Yesterday I flipped through a few radio stations until I found Dr. Laura. She was talking to a pregnant woman who was upset because her doctors told her if she carries her child to full term she’ll die. Dr. Laura advised her to get a second opinion and then told her that, in her view, if an unborn baby is threatening the mother’s life, it’s okay to abort as a matter of self defense.
It makes sense to me that when two lives are threatened, and only one life can be saved, that doctors should save that life. But then I remember one single guy I used to know, years ago, who preached about how abortion is always wrong, even to save the life of the mother because, after all, God is sovereign and you should let Him work it out. I remember thinking to myself, “Well, it’s easy for you to say.” Like many other things in life . . . it’s easy and convenient for someone to judge another person when they haven’t been there personally.
When I mentioned this whole topic to Kevin, he tried to get a direct answer from me as to when exactly I think it’s okay to take another life to save yours. “What about the Donner Party?” he asked. Although it’s debatable whether or not the Donner Party actually killed members of their group to survive (eat them) when they were trapped in the Sierras at wintertime, historians think that they did resort to murder.
“What about the woman in the bible who killed and ate her son to survive? Was that okay?” (2 Kings 6:24-33)
“What if you and your child were in a submarine with a limited air supply and, if one of you were killed, the other could survive and be rescued? Would you kill your child then?”
Sigh. This is what happens when two lawyers, who are married to each other, have random conversations – all of the tangents and far-fetched possibilities are explored.
To Kevin’s last question, I told him that I would probably kill myself and let my child live. (Or, I could be like James Bond, cut it close, perform some amazing stunts, and still figure out a way for both of us to make it.) ;-) Obviously one factor to consider is whether or not the child is an aggressor. (If a child is inside you and threatens your life, he/she is an aggressor, even though he/she doesn’t have any evil intentions.) If a child is with you in a submarine and you both are desperate for air, the child isn’t harming you anymore than you’re harming him/her. Does that make sense?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The situation you described happened to a good friend of our family. She was pregnant for the first time (with twins!) and was told that it would kill her to carry them to term. Obviously, it was a very scary situation for her, but she couldn't bring herself to abort the babies. She ended up switching drs to one that considered all life precious and never even considered abortion an option. Today James and Rachel are 15 years old. They have another brother and twin sisters. All are good friends of my younger siblings. I've never been faced with such a decision, but I think I would rather die trying to save my baby than live with the regret of abortion.
I remember when my midwife told me at about 5 months along that if my baby were born now, it would probably survive. I was amazed. With modern medicine today, I have a hard time believing that it isn't usually possible to save the mother and the baby--especially in known dangerous situations. This woman doesn't have to carry her child to full-term; she can have the baby early. Either way, having had a child, I don't know how anyone can kill their own baby. I would have to trust God that He is big enough to handle it.
I'm floored when I hear such stories today. While there are extremely rare cases where carrying a child to term could hasten the death of the mother, advancements in science make the choice of abort or die a red herring.
It is a doctor's job to present such options, but I would be willing to guess that he (or she) also presented the option at having the baby via c-section at 8 months or even earlier depending on the child. While mothers do occassionally die while having a child, it is due to unknown complications(usually hemorrhaging), not something doctors could have known about. This same factual scenario is also helpful when explaining why the "mother's health" exception to the partial birth abortion ban is unnecessary.
Also notice that most new testament history will show that opportunities to defend one's self came when the physical threat was a result of the "victim's" spiritual beliefs. In that case, take the beating and die if you need to. Easier said than done. We don't have those issues in the States, but try being a christian in the middle east, China, parts of Africa, and parts of Asia.
Also consider that in those same countries infanticide is rampant in the culture. Imagine having to defend your infant from being put to death.
Actually, Kevin also questioned how often a mother's life is REALLY in danger when a doctor says it is - also citing advancements in medical technology. -Amy
Just one observation, the mother in the bible in the Book of Kings did what she did and it was evil. That town was under siege because of sin. In this part of the bible, it is a historic accounting of what happened, but nevertheless very evil what the woman did. On a side note, she was tricking into allowing another woman share in eating her child, only for the other woman to hide her own if I am remembering right.
I don't know if you get exactly what I'm driving at, but I could never, ever see a mother doing that to a child no matter what the circumstances.
But answer Kevin, "no, that wasn't okay".
I see a few problems on various levels.
First, the argument presumes a God-given right to use lethal self-defense. But (going out on a limb here) I’m wondering whether that presumption is even valid. In my 20-minute search of the Scriptures (and of the internet for position papers on the topic), I turned up only one passage that would purportedly support a biblical (i.e., God-given) right to self-defense. It is Ex. 22:2-3: “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed.”
At best, this verse provides support for self-defense only at night. It seems to me to draw a distinction between “knowing vs. unknowing” use of lethal force, rather than the use of lethal force on an “aggressor vs. non-aggressor.” Both nighttime and daytime thieves are aggressors, yet God nonetheless places guilt on killing the daytime aggressor. