"Born Alive"
This article discusses Obama's attitude to abortion. I was more interested in the "Born Alive Bill", and the horrific circumstances that gave rise to it. I am staggered that people tolerate this sort of blatant evil. Here's my capitalistic solution to the issue - pay women with unwanted to pregnancies $10,000 to carry the child to term and then adopt it out. With our declining birth rates this would be a good investment. In fact, you could probably recoup most of the money from couples wanting to adopt, who currently spend far more than that to adopt overseas.
51 comments:
Hooley Dooley. That's called the Baby Bonus, Craig. I'm not sure its helped.
Hi guys,
It's hard to get Christians in Australia even interested in this issue- I've heard so many more discussions on Jesus & global warming than on Jesus and the little one's.
Any ideas on why this is and where to start?
(By the way Justin - it was your link to the Piper article on the ban of partial birth abortion that re-ignited my conscience on this - thank you)
Tim
Justin, I don't think you get the baby bonus if you give your baby up for adoption, do you?
I've heard so many more discussions on Jesus & global warming than on Jesus and the little one's.
I suppose all that leads to is the American experience of Christians voting for a political party who say they are pro-life but don't do anything about it. I'm not interested in the failure of Christians to a) see that their pro-life policies have had little effect upon abortion, and b) see that their pro-life policies cause them to ignore other child-killing problems like Global Warming (which will kill a lot more children than abortion will).
I think Craig's idea is interesting, although I think it would create a baby bearing industry whereby women would get pregnant in order to get money and give them away for adoption.
I would prefer to pay women $3000 per year to go on the pill or pay them $10000 to have a reversible tubal ligation.
If some women (surely a tiny minority) started "breeding for money" - well, perhaps that is the price we pay to reduce abortion.
Craig you wrote:
"If some women (surely a tiny minority) started "breeding for money" - well, perhaps that is the price we pay to reduce abortion."
I suspect that you meant that tongue in cheek. Nevertheless, I do want to respond to your comment because I see so many Christians living from that ethical framework. "The ends justifies the means" type of ethic is not the biblical ethic.
King Solomon wrote, "Righteousness exalts a nation and sin is a reproach to any people." The high handed sin of murdering babies before they ever see the light of day needs righteous solutions. With some issues giving out money may be the answer, but not here. The answer to this sin is the prophetic call to righteousness and not more money. Sadly, we have fallen into the snare of thinking that the State can sort out all our problems (sins). And what is worse is that we have become accustomed to throwing money at every problem.
How often is the Biblical name (that is, Murder) given to abortion from our pulpits, lecterns, and in our churches? How often do our pastors preach against this grievous sin? From my experience of listening to pastors and preachers, I would say not very often, if ever. Of course, your experience may be different to mine.
Tony J
PS. I really enjoy visiting your blog, it's a great source of news.
Thanks for your kind words about my blog Tony, I appreciate your readership.
I don't see that giving a woman money to carry a child to term is unrighteous in and of itself. Which command does it break?
Nor do I agree that this is purely a job for the pulpits. If you read my blog, you know that I believe in smaller government than most people. But I do believe that one of the jobs of government is to give justice to it's people.
So it's appropriate and within mandate for government to intervene here to eliminate the unjust killing of the unborn.
It is still, doubtless, good and right for our pulpits to be preaching on this issue. And I think they do.
I can see what Tony's saying, and I admit Craig when I first read your post that was my first reaction.
Does the end justify the means? You are right that there is technically nothing unbiblical or immoral about paying women to have babies. However, there is something odious about women carrying their babies to full term for a pay-off. It may not be wrong, but it's certainly not noble or righteous. Sounds a little peverted to me.
I think you're saying that it would be great if people were convinced abortion was murder, but if that can't be achieved, the next best thing would be to at least minimise the number of abortions any way possible.
I'm not sure what I think about that. In some cases, I think it's not a bad idea. I remember watching in Amazing Grace how Wilberforce used a clause about bearing national flags to prevent slave traders from passing through England, when the parliament would not support the bill or make a moral decision. Maybe this is a little like that?
Yeah, a bit like that Soph.
"The ends doesn't justify the means" - but this only applies when the means are immoral. I'm not convinced that the "means" that I've proposed *are* immoral.
Hi Craig,
I did not say that that giving a woman money to carry a child to term is unrighteous in and of itself. That in itself is not breaking any of the ten commandments. However, I believe that the Civil Magistrate, the State, is moving beyond it’s mandated sphere of responsibility. This point needs to be fleshed out a bit more, but the blogsphere may not be the place for that.
Secondly, I didn’t argue that this is purely a job for our pulpits. I do believe that it is a job for our pulpits, but a job that is for all Christians in there God appointed sphere of life, gifting and responsibility. As one who is entrusted with a pulpit I believe that it a ‘pulpit responsibility’ that needs to be taken seriously.
My view of small government may be smaller than yours, that is something that we will work out with time. However, I do agree with you that one of the responsibilities of Government is to give justice to it's people. I also agree that it's appropriate and within the mandate for government to intervene here to eliminate the unjust killing of the unborn. Where we differ is in how government ought to do this. Money should be a last resort. The first step should be to unequivocally outlaw abortion. Now we can all
I am glad to hear that you have heard many a preacher speak up on this issue, it must be a bit different where you to where I am.
Tony J
The answer to this sin is the prophetic call to righteousness and not more money. Sadly, we have fallen into the snare of thinking that the State can sort out all our problems (sins). And what is worse is that we have become accustomed to throwing money at every problem.
*Yawn* another person who thinks the Bible mandates conservative political ideology - which is just another worldly philosophy.
How did God use Joseph to save Egypt and Jacob's family? Was it through tax cuts and letting the market rule? Or did Joseph and Pharaoh use the apparatus of the state to save everyone? (Genesis 47)
Tony,
I'm glad to meet another small government Christian - we are definitely in the minority!
I agree that an unequivocal ban would be the ideal. However, this is impossible in the current political environment. Given that, I'm wondering if there are any practical, achievable steps that can be taken to reduce this slaughter of infants.
I think the "adoption bonus" proposal I've put forward would be as politically impossible as a blanket ban, but I'm looking for new ideas here.
One Salient Oversight wrote:
“*Yawn* another person who thinks the Bible mandates conservative political ideology - which is just another worldly philosophy.”
I have read and re-read my posts and I can’t for the life of me see where you get that funny idea. Are you sure that you are responding to my posts and not something you read elsewhere.
God did use Joseph, but Joseph was no socialist. Joseph worked hard and was a righteous man. When his brothers came, they came to buy and not to receive a Socialist handout, cf Genesis 42. Joseph then secretly put their money back in their sacks, but that was an act of kindness and not a State sponsored program.
The apparatus of the State saves no one! Only King Jesus saves! The State is a servant under God, but it cannot save.
Now to your comments about conservatism and taxation. Firstly, I am no conservative since am not trying to conserve anything. Instead, I am arguing for change and radical Biblical change at that. Secondly, as to taxation, I haven’t said anything about that. Presumption seems to be running high in your post. I could understand your point of view if we had Oliver Cromwell as our Civil Magistrate (and he wasn’t perfect), but instead we have got Caesar ruling. Jesus is Lord, which by its very pronouncement means that Caesar is not Lord. Caesar and his royal law is killing multitudes of unborn babies. The Law of King Jesus is explicitly clear about this and yet you *Yawn* and want us to bow to Caesar, because the apparatus of the State saves. Remember my brother/sister, the Beast of Revelation is the godless State. I am all for a Christian Civil Magistrate, but I can't as yet see one.
Hmm, I am slightly befuddled.
Tony J
Tony J - The first step should be to unequivocally outlaw abortion
And what kind of prison sentence can a woman who terminates her pregnancy expect when abortion is outlawed? The same as any murderer I expect. 10 years, 15, 20?
Well, judicial discretion comes into play then. But I would imagine such a (hypothetical) sentence would be similar to what a woman (or man) would receive for murdering a 1 day old baby...
Craig you have answered better than I could, thank you. Discretion is the word of the day.
Australian Atheist, why is it that you sound more concerned for the murderer than for the murdered. I don't want to punish innocent young girls who get themselves into such a situation. I want them to receive help and assistance. I want them to see a way out of their situation without resorting to murder.
Tony J
But I would imagine such a (hypothetical) sentence would be similar to what a woman (or man) would receive for murdering a 1 day old baby
But aren't all human lives worth the same? It doesn't matter how old someone is. Surely the sentence should be the same for the murder of an adult, a fetus and a 1 day old child.
Absolutely Tony. Leaving aside my provocative suggestion that we pay women $10k to carry their children to term and adopt them out, I'd like to see adoption promoted as an option, and support (pre and post birth) given to those women/girls who choose that path.
The circumstances around the murder of a 1 day old person and the murder of an adult are usually quite different. That's why we give our magistrates some discretion in imposing sentence.
The circumstances around the murder of a 1 day old person and the murder of an adult are usually quite different.
How so? If a fetus has the same rights as any adult then abortion is clearly premeditated murder. As such 15+ years for the woman.
Hi guys,
Neil - I'm certainly not an expert on American Politics, but I wonder if your call that that pro-life policies are having no effect is a little early.
As I listen in on conservative Americans discuss politics and abortion they seem to often talk in terms of overturning Roe v Wade. This requires the requisite number of supreme court judges, and no matter what majority a party has in congress or the senate they simply can't wave a magic wand and overturn the supreme court, they have to wait for terms of judges to be completed and so on. Specifically (if my memory serves me) they note that in the next 8 years 4 judges come up for appointment, and if their replacements were all pro-life then they would be able to overturn Roe v Wade, conversely if all appointments were pro-choice the overturning of Roe v Wade would be put back a few decades.
I know it seems like a lot of eggs to place in one legislative basket, although as I understand it, Roe v Wade acts a little like a trump card to anything individual states might try to implement.
Now, I might perhaps wish that they had a more multi-dimensional approach to the issue, but I applaud their commitment to fighting a long term battle.
Re: Global Warming
I'm not sure we get to privilege a potential danger against an actual evil, and certainly global warming has a lot of catching up to do before it equals abortion numbers.
Tim
If 15+ years is what you would get for killing a 1 day old baby (I'm not sure it is), then yes - 15+ years would be appropriate for perpetrating an abortion.
AA, I think you don't get it. I (and some of the other commentators) actually think a fetus is an actual person, and killing it is an actual murder.
My reaction to your incredulous, "What, 15 years+ for an abortion??" is somewhat the same as if you'd said something like, "What, 15 years+ for killing an aborigine??"
Tim, given the current US political landscape, I think it's pretty unlikely that we will get many conservative judges appointed on the Supreme Court over the next decade.
Craig - no, I realise exactly what you believe. I was just wondering if you were willing to see that belief reflected in judicial punishment for abortion. You are being completely consistent.
Australian Athiets wrote:
“Surely the sentence should be the same for the murder of an adult, a fetus and a 1 day old child.”
Somewhat tangentially, I would like to address you point about ‘a fetus and a 1 day old child’. I am sure that you can see how our different faiths effect what we argue for in regards to abortion. My Christian faith says that they are both children. Your faith (Atheism) distinguishes between a ‘fetus’ and a child. Now to the issue of sentencing, Craig has capably addressed that. All civil codes and all penal systems distinguish, one way or another, between crimes - even when they are very similar. Consequently, they impose varying penalties according to the particular case law. I am a moral absolutist but I am not a penal absolutist.
Tony J
Regarding the sentences given to child-killers, these often seem to be fairly light. Just did a quick google David Scott Arney, for example, was given 9 years (5 years non-parole) for bashing his five-month-old daughter, Rachael, to death.
If a fetus has the same rights as any adult then abortion is clearly premeditated murder.
I agree that abortion is murder. If no grace applied then the punishment for murder could simply be execution. However God has shown us grace and not punished us as we deserve (many times over). Likewise people / governments need to show grace ...
Women that take the morning after pill should also receive 15 years?
And, what if a woman, unaware that she is pregnant, exercises, for example, inducing a miscarriage? Should she be tried for manslaughter? She has killed a person after all.
Women that take the morning after pill should also receive 15 years?
A man who gives a cyanide pill to his 3 year old child - he should receive 15 years?
And, what if a woman, unaware that she is pregnant, exercises, for example, inducing a miscarriage? Should she be tried for manslaughter? She has killed a person after all.
No. For manslaughter you would have to establish extreme recklessness or criminal negligence. Regardless, it is not possible to definitely say, "this miscarriage occurred because she was exercising." Miscarriages occur for all sorts of reasons.
Women that take the morning after pill should also receive 15 years?
A man who gives a cyanide pill to his 3 year old child - he should receive 15 years?
There is a great difference between a 3 year old and an embryo. But your religion tells you there isn't appartently. So I assume that is a 'yes' for jail for women that take the morning after pill.
What about rape victims who become pregnant. Must they be forced to give birth?
There is a great difference between a 3 year old and an embryo.
And there is a great difference between a 3 year old and an 50 year old. So what?
But your religion tells you there isn't appartently.
No, my religion tells me that they are both human.
So I assume that is a 'yes' for jail for women that take the morning after pill.
Yep.
What about rape victims who become pregnant. Must they be forced to give birth?
Yes - the child should not be punished. But if you want to execute the rapist, I have no objection.
check out Driscoll's Q&A at www.marshillchurch.org for his view on aborting due to rape.
Well put Craig, glad to see someone stand up for the defenseless as strongly as you do!!!
Tony J
Well put Craig, glad to see someone stand up for the defenseless as strongly as you do!!!
That's the first time I've heard something like that said to Craig - it's an amusing novelty though.
With all due respects to everyone, perhaps it's not really appropriate for you to be discussing sentencing principles for murder, manslaughter or rape, let alone the termination of a foetus without any kind of real knowledge in this area. I'm not even sure that Wikipedia would be able to assist you sufficiently in this regard :P
And by the way, not only is your suggestion grossly immoral Craig, but it's already impossible, considering that the common law has long since established the principle that there is no property in a human body.
And by the way, not only is your suggestion grossly immoral Craig, but it's already impossible, considering that the common law has long since established the principle that there is no property in a human body.
Nonsense. As someone pointed out, it's quite similar to the existing baby bonus.
Nonsense. As someone pointed out, it's quite similar to the existing baby bonus.
No, it's not nonsense. For a start, with the baby bonus one actually keeps their baby.
David, where are you at on the whole abortion issue these days? Moral or immoral?
Because I oppose violence, I oppose abortion, regardless of the legal status of the unborn or the name that you give them.
That said, I find that a strange response to my commentary, Craig. Rather than giving a moral perspective, I'm primarily providing a legal response to your proposal. Perhaps a more apt comparison to draw than the baby bonus is a pregnant woman who chooses to see their baby on Ebay. Why is it that this practice is outlawed?
No, it's not nonsense. For a start, with the baby bonus one actually keeps their baby.
Having actually received the baby bonus, and therefore having read the documents, I think I am qualified to say that this isn't always the case.
Check out page 9 of the What,
Why and How Booklet for family assistance.
Just remembered I've posted on abortion.
You seriously want to FORCE rape victims to carry the child to term?
