First, let’s keep in mind that the author of that response is not dealing with the topic we wrote about directly. He has created his own strawman argument making us the subject not the issue of the rape and pregnancy of a 10-year-old girl. This is evidenced by the fact that the author continued to use our name throughout his piece.
I refer to him by his name because that’s his name! Well, actually, that’s the name he goes by, but that’s a different story.
I made the subject of my post David’s post. I discussed his commentary on the subject of abortion, rape and under-age pregnancies. Just him to mangle this and suggest a strawman. All this does is tell me he is indulging in a weak ad hominin.
The author has automatically made an assumption about us and then applied his own standard of compassion to our words and point of view. That is wrong as one, we do not know his standards, and two, his standards are not greater than ours or God’s.
He wants everyone to go by his standard no matter if it is right or wrong (and it is the latter). There is room in our hearts to consider the impact and we have throughout part 1 stated it. BUT age and the crime are not criteria to commit abortion.
The ‘assumption’ is borne out of David’s own words. From the original Dilemma post: ‘It is also immaterial to the discussion. Why, as crimes and other events happen when people are unprepared for them in all aspects of life. This one does not make it special but may be used to draw more sympathy from the readers of that article.’
To return to that first post for a moment…
For the first part, death from pregnancy or birth has been a part of this life since the beginning of time. It is a fact of life that even 20 to 40-year-old women must face. It is not a monopoly held by young girls. Death happens and we must be prepared for it.
It is the line that we quoted that bothers us as we and every pro-life person are not worshipping the fetus. Trying to protect them and let them be born is not an act of worship but an act to stop people from sinning and killing innocent children.
On the one hand, David protests the loss of innocent children, whilst on the other, shrugging his shoulders at the possibility of girls dying during pregnancy or from childbirth. ‘Death happens‘, he says. Yes it does, but condemning someone to suffer and even die, in the name of being ‘pro-life’, only serves to further validate my claim that David is not pro-life, but merely forced-birth.
Back to the second post:
We would have continued talking to that author but we got tired of him reading his own ideas into our words and distorting our point of view as well as what we said. By not allowing the abortion to take place, we are showing a lot of empathy towards the girl and the unborn child.
That author seems to think that the unborn child is expendable and a necessary sacrifice because a child may be ‘traumatized’. He may not think abortion traumatized a woman, let alone a 10-year -old girl but it is a worse event than bearing the child to full term.
It’s ironic how David protests that others project ideas onto him, yet he will do so to others without any hesitation. I cannot pretend to understand how abortion, or unwanted pregnancies (especially from sexual abuse) will affect anyone. David on the other hand, confidently declares that abortion would be worse for the woman than being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will. He seems to believe ten year-old girls should be forced to carry pregnancies to term, at great to their own lives, and after being raped, and that this would be less traumatic than an abortion. That’s his view in a nutshell – no distortion (will he ever tire of that dishonest evasion tactic?), just a conclusion based upon his own writings.
Again he makes wild charges that are not even close to true but then that author has a habit of doing just that. He also does not see his hypocrisy. He is forcing death on the unborn child because he thinks the quality of life of the mother is more important than that one unborn life.
He has no moral ground to stand on and point his fingers. Plus, he is making a baseless charge that the girl won’t have quality of life after the child is born. How is it quality when one must mourn the loss of their child and bear the guilt of having an abortion?
Another dishonest jibe, and a demonstration that David knows not of what he speaks. He is expecting a child to birth a child and to become a mother, well before she can hope to be physically or emotionally ready to do so. Moreover, he is expecting that child to give birth to her rapist’s baby, and unless he has ever walked in such shoes, he is no more qualified than I am to understand the impact on the girl’s life. Quality of life matters. This is where the base hypocrisy of the religious right and conservative ‘values’ comes in. All too often, those who fall into these categories will do everything they can to force birth, and then drop any interest in the welfare and well-being of the baby. When that baby gets older and becomes a young child, especially a girl, even less interest is given to their well-being. It’s a bit of an aside, but in the US (where the religious right has gained more and more influence), it costs a fortune to give birth. People can and are bankrupted due to pregnancy. Even if the parents can absorb this cost, they are then on their own in supporting the baby. There is no welfare support of any reasonable note. Support for healthcare, education and finances… it doesn’t exist, for the parents or the child.
Then you have fathers who skip out on their responsibilities, which is sad, and when they are the ones demanding birth, hypocritical.
If you’re not willing to ensure the baby has a good quality of life, and if you’re not willing to ensure the victim of a violent and invasive assault can have a good quality of life (because you would deny them bodily autonomy and place their life at risk in doing so), you cannot speak of how you value life.
As far as we know, he cannot see into the future and know what is going to happen. He makes having a baby sound like one is going to wear an anchor for the rest of their lives and that is a distorted view of children, even if they come from rape and incest.
The sexual act that creates the pregnancy does not influence who the child is. One is making the child guilty of thoughts they have not had nor may never have. His point of view is very wrong.
Not everyone is ready for children, and a child victim of rape certainly isn’t. Nor are they physically or emotionally capable of bringing a pregnancy to term, at least not without tremendous risk of physical injury, and emotional scars that David is not qualified to understand (nor it seems, is he willing to even try to).
Again he puts his own ideas into our words. He seems to think that kindness is only evident if it is done his way and no one is to obey that author. Kindness is not shown through killing another human being nor by making the child endure an abortion or commit sin.
Kindness would have the child avoid those things and teach the child that being raped, etc., does not damage the baby nor make it evil. Getting the child to love her own baby is an act of kindness. But getting her to permit it to be killed is pure evil.
No, it would not be a punishment but it would teach the child that abortion is wrong and that carrying the child full term is the right thing to do. But then that author has his own ideas of what constitutes punishment and they do not follow God’s definitions.
I’d love to see David look the ten year-old victim of rape and tell them it’s kindness to force them to go through with a pregnancy they never asked for, that will potentially kill or injure them, and that will carry deep psychological scars that will haunt them for life. I wonder, would David be prepared to accept abortion as a means of saving the ten year-old’s life?
Another strawman argument by that author. No, we can’t get pregnant but Christians, male and female, are to teach the right way to go, to have all people obey God and keep them from sinning. We do not have to get pregnant to lead people to God’s ways and let them know the truth.
David does not understand what a strawman is, and for all his inaccurate, dishonest squealing that I want to force my views on others, emphasis mine here. David wants everyone to do things his way. He wants to force everyone to do things his way.
This is where he loses all credibility. His dismissal of the truth shows that he advocates a world where there is no right or wrong. The rape is wrong but so is abortion in any case. No matter how hard he tries, he cannot get away from the truth.
He is sinning by helping others to sin by using false reasons to encourage people to disobey God. You will notice that he appeals to no authority in his arguments. He thinks his views are supreme and superior to everyone else.
We appeal to and proclaim God and his ways because we are not an authority nor are we superior to anyone else. But God is and he alone sets the rules. Not that author or the other person we are expecting to hear from.
Right and wrong exists without the concept of sin. Sin is arbitrary, used to discriminate and persecute people that don’t share in any given belief system. It is also hilarious that David thinks I consider myself to be some form of supreme authority. I have never thought that of myself. However, I am not going to be place authority in a deity whose rules change depending on what version of what faith you believe. I am certainly not going to place authority in any deity that would condone forcing a victim of rape, especially a child, to go through with having their abuser’s baby.