the burden of ethical justification.
Nevertheless, there are some situations in which this burden can be met and conception following rape is one of them. In this case abortion following conception by rape can be ethically justified from a Christian point of view.
It seems to me that the most basic difference between the restsrictive and permissive positions,on the one hand, and the moderate one, on the other, rests in the way they approach such issues.
Both of the other options isolate one value or principle or norm and make it always overriding. For the restrictive position, this is the fetus' moral right to live. For the permissive position, it is the woman's right to choose.
The moderate poistion refuses to choose between these, or even to rank them in some hierarchy of decision-making authority. Instead it asks us always and completely to consider both the fetus's right to live and the woman's right to choose and to strike appropriate balances between the two on a case-by-case basis.
The SDA Guidelines on Abortion illustrate this kind of thinking. Other denominations have adopted and adapted them.
Each position maintains that it best integrates scripture, tradition, reason and experience. It is therefore necessary for us to consider the evidence and decide for ourselves.
Again: "Always think FOR yourself; never think BY yourself!"
Daneen,
You say, "One of the reasons why I agree that the death penalty should not be applied in a case like this is that it seems like it sends a message to rape victims (child and otherwise) that the crime that has been committed against them is as bad as if they had been killed. Wouldn't putting a rapist to death indicate that they had essentially taken a life and that healing wasn't even possible?"
With reasoning like that, perhaps we should do nothing? No healing is necessary and no obscene perversion against a defenseless child was even done.
How about they be put to death to show the child (and others) that these vile thugs (Dave's example and above) don't deserve to live because of the physical and mental pain they caused a defenseless valued child and because they didn't value the dignity and privacy of that child's body! Unbelievable!
pat
god has said;it will not kill;abortion is murderering,is it;
when mother life is in danger one of them will die,is it;
these problems came out because of the sin,is it;
then take out a child of life is murdering her,is it,
but when lifes are in danger no problem to take out the child,is it;this situation is not sin,is it;the sin brought
many problems on this world.i was thinking about this matter
and putting myself in the woman's position raped because
i have two daugthers;i would not take out this child,but
i should not stay with child,why not;because i did not ask
this child ,i have three sons being two daugthers,i have asked
to god this sons,i am responsible for them,i whished them,i wanted them,but fruit of rape i did not ask it,because i shall
give answers to god about sons what i have asked but rape fruit,i have not asked it,i should do that,i would not kill her,but i should not stay with her eigther,maybe along of
the nine months many thing can it be changed,but if i leave
this child i cannot be guilt,because i have not asked her
to god,i cannot be guilt fo leaving this child,because this
baby is not welcomed,maybe along nine months this situation
can it be changed,what do you think about this mr larson.
laercio
laercio
In the United States today, and in many other countries, the laws allow a woman who has been raped to have an abortion.
With respect to Christian ethics, we can spot at least three alternatives.
The most restrictive option is that abortions are immoral unless they are the unintended and unavoidable side effects of trying to save the mother's life. It is morally permissible from this point of view for a surgeon to remove a cancerous uterus even though it has within it a living embryo, for example. This is the official Roman Catholic position and many Protestants agree. This condemns abortion for conceptions following rape.
We need to note that those who say that this restrictive position requires the doctors to choose the fetus over the mother when they are in mortal conflict are mistaken. This is unpersuasivie on the face of it because, as in avanced instances of the case above, in such situations it is often not medically possible to save only the fetus. Either one loses both the mother and the fetus or one saves only the mother.
The most permissive option is that the pregnant woman's choice always is the overriding consideration. This is because, it is held, decision-making power over one's own body is part of what it means to be a truly human person. Rob women of their power decisively to make such decisions and we rob them of their authentic personhood. This leaves the moral door open to abortion for conceptions following rape.
The moderate alternative holds that the Christian case against abortion is very strong, so much so that anyone who advocates it in a particular situation bears a heavy burden of ethical justification. Yet, although it is difficult, it is not impossible to provide this justification. Rape is a case in which the presumption against abortion can be overturned, making it ethically possible for the abortion to occur.
I think that the most basic difference between the three positions is that the first two--the restrictive one and the permissive one--each identify one norm, value or consideration and attend only to it all the way down the decision-making process.
For the restrictive position, this one norm is the sanctity of fetal life. For the permissive position, it is the sanctity of maternal choice. But the point is that each position gives serious attention to only one or the other of these.
The moderate position differs by not choosing between the two, nor even ranking them in some hierarchy of ethical decision-making priority. It instead asks us always and everywhere to keep both very seriously in mind and the work out on a case-by-case basis the best possible combination of the two.
I identify myself most strongly with the moderate position.
David, this is the most reasonable decision:
"The most permissive option is that the pregnant woman's choice always is the overriding consideration. This is because, it is held, decision-making power over one's own body is part of what it means to be a truly human person. Rob women of their power decisively to make such decisions and we rob them of their authentic personhood. This leaves the moral door open to abortion for conceptions following rape."
IMO, regardless of the exception of rape which you allow, anyone making such a personal decision for a living, breathing human being, robs that woman of her dignity and recognition of her personhood. It is akin to the patriarchal written laws from Bible times and most of recorded history that women were not fully human or adult and decisions were made for her, and not by her.
If she chooses abortion, the consequences will be paid by her and no one else to the same extent. If she chooses to carry it to term, it will affect many more people which must be considered. Dilemmas always arise when neither choice is best; but is seen as the lesser of two evils. Is there any sin that cannot be forgiven?
If abortion is a sin is their a hierarchal chart of sins? The penance the woman suffers, is more than sufficient without additional fingers or a Scarlet Letter.
There are crimes that are heinious enough to deserve capital punishment. Why should vicious thugs be allowed to select more potential victims - even fellow inmates in prison? Furthermore,because of over-crowding in prisons, an alarming number of murderers are currently being released onto the streets after serving a brief part of their sentence. Capi-tal punishment should only be carried out when guilt is certain, and DNA evidence should be considered. But its abolition is a clear miscarriage of justice.
The headline example is truly ghastly. I imagine that few would be revulsed by any punishment a society chose to impose.
Good law rarely derives from the ethic of the extreme.
To take a slightly different tack on Capital Punishment.
I have often pondered whether a society that defends the right to carry lethal weapons needs more draconian measures to contain the misuse of that right?
More rights - More responsibility - More sanctions?
Any thoughts.
Lercio,
After reading your question and the answers that were given, I am amazed that nobody suggested the best moral alternative for the consequences of rape: Adoption.
This has been tried many times, and I have read of several cases where the one who was given up for adoption expresses a profound admiration for the young woman who had the fortitude to have chosen the best alternative under those tragic circumstances: life for the innocent victim through adoption.
For the woman who has been raped, it represents an extremely painful experience, and nine months of psychological suffering, but abortion is much worse than that for the innocent victim: total and final deprivation of life.
If society is so fond of killing in the case of rape, then I would suggest that we kill the rapist, but not the innocent victim. When rape has taken place, there is only one deserving of capital pusnishment: the one who has committed the crime.
If society lets the rapist live--and I think it should--then it follows that we have no moral reason to execute the innocent victim: the unborn. The Bible teaches that the children should not be punished for the sins of the parents.
My answer to your other question: What to do when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. There has been a recent case in Europe where the physicians warned a pregnant woman that if she refused to have an abortion, both she and her baby would die. She opted to take her chances. Unfortunately, both the woman and the baby died. Under those circumstances, being pro-life means that if we cannot save two lives, common sense dictates that we should save at least one.
In cases like these we need to use common sense and seek guidance from above. A couple of decades ago Spectrum published an article describing the story of a pregnant woman who was suffering from tuberculosis. Her physicnan strongly advised abortion to save the life of the woman. She chose to carry the baby to term. As the baby grew, it pushed against the diseased lungs of the woman, and her lung began to heal. She survived under terrible odds, and had the pleasure of saving the life of her baby.
Anecdotal stories do not make a scientific study by any means. They are very personal and subjective.
I also, could tell a few: The pregnany of a doctor and his wife, a nurse, for a much-wanted child. When it proved to be anencephalic, they chose abortion because the child would not live long, and the minimum of life support could be thousands of $$ or more, and she had other children at home to care for. They went public to tell people their personal dilemma and they way in which it was solved. No male can even begin to comprehend the dependent feeling and all the others that accompany pregnancy. So you guys, keep your hands off girls until you're ready to be a father! The movie Juno was a saccharin sweet story, so totally unreal.
"
"the best moral alternative for the consequences of rape: Adoption."
Who is it better for? the woman who has to bear a child forced upon her by a rapist? The talk never addresses the prospective mother, only the unborn child. Please consider that the prospective mother has lived and breathed for at least 15-20 years or more, has contributed to others, and to say an embryo is worth more, no matter what, is criminal, IMO.
The rights seem to always be on an embryo, rather than the adult woman.
If a woman chooses adoption, regardless of the circumstances of her pregnancy, no one, no government, no "Christian counselor" advising her to keep the baby and produce fear by false
information, should override her decision. It is hers and hers alone to make. Thank God she will have to answer for her actions and he is much more merciful than humans.
When you read of the pimping, rapes, murders, and more that the biblical patriarchs committed, yet the writer of Hebrews eulogizes them as being favored by God. Should we do less?
Elaine,
I agree that it should be the decision of a mother (or guardian) in the case of rape, incest or her life in danger.
Their decision either to keep or abort is acceptable by me...and IMHO, God's.
pat
I'm not sure I understand the exception clause for rape and incest etc. Does life begin at conception or not? That is the argument against abortion if the woman actually enjoyed herself in the process of getting pregnant. She can't abort because she is taking a life. Isn't it no less of a life if she was raped and got pregnant? I understand that the pregnancy would be hard but when one weighs that against taking a life, I don't understand why the exception is ok if she didn't enjoy herself and wrong if she did.
I think that if abortions are going to be outlawed then there absolutely should be an exception for rape and incest. However, I also think it is an inconsistent position that ultimately says to a woman, "If you enjoyed it, you have no say and have to suffer because you created a life. If you didn't enjoy it then the fetus is less of a life and you can be responsible enough to decide what to do. And I, a complete outsider, am capable of deciding for you just how much enjoyment is allowed."
Or perhaps a fairer representation would be, "In certain cases, your mental anguish overrides the life of the fetus." However, this says that outsiders can judge the amount of mental anguish a pregnancy can cause and decide for the mother. I think we can all agree that carrying a pregnancy that was the result of incest by a father on a 13 year old would be awful. What about a 16 year old pregnant by Mom's boyfriend? What about a 13 year old pregnant by a 17 year old? What about an 18 year old pregnant by Mom's boyfriend? A naive 17 year old manipulated into sex by another 17 year old? As you can see, our ability to judge the level of mental anguish needed to override the "rights" of the fetus gets very complicated.
While I don't agree with the position of no abortion for any reason except the very likely death of the woman, I also think it is the most logically consistent position if you are going to limit first trimester abortions.
Beth,
Assuming you are talking to me, the reason for rape and incest is that the violated had "no choice" in the matter. I do not feel that God requires the "violated" to carry a fetus as a planned incubator program. If they choose to...great.
You say "we can all agree" but in fact there never has been agreement and never will be because some feel the fetus has rights above or equal to the mother under all circumstances.
Not me... May God see fit to raise them at the last day according to His righteous judgment. I refuse to be either's judge.
pat
Pat I was kind of talking to you I guess but also throwing it out there.
I agree that those violated should not have to be incubators as you so aptly put it. I guess I would just keep using that same reasoning and extend it to all women. I think the vast majority of women who have an unwanted pregnancy did not choose to get pregnant. I've read somewhere that in almost half of unintended pregnancies, someone was using birth control albeit perhaps not very well. The married couple whose birth control fails is not choosing to be pregnant any more than the rape victim. What is being "punished" here is the consensual sex. There seems to be an almost puritan streak of reasoning (not saying you Pat) that says if you have sex you must be prepared to have a baby. You can take a life if you didn't choose to have sex, but if you did choose then you can't. I don't think the level of sexual consent is a good measure for the appropriateness of abortion.
And you're right I could have phrased my "we all agree" better. What I was trying to say is that we can all agree that insisting that a 13 year old incest victim carry a pregnancy is likely to cause mental anguish. Not that we can all agree that she should/could abort. Some would argue that her suffering is worth it to save a life. She might even agree. My point is that while mental anguish can be obvious in a rape victim's case, it can also be extreme in other cases that are not mentioned as acceptable exceptions.
None of the above cite any experience on the jury of a capital case. I was one of twelve who found a man, (second offender of murder,) guilty of aggregated murder that included forceable rape. The second phase of the trial was the penalty phase. The acused was black. The jury was composed of four blacks, four white women, and four white men. The Four blacks were frank and said: " Too many blacks have died of alleged cause, we are not going to allow it to happen on our watch. Two of the women, said, it is so final, what if we are wrong? The remainder, me included, agreed that the State of Georgia has the legal right to demand of the life of a crimmal if the crime was so terrble that no other punhishment was justfied.
We were dead locked on the recommendation of penalty. Thus the only option open to the Judge was life without the possibility of parole to which he added 30 years for rape, and 30 years for robbery--the man had sold the jewlery.
I believe that the death penality is within the right of the state in proven cases of "capital" crime. Tom
Elaine,
You must have overlooked the fact that the two anecdotes I used were designed to balance each other, which means I did not attempt to prove either point. So my question to you: Why did you respond with:
"Anecdotal stories do not make a scientific study by any means. They are very personal and subjective."
Everybody knows that anecdotes cannot substitute for scientific studies, and I did not try to negate this well-known fact!
Regarding rape and adoption, Who suggested that the embryo is worth more? Did I? If there is a way to save the life of both the mother and the baby, why not? Why kill the innocent baby if there is a way to save his/her life without sacrificing the life of the pregnant woman? The baby hasn't committed any crime! The guilty here is the rapist, but I never heard you say that we should take the life of the rapist!
You ask, "Who is it better for?" The answer: It is the best option for all concerned. The baby, because its life is spared. The pregnant woman, because she will not have to carry a load of guilt for having killed her own child--remember that half of the baby is her own flesh and blood; the adoptive parents, because they now have someone they can love and care for; and the rapist, because he has no need to worry that his violent act was responsible for the murder of an innocent human being.
We all agree that it is the pregnant woman's decision to kill or not to kill her own baby, because this is the law of the land. Once abortion becomes illegal, then it will no longer be a woman's choice anymore.
I believe that sooner or later the killing of the unborn will become illegal again. Sooner or later abortion will suffer the fate of slavery, which was abolished. I don't know when, but I am convinced that this will eventually take place. When this happens, then the only abortion that will be permitted will be the one to save the life--not the lifestyle--of the pregnant woman.
We also agree that no counselor or physician should provide false information about the consequences of abortion. Right now, the ones providing and hiding truthful information from women are not couselors, but rather abortion providers, and the most adamant opposition to allow women to see an ultrasound picture of the unborn baby is coming from Parenthood, the largest abortion provider.
We agree as well that it is the woman who will have to answer to God for choosing to end the life of her baby. Nevertheless, if the church justifies the killing of innocent human beings, the woman will feel less inclined to seek repentance and forgiveness for her crime.
It is true that many of the patriarchs listed in the book of Hebrews were guilty of crimes. Does this mean that they were free from the natural consequences of their misbehavior.
Should I feel free to committ adultery and cover my sin by murdering the woman's husband the way David did? God forbid! David paid a heavy price for his sin, in spite of his repentance and forgiveness. The Bible was written that we might learn from the mistakes of the saints, instead of encouraging people to repeat other individual's moral failings!
http://www.sdaforum.com
Beth,
Does the temporary mental suffering of the woman who has been raped outweigh the dismembering or poisoning of the unborn? Is something that is temporary comparable with the permanent and irreversible deprivation of life?
http://www.sdaforum.com
See Nic, here is the crux of where you and I are going to disagree. If I believed, as you do, that a fetus or even embryo is a life worthy of all the protections we grant to newborn babies, then I would have to agree with your comment. Of course mental anguish does not outweigh the life of a newborn and it wouldn't outweigh the life of the fetus IF I believed as you do.
However, I don't. I don't think that an embryo or fetus has the same status of life as a newborn for a whole bunch of reasons. I do think that as the pregnancy progresses, the fetus does reach a point where society has a right to step in and protect it (I personally think around 21 weeks or so). But until that point, I think the value of protecting the mother's physical autonomy outweighs the status of the fetus' right to life. And so we are going to be talking at cross purposes.
"the rapist, because he has no need to worry that his violent act was responsible for the murder of an innocent human being."
Disgusting, disgusting, disgusting. The rapist is now free to use any random woman as his own personal incubator. True he may go to jail, but if he's the genetic father, then legally he has some rights (visitation or otherwise) to the child in many jurisdictions. That the rape victim would be forced to undergo continued contact with her rapist is nearly as bad as the levitical law that orders marriage in the case of rape.
Both a tremendously outmoded ethical value system that I am exceedingly glad we have moved past. And no, I do not believe we will EVER return to.
HERE'S A TAKE-HOME QUIZ I SOMETIMES GIVE MY STUDENTS:
"If you had the power to do so, would you (1) retain, (2) revise (3) replace or (4) remand back to the various states Roe v. Wade? Please explain and justify your answer from your own point of view in as close to 1,000 words as you can make it. Have fun!"
Dave
"I believe that sooner or later the killing of the unborn will become illegal again. Sooner or later abortion will suffer the fate of slavery, which was abolished. I don't know when, but I am convinced that this will eventually take place."
Are you willing to bet on it? In today's climate, it doesn't have the chance of a snowball in hell as the women of this country would rise up in arms to think that the government now has control over their bodies.
As a male, are you willing and ready to have a vasectomy performed? Why not? If the government had control over women and their reproductive capabilities then men should also be willing to let the government control them also. Any takers?
Dave
In short the "Right to Privacy" is far better than the alternative such as back alley coat hangers et al. We live in an imperfect world. As much as I admire you and your grasp of ethics and morality: I would not want to live under your concept of a penalty worse than death!
Betty and I went through the aweful experience of s still born. None of my issue would be aborted as long as I still have breath. But I will not legislate the moral standards of another in the area of "Privacy".
We just completed a lengthy thread on homosexuality now we want to play God in another arena. For me and my house we will and have practiced morally responsible reproducive activity. We urge others to do the same, yet to make our moral standard the law of the land, is beyond our domaim.
To marshal Scripture would be in vain, Sir, for you could match verse for verse on your side.
In a hundred words or less, defend a punishment worse than the death penalty that would not be considered cruel and unusual by the United States Supreme Court. I would be interested.
Good Luck. Tom
Here's a thought on permitting abortion in the case of incest or rape. The more we learn about genetics and DNA, the more we realize how much the child resulting from rape will inherit genetically from its father. I read _Ghosts in the Nursery_ a while back which quoted research showing that violence during pregnancy was highly likely to result in a child very prone to violence. Wouldn't that be a reason, beyond the lack of consent to sex, for a woman to have the right to choose to abort. And if, every time she saw her child she was reminded of the violence of her rape, would she be able to overcome that repugnance? That too, it seems to me, would be an additional reason for the need for choice.
In cases of incest, the high incidence of birth defects resulting from incest - the reason God originally condemned it - would, I think, be a reason why the victim should have the opportunity of choice.
As for the story that started this discussion, my gut feeling is that death would be the best answer, in order to prevent repetition; we know that crowded prisons all too frequently result in the release of offenders who repeat their crimes.
The arguments against abortion in cases of rape, incest, health of the mother are also the case for infant baptism.
In one situation the declaration is that they are are a child of God at the moment of conception. In the other situation they are not a child of God until baptism at the age of consent. Which is it?
If God wants them in His Kingdom, you can be sure they will be there. We are looking forward to meeting our fourth child there.
The issue was raised on Legal grounds not moral or ethical constraints. Each child bearing parent has the Right of privacy within certain bounds. Who wants to change that? Good precedent for Sunday Laws. Tom
hi nic
looking for each answer about abortion,i have been amazed too
as same as you.peolpe living in the church saying who has
known god,but they look to be far away of god's knowledge.
nic do not matter what i think or what you think or elaine
thinks,what matter is what god thinks.when we seek to know what god thinks we get solution to each problem,but when i seek solution to the problem without seek god's advice i shall makemany mistakes.do not matter what laws has said there in north america on what laws has said about abortion on south america, what matter is,what god has said about abortion.do you agree my friend nic?jesus said,i do not make
my will but i make the will of his who has sent me.raping is
terrible thing,but taking off the life of an innocent victim
is a terrible thing too.murderes will not reach the giod's kingdon,nor rapist,each one shall stay outside of the heaven.
tradition and concepts come out from men mind.but principles
and doctrines come out from god's mind.principles and doctrine are to every one in anywhere in any time in any age.
god never killed nor shall kill because god will not break his
laws,because his laws are his character,i am very happy because people like you keep god's law inside the heart ,this
keep myself very strong to continue in my journey to the heaven.i remain very sad when i look people saying my brothers
in christ thinking about to take out an innocent victim.
i stay very angry when i know some one has been raped .i want
him to die but i knee my self before the god's throne and say
to him,god i want to kill that rapist , i want him to die but
my lord take out this revenge of me .i do not want to make my will,i want to make your will.god's laws says,it will not kill
i keep his laws,do not matter what will happen i shall be faithful to god.we must always to remember,i do not make my
will,i make god's will as same as made jesus my savior.or our
saviour.i think.
laercio
"murderes will not reach the god's kingdom."
How about David? And Moses? Gideon? Samson?
All were murderers. Yet the writer of Hebrews praises them.
Tom
I now wish I had not said that in some cases capital punishment might let a criminal off too easily because I left some the impression that I favor torturing prisoners. That was not my intent. I had life in prison without the possibility of parole in mind. At this point I think that for me it would be a fate worse than death. I am agaisnt capital puhnishment for all the familiar reasons. Thank you!
Dave
http://www.sdaforum.com
Beth,
A friend of mine, who happens to be a very talented young physician believes the same way you do. He is convinced that up to the twenty-first week of pregnancy we do not have a human being, and therefore the government has no interest in protecting the life of the unborn prior to said stage of development.
My question is: if the unborn is not a human being before the 21st week of pregnancy, then what is it? An object? An animal? An appendix of the pregnant woman? Has anybody ever seen an appendix with its own unique DNA and with a head, a body, two legs, two arms, a face, and a beating heart?
I once asked him whether he would have provided abortion services to Mary, the mother of Jesus. She was single and pregnant, at a time when such women ran the risk of being stoned. He answered that he would not have hesitated a moment in aborting Mary's baby because freedom of choice should rule under those circumstances.
He argued that until the twenty-first week of pregnancy the brain of the unborn has not had a chance to develop, for which reason it could not be considered as a human being. This kind of reasoning bothers me a great deal! These kind of arguments prevailed in the case of Terri Schiavo. Her husband, who was living with another woman, claimed that her wife was brain dead. No brain, no human being!
So what happened? The poor woman was deprived of nourishment and water, and after a couple of weeks she was dead. Her parents begged for mercy, and offered to take care of their daughter. There was no mercy for the parents, nor for her daughter. She was murdered in cold blood, according to my estimation. Dying of thirst and hunger is a terrible thing. Try going a day or two without food and water! And what about two weeks?
Pregnant women who have a chance to see their babies before making the final decision about abortion have a tendency to show compassion for their own flesh and blood. What are the most common methods used by abortionists to kill the unborn? By administering the right amount of poison, or else by pulling the babies limbs from the baby's torso and by crushing their heads.
I have no idea how anybody can justify such violence aimed against the most vulnerable members of humanity. Jesus said: "Inasmuch as you have done this unto the least of these, you have done it unto me."
Read Matthew 25. It describes how the Lord will determine our eternal destiny on the basis of how we have treated the "least." Do you dare to disqualify the unborn from being the least members of humanity?
You feel that you will not change your mind regarding this issue. This may be true, but the Lord can, if you let him do this for you!
Jemand,
Did you miss what my solution for such cases was? Did I not say that the best alternative was adoption? When a baby is given for adoption, the visitation rights are permanently eliminated. Did you overlook this fact? How many cases can you cite where the rapist is granted visitation rights after the baby has been given up for adoption? As you can see, what is disgusting here is your lack of discernment!
http://www.sdaforum.com
Dave,
Thank you for the quiz! My answer is: "Neither of the above."
I think that the right solution is to encourage the members of the U.S. Congress to do what is their Constitutional prerogative and duty: to declare that personhood starts with conception. If Congres were to muster the courage to do what is their moral duty, then Roe v. Wade would collapse.
Roe v. Wade was crafted from a false premise: the right to privacy. What is private about depriving a human being of life? There is no such thing as the right to commit a crime in a private setting. If you kill your child in the privacy of your home, you go to jail. Harming another human being is a crime, regardles of whether the act has been committed in public or in a private setting.
By the way, you are probably aware that there is a bill in Congress designed to define the unborn as a person, and entitled to the protection of the law. Even today, when a pregnant woman is murdered, in some states this is considered to be a double murder instead of being a single crime.
http://www.sdaforum.com
Elaine,
You are right! We do not have the climate for another Civil War over the issue of abortion. Neverthless, do you remember when President Reagan challenged Gorbachev to tear the Berlin Wall? Did you believe that this would actually take place? Most people didn't, and were taken by surprise.
As far as a vasectomy, I don't need one! I fear the Lord, and I refrain from adultery and fornication!
Abortion is the twin brother of another disregard of what God forbids. Do not forget that Roe v. Wade was the direct result of the sexual revolution of the Sixties. One sin, followed another. Please, stop defending what the Almighty has forbidden for our good!
http://www.sdaforum.com
Tom,
Do you think that the Sixth Commandment was meant for the Jewish race only, or rather for humanity in general as well? Do you think that the government should protect the right of individuals to take the life of another human being in a private setting?
If the government refuses to protect the life of a human being from being either poisoned or dismembered, then who will?
Back in 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the unborn was not entitled to personhood. Doesn't this verdict remind you of another ruling which declared that blacks were not persons, and therefore not entitled to be treated as such?
Didn't we fight a war over this? In God's providence, Lincoln decided to put a stop to injustice towards the blacks. Do you think that Presieent Lincoln made a mistake by his decision to fight over this?
http://www.sdaforum.com
Carrol,
Since when it is morally justifiable to execute a human being because he might have inherited the propensity to commit a crime? Is this the kind of justice you propose? Have you read the stories of men and women who were born as a result of rape and became model parents and citizens.
Would you suggest that it would have been morally acceptable to kill them before they had a chance to prove that inheritance is an unreliable predictor of the future behavior of individuals? Do you think that it is safe to play God? God probably knew in advance that Hitler would end harming humanity; nevertheless, he did not intervene to take Hitler's life before his birth!
If the Lord refused to do this, knowing full well what the outcome was going to be; do you think that it is safe for puny men to take such drastic and cruel action against innocent human beings? If you knew for a fact that your son would eventually be guilty of murder, would you kill him as a preventive measure? If you did, would society condone your action?
I never heard you about killing the rapist! Isn't this rather strange? You are focussed on defending the killing of the innocent, but never suggest that we should rather take the life of the guilty one! I call this the most extreme case of a travesty of justice!
http://www.sdaforum.com
Tom,
While you and many other Adventists are worrying about a predicted future Time of Trouble connected with the alleged Sunday Laws, the good Lord is concerned about the present Time of Trouble for the unborn.
Please show me a single passage in Scripture where Jesus said that our eternal destiny will be determined by the day we choose to worship him. I can't find any such statement. Yet I do find what Jesus clearly described would determine my chances of outliving the present age: The way I treat the "Least of These." Read this in Matthew 25.
When the Son of God was on this earth, the Jews were extremely concerned about Sabbath observance. This led them to disregard the value of human life. They killed the Author of life, and hurried to keep the Sabbath before sundown. Aren't we repeating the same mistake?
We have enshrined the Sabbath Commandment into the name of our denomination--and this we should have done--but at the same time we have trashed the Sixth Commandment and dumped it in the name of "freedom of choice." Freedom of choice to kill? Where in the Bible did God condone our freedom of choice to kill the innocents?
We have historically labelled the Pope as the "Beast of Revelation." What do beasts of prey do? They target the weak and vulnerable and kill them. This is what we are doing in some of our hospitals, but we continue to labell ourselves as the "Remnant of God " who keep Gods Commandments." Who are we kidding. Doesn't God see what we are doing?
http://www.sdaforum.com
Laercio,
God bless you. I did read your posting, and I thak God for people like you who are willing to choose God's will instead of our own.
http://www.sdaforum.com
Elaine,
You are quite right. There will be murderers in God's Kingdom. Nevertheless, let's not forget that David did repent of his terrible sin. This is why I want women who have had an abortion to repent. But, how can they be enticed to seek repentance and forgiveness if the church tells them that they have done no wrong?
http://www.sdaforum.com
ELAINE
JESUS SAID;WHO HAS SEEN ME HAS SEEN THE GOD,BECAUSE GOD LIVES
IN ME I LIVE IN GOD. I ASK YOU;WHEN SOMEBODY SEES YOU;
WHOM ARE THEY LOOKING?WHOM SEE YOU,BY ANY CHANCE SEES JESUS
INSIDE YOU?THINK WELL.
LAERCIO
Nic
It is good to seen my name used again, even in vain! I suggest that you reread Romans 13. Paul was speaking about a power that was about to behead him!
If you read me carefully, you will find that I said: " For me and my house there will be no death of the unborn! Moreover, I also said or at least strongly implied that I teach that to all within my voice.
However, I took the position that, given our sinful society:
legalizing the "Right to Privacy" is far better than back alley coat hanger solutions.
I believe it is right to express one's views, even campaign for them. It is not right to decide a private moral issue for another.
As Chief of Dental Surgery at Milwaukee's Children's Hospital long before Roe v. Wade. I can tell you some horror stories that would make David's intro pale in comparison.
There are a lot of games being played out there: that law cannot control. That is way Jesus advises us to wait for the harvest. He and He alone knows the wheat from the tares. In the meantime let us use our voices, pens, and life style to say a loudly as possible--life is precious to God and so it should be to you also. Beyond that, as with Paul, let us say: "Due Process" previal under governments allowed to exist by God's will.
David:
In the legal case I cited earlier, I rode on the elevator with the Judge. He said, difficult case huh? I said: "Yes Sir!" He said: "Let me set your mind at ease: " Life without the possibility of parole is less costly to the state than the death penalty and the burden on the convict as bad or worse." I have done a study of the capital crimes in Ill. with has the death penalty and Mich. which does not. On a statistical basis: Capital punishment is no durant to Capital Crime.
Never-the-less, I believe that the state has the legal authority to use death as a punishment is Capital Cases.
Just a story:
While teaching at Loma Linda, we would take senior students across the Mexico border to a state prison and do emergency dental care. In most cases, extractions. We got to know the chief law enforcement officer of the state. He chided us on Calif. having the death penalty while Mexico did not. So one of my colleagues posed the following question: " Sir, if a man kidnapped your 16 year old daughter, raped her, mutlilated her and tortured her, and then killed her. You finally catch the crimminal who did all this, what would you do? The quick answer, why shoot him on the spot!
I was chief dental consultant to the Board of Correction for the State of Georgia for six years. I have always been a strong advocate for humane treatment of inmates and maximum protection of guards etc. Now design a dental clinic around those constraints where sharpies abound.
I am happy to report that no attack occurred in the dental clinics and no attacks occurred using dental instruments during my 41 years in Georgia.
Finally,
Nic
It seems that God Himself didn't understand the 6th Commandment. That is if you have read the book of Judges recently. Tom
Nic
Just a suggestion: Why not simply state your convictions without denigratng the opinion of others? It does nothing to strengthen your case. I respect your opinion on issues--not your distain for other's opinion. I probably agree with Ellan about as much as you do. But she demolishes you with one stroke of the pen. If you haven't noticed: Just shake your head--it will fall in your lap. Tom
I would like to see the argument made that if Mary did NOT want to be pregnant with Jesus, why should she be forced to do so. Ethically, God needed her permission before getting her pregnant, otherwise it would be rape. Forced pregnancy is another kind of rape.
Tom: your one short sentence says it all:
"It is not right to decide a private moral issue for another."
If we believe that God wants us to have free will in our choices, what choices is anyone here
ready to surrender to another human? That is the ultimate meaning of the human animal that separates us from all the other mammals: we can choose; whether we use it wisely or not, it doesn't remove that capability.
Nic: what very personal choices are YOU willing to give to the government? Do you honestly believe that they can do better about your very personal life than you can? Look at their track record. All the blather and the singular obsession is about something that hasn't and will never affect you! It's the attempt to control a woman and God has given neither you nor anyone else that authority. So, Back Off our bodies!
Tom,
I did what you suggested. I read Romans 13. This reminds me of the following anecdote. This German was in charge of depositing the bodies of Jews who had been gassed into the oven. As he was in the process of pushing one of those bodies, he noticed that the man was still alive. He notified his supervisor.
His boss responded: You must follow governments orders. If you refuse, you will be incinerated as well! He did obey the government orders, and even when he was old, he still had nightmares about what he had done. My question to you: Do you think that we must obey the government under all circumstances. Are there any situation under which we should say, we must obey God rather than men?
Now, regarding the right to privacy, you seem to think that letting the genocide of the unborn continue is the lesser evil. I disagree! The coat-hanger abortions before the legalization of the killing of the unborn have been overblown out of proportion. The figures were inflated up to high heaven in order to convince the justices of the court to legalize plain murder.
What our society needs today is men of a strong spinal chord who are willing to face evil regardless of the consequences--men like Abraham Lincoln. Would you have preferred that the enslavement of black people had continued until our time? Then, like today, many argued that slavery was the lesser evil.
Slaves were deprived of personhood and treated like mere animals. It took a civil war to correct this injustice, and unless we do something about the present genocide in a peaceful way, the Lord may eventually allow this problem to be solved the way slavery was eventually outlawed.
There is no such thing as a right to kill innocent human beings in a private setting. The Supreme Court manufactured the right to abortion out of thin air. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any right to deprive an entire group of human beings of legal protection. All human beings, including the unborn, were endowed by the Creator with the right to life. Killing another innocent human being can never be a "private moral issue."
Yes, the Lord ordered us to wait for the harvest, but he also told us by an inspired prophet to protect those led to the slaughter house. The Lord also instructed us to "choose life," but we prefer to choose death for our own flesh and blood!
I did read the book of judges, which you suggested, not once but many times. What part of said book you think I do not understand? Can you elaborate?
Tom: my disdain is not for those who have a diametrically different opinion on this issue. My disdain is for the horrible practice of protecting sexual predators while executing the innocents. I have close friends whose opinions on other issues I greatly respect, but I cannot agree with them on the issue of abortion.
And, by the way, I seem to agree with you on the death penalty for criminals. Nevertheless, I see a huge chasm between the execution of criminals, and the dismemberment or poisoning of the most innocent and vulnerable members of humanity!
http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic
You asked me in a previous blog if I had difficulty with the 6th commandment "Thou shalt not kill". I merely suggested that you read Judges to see the number of times the Lord Commanded Israel's Judges et al to kill entire peoples.
My point was did God understand His own Commandment or not?
The Georgia law is very specific on the criminal acts worthy of the death penalty. These include consideration of any and all mitigating factors and all contributing factors. The case in which I was a juror was presented in stepwise fashion with hard evidence on each of four counts. The evidence met every requirement of Georgia law. There were no mitigating factors.
I told you about my term as Chief of Dental Services at Milwaukee's Children's Hospital. The hospital maintained a long-term care facility and a half way house for those seeking adoption. I would spend one afternoon a week treating children. The most endearing case was a young boy of about 4, who at age 18 months, the mother of the "unwanted" child placed the boy in a tub of boiling water up to his waist.
The boy didn't die, another family member rescued the tot and took him to the emergency room. From the day of his injury to the time I began seeing him, he had more than 14 surgical procedures. His private parts were still a tangled mess of scar tissue, He had less than 1 percent of his lower body in clear skin.
He was well enough to play in the romper room. When I finished my round of patients, I would stop and give the boy a horsey back ride. We became fast friends. The staff said, that he faced years of additional surgeries and couldn't be placed for adoption until further along in recovery.
Pro-lifers have no answer to the problem of unwanted children.
I saw no line waiting to adopt, no line of the well to do offering financial aid or even encouragement.
If pro-lifers intend to be active--they better have better end-points that a live birth! By preventing first trimester termination they have automatically become surrogate parents.
Yet I have yet to see the first pro-lifer get in line to provide a home, nuture, education, and love to these waifs.
If you take the first step, By God, you have to go the last mile. That is what the 6th Commandment really says. There must not only be reverence for life but reverence for the Life Giver. Freely ye have received, freely give--and than mean more than letters to the editor or voting pro-life. It means a life of parenting the unwanted. I want to see a thread on how society should address that issue.
Tom
Amen, Tom.
Tom,
Thank you for sharing this story with us. There will be tragic stories no matter which way you go or what policies you adopt. My question to you. Do we know whether the mother of that boy had planned to abort the baby before birth? Would anyone have been able to predict with certainty that she would have eventually treated the poor fellow with such a high disregard for human suffering?
Many people have stated that is is rather foolish to adopt policies on the basis of anecdotal cases. I have read stories of women who were determined to abort a baby, and thanks to the intervention of counselors or family members did change their mind, and later on loved their baby so much they would shudder everytime they had remembered they had almost allowed it to be killed.
When Bethoven was born, there were already eight mouths to feed in the family, and some of the children were severely handicapped and with serious health problems. Common sense would have dictated that the woman should have chosen to abort the baby. She didn't, and we are blessed by his music even today. On the other hand, had the mother of Hitler chosen to abort her baby, the world would have been spared a lot of pain and suffering.
My suggestion is: since nobody can predict the future with 100 percent certainty, it is much wiser not to try to play God. Even God prefers not to play God in cases like this. Do you think we are smarter than God?
That four-years-old boy was almost two years old when he was abandoned by her mother. Do we know the circumstances that forced her to take such a drastic action? Do we know anything about her mental state at the time of this tragedy? If we don't, can we draw any reasonable conclusion as to what is the best way to prevent such cases from repeating in the future?
It is undeniable that the chances of finding suitable parents for adoption tends to decrease as the child grows. Most couples looking to adopt a child prefer a just-born baby. I have relatives who have travelled to the ends of earth for the chance to adopt a few children, and at prohibitive expense.
To adopt a baby from a foreign country may require the expenditure of over $30,000 dollars. At the same time, American babies are being destroyed en mass: about three thousand every week. Hitler killed six million. We have either poisoned or dismembered 50 million innocent human beings so far!
It is painful to see unwanted children suffer due to a a lack of loving and caring parents. Would you suggest that if asked, these children would request to be killed rather than suffer the lack of a family environment? Would they say: I wish my mother had aborted me? Have you ever heard a child say this?
The other day I received a video with a picture of a girl born without lower extremeities. She was smiling, and she "walked" to school on her hands. Her grades were better than that of other students. She seemed to be in love with life. Do you think that, if asked, she would have said: I wish my mom had aborted me?
A year ago or so, I received another video of a man born with no higher nor lower extremities. He was preaching at the Crystal Cathedral. You could tell that for him life withouth limbs was a much better deal than death. Would he, if asked, say: I wish my mother had aborted me?
A few decades ago, when the pope came to the States, a young fellow played his guitar for John Paul II with his feet. He had no hands or arms. He seemed to be extremely excited to be alive. Would he, if asked, have stated: I wish my mother had aborted me?
Do you know of any studies showing that the majority of deprived children would have preferred to be dead? My understanding is that most of those who try to commit suicide are not among the handicapped, but rather among those who are bright and in need of nothing the rich can provide.
If this is the case, why is it that we tend to insist on killing our own children? Is it for their sakes, or rather for our own selfish sake? They seem to be a nuisance to those surrounded by the luxuries of life! It is not the unborn who are asking to be killed. It is us, who are supplied with more food than we con eat, who prefer to see those children dead!
http://www.sdaforum.com
Tom,
I just read again your 31 July 2008 at 4:53 posting. I did what you suggested: I did shake my head, but it did not fall off on my lap as you said. I conclude that, since you were wrong on this prediction, you are very likely wrong on your view dealing with abortion and adoption.
By the way, who is Ellan? I did scrol up all the way to the top, but failed to locate said individual. That person might be tops, but so far no one has been able to demolish my arguments "with one stroke of the pen." I may not be very smart, but the Lord is, and my foundation is anchored on the Ten Words the Lord himself wrote on tables of stone.
The question is not whether your view or mine is the correct one, but whether the Bible is wrong on this issue.
http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic
Sorry I misspelled Elaine as you well know. Nic you are a piece of work. Challenging my understanding of the 6th commandment, knowing my history as a non-combatant in WWII landing on three assualt beaches, challenging the treatment of prisioners of war, being threatened by a two star general, having two Japanese soldiers surrender to me because they saw I was unarmed. My extended family includes four adopted children. I spent eight years without pay serving throw away babies.
I decry and shame every pro-lifer that lives in a smug world of denial of their responsibility for every live birth they create and then abandon without a home, without nurture, without an education, without love, without hope. Just as soon as the pro-life moment stands up to the plate and takes responsibility for the lives of those children from the cradle through to career entry, I will lead their parade.
In the world of politics the vast majority of pro-lifers are for live births and then a life of living hell on the infants own. They even oppose Child Welfare as the responsiblity of the tax payer.
Be as snide as you like, but win, lose, or draw, you are dead wrong. Tom
"It is undeniable that the chances of finding suitable parents for adoption tends to decrease as the child grows. Most couples looking to adopt a child prefer a just-born baby."
This usually does come up. It seems that many have the attitude that women (often perceived to come from a poor background) must be coerced into performing as surrogates for couples (often considered to come from more "respectable" stations of life) who wish to snatch the child up immediately. However, if it's an older child, it's already "defective" from rubbing shoulders with the lower classes for too long and they'll have nothing to do with it. Also... white children are more likely to be adopted than black, blond than brunette, completely healthy as opposed to those with developmental difficulties, etc.
Adoption on an individual level is a beautiful thing. Adoption when pursued on a national level and pushed as the "solution" to abortion carries whiffs of racism and classism. And the mental anguish to women knowing they have children out there, ones they will never meet and never know if they are being treated well or not, is brushed under the rug. For women who do NOT believe a 10 week old fetus is a human life, they may have MUCH less psychological distress from an abortion than adoption! After all, missing in action is one of the most horrific psychological outcome to families of soldiers, why would it be any different for a mother? Adoption is not the solution for all.
Jemand and Nic
I have the perfect solution. The SDA church is closing Academies right and left and abandoning inter city churchs as well. Why not create Cities of Refuge for these "unwanted" children. Press for a double tithe up and down the line. Get all the government subsidies available. Start a model community of the love and caring you so embrace. In love one does not count the cost. Christ didn't, why should we?
Jemand: Tell four adopted Zwemer's that adoption is no solution at all!
There is a lot more to Christian living than sitting at a word processor and throwing cyber stones.
Which one of you have cared for "crack" babies? Or even sat of the Board of a United Way?
The high moral plane without responsibility is the house filled with seven times the devils it tried to sweep out. Tom
NO NO NO NO... I did NOT say adoption is no solution at all!!! I'm VERY sorry that's the meaning you got out of my post!
I said it wasn't the solution FOR all. Many women would not be able to trust what would happen to their children in the current system, and while the psychological distress of abortion to the mother is trumped up and exaggerated by anti-abortion activists, mothers of adopted children are usually ignored, and seldom studied.
If there WERE such "cities of refuge" that would allow mothers to continue visiting their children, or would even help HER if her situation were such that she could, with a little help, care for her child (and I'm sure that would be a part of your vision as well)... it would truly be a blessing to thousands of people. It's a very good idea.
jemand
My only experience in this field is the work of the Jeuists at Marquette University. They established a home for unwed mothers. Most were of highschool age. They continued their regular high school classes. Took courses in parenting and counseling on adoption. They were allowed to bring their fetus to full term and remain during the early infancy period, until a permanent home could be found for both mother and child. Sometimes it was adoption. Most often it was to return home and become part of the family circle with a new member of the family.
My clinic provided dental care for the mothers.
My point is this thread is dominated by those who say in effect: If rape or incest can not be avoided lay back and enjoy it and its fruitable. I disagree, It think the Right to Privacy in such matters is the best goverments can do.
I agree with one observant wag: "If men could give birth, abortion would be a sacrament!"
My belief system says: conception should occur within marraige by mutual consent and that child should be treated, raised, nutured as a child of God.
As head of household that is the way it has been in our home since 1949. We just received our second great grandchild born in wedlock to Johnny and Amy. Little Jackson Thomas Zwemer is a joy to a couple of gray heads.
I believe that those who demand live birthing of unwanted children should accept their surrogate parenthood in all of its dimensions. Few if any accept any such responsibility.