You are seriously saying, without joking or lying or ulterior motives, that a victim of a RAPE, an extremely disgusting act of human violation that can literally destroy a woman... This victim of one of the most heinous crimes in our society should be FURTHER punished? She should have her body changed irrevocably, all 9months of it feeling as if a small packet of evil is growing inside her like a cancer? She should be forced to forever more know that out there somewhere is a genetic match to the person who violated her, ruined her life, made her feel disgusting/used/dead inside?
Should she be taken by the state, restrained, put into a drug-induced coma maybe if she STILL doesn't want to keep the baby due to your outdated religious ideologies? When will it end?
If the woman is too young to have a baby, if the experience will kill her... If she has a diagnosed injury, sickness or condition that will render the chances of mother and/or child surviving close to nil...
Will you and your squad of fundamentalists force her through it anyway? Kidnap her maybe, restrain her, because the few cells might not die?
You say "you would take the side of the murderer and not the victim?"
Remember: Your little foetus isn't an actual person yet. You may think they have a soul... Who cares, what they don't have is a brain, memories, a personality, experiences.... It's as if you cry foul over someone peeling a flake of sunburned skin off their back and discarding it. If they did have a soul and your god did exist, the thing's going straight to heaven anyway, having committed no sins.
Your little foetus isn't an actual person yet.
Well, I'd argue that it is...
That huge post, and all you could come up with is that one line? Typical of a religious person you completely ignore the questions for which you have no answers - or at least ones that put you in the wrong light.
A person is defined not by their cells but by their memories. If I was to (gain biological and other scientific superpowers) clone a human that was, in every way, perfect but without a brain, or with a permanently blank brain with no electrical activity... Are they still a PERSON? No. They're a human, a primate, a biological item, but they're not a person. You can argue all you want that your single unattached-to-the-uterus cell is a person, doesn't mean they will be.
Now answer the question in my post - how far would you deem it acceptable to go to force a woman to give birth to their rapists' baby?
That huge post, and all you could come up with is that one line?
That's all I thought it was worth.
A person is defined not by their cells but by their memories.
According to who?
If I was to (gain biological and other scientific superpowers) clone a human that was, in every way, perfect but without a brain, or with a permanently blank brain with no electrical activity... Are they still a PERSON?
No brain activity? They'd be dead
You can argue all you want that your single unattached-to-the-uterus cell is a person, doesn't mean they will be.
And vice-versa
Now answer the question in my post - how far would you deem it acceptable to go to force a woman to give birth to their rapists' baby?
Everything should be done to preserve human life. If she goes ahead and murders the child anyway, she should be prosecuted.
"Everything should be done to preserve human life. If she goes ahead and murders the child anyway, she should be prosecuted."
I thought you would say that. So any method of restraint is fine by you. 9 months of forced incarceration, drug-induced coma... Keep her strapped immobile to her bed for 9 months maybe?
And of the question I asked, how far is too far... So you're saying that if there was a definite risk to the safety of the mother during the birth, be it because she is too young or in some other way incapable of safely having bringing a baby to term... You don't care? Lock the baby-murdering bitch up and make her die trying?
"No brain activity? They'd be dead"
There are people around the world on life support without brain activity... And yet your pro-life brethren define THEM as still alive, why is my hypothetical frankenman any different?
Your hypothetical doesn't make much sense - if a woman wanted an abortion in a country where it was illegal, the last thing she would do is tell the authorities.
You're right, she wouldn't. What she WOULD do is risk a backyard abortion, dodgy internet methods, or other forms of dangerous abortions, most likely leaving her scarred, mutilated, unable to conceive when she actually WANTS a baby or dead.
My hypothetical does make sense. Say the woman goes to the police after being raped. Then she goes to the hospital to find out if she has HIV/AIDS or some other infectious sexually transmitted disease, and when doing the blood tests they find out from her results that she's pregnant.
BAM she knows she's pregnant and doesn't want it, they know she probably won't.
Yeah, well in this country you can't get arrested for the suspicion that you are likely to commit a crime.
"Conspiracy to commit..."
Post a Comment