Death penalty for babies
Every presidential election is all about the social issues for me. And where a candidate stands on the issue of pre-born human life is probably the most important defining factor on which way I’m going to vote. Because I believe that one’s stand on abortion is a pretty good indicator of a willingness, or not, to submit to God, and we desperately need God-fearing leaders.
So, we have one candidate who identifies as pro-life, and the other who is currently running ads about his opponent’s views on abortion. And he is portrayed as not only against women because he is trying to tell us what we can and can’t do with “our bodies”, but as an extremist because he is not even in favor of an exception in cases of rape or incest.
These exceptions seem to be quite widely accepted among those who call themselves pro-life. But I believe they undercut the pro-life position. Please hear me out.
If our argument is that a pre-born child is a human being with the same right to life as you and I, what difference does it make if that child was conceived in a rape or incestuous encounter? Certainly, the cruel and violent acts against women and young girls should result in jail time or worse for the perpetrators. But the children created are innocent, and killing them is just adding to the evil. As the old cliché goes, two wrongs don’t make a right.
I suppose the argument is that after a girl or woman has endured such violence and abuse, it would be inhuman to expect her to carry and give birth to the resultant new life within her. But as life-changing and tragic as carrying this child may be, and I stress “may” because none of us knows how this will affect her life, the child has an inalienable right to life that supersedes her need to minimize her suffering.
Life is not fair. Many suffer as the result of the sins of others. That will continue to be the case until Jesus comes back. Our responsibility as Christians is to do whatever is within our power and influence to help relieve their suffering. But always within the will of God, and I don’t believe abortion qualifies.
And life is hard. Abortion is the easy way out of a tragic situation, but it is a tragedy in itself, and eventually breeds more. Most notably, a serious devaluing of all human life, leading to abandoned infants, abandoned elderly, increased suicides, and more abortions.
Rape and incest are horrible crimes, but the child conceived is not the criminal, and does not deserve the death penalty.
You say that the children that are created are innocent, but if they share genetics with a person who raped another, how do you plausibly defend against such an objection? Obviously genetics constitute much of who we are. Sure, environment is important too, but nowhere near as important as genetics. So what if the child, who is a product of rape, merely repeats the cycle and, in turn, rapes another? Wouldn’t preventing the suffering of that future person justify the ending of the life of the child? This objection gains strength when you claim “Our responsibility as Christians is to do whatever is within our power and influence to help relieve their suffering.”
Also, just a comment on your slippery slope logic. Allowing abortions in no way necessarily entails a complete disregard for other forms of human life. Just because we allow abortions, it does not mean we’ll all suddenly turn our backs on the elderly or help others commit suicide. That’s simply not true. I implore you to provide historical evidence of cases in which this has occurred. This is merely an empty claim with no basis in reality.
Hey, T. Where’ve you been? Haven’t seen anything from you lately. I’m quite surprised at your viewpoint. It’s quite radical, even coming from you. Perhaps you could provide some historical evidence of cases that would prove that children of rapists will likely become rapists themselves.
Think about what you’re saying. If I’m reading you right, a rapist’s child should not be allowed to live because his or her genetic makeup predisposes him or her to violence. And so the taking of an innocent life is justified by the assumed prevention of potential suffering by someone in the child’s future. Why stop with the child of the act of rape? Why not decree that any children he fathers must be killed? Why not force the abortion of all children fathered by all violent offenders? Where do you stop? How do YOU “plausibly defend” such an extreme, Nazi-like viewpoint?
And why don’t we just put all convicted rapists to death, because chances are good they will rape again if they ever get the opportunity?
Here’s something else to think about: if a person’s genetics predetermines him to be a rapist, how can they be at fault? How can we mete out just punishment if it’s all in their genes?
As for my claim that abortion results in a more widespread disregard for human life, I don’t have statistics for you, but certainly infants are being abandoned in dumpsters and such more than ever before. And it just makes sense that if life is deemed valuable based on utilitarianism, as in, this preborn child should be allowed to live only if someone wants it and it will serve someone’s good, than we are naturally going to eventually look at all life this way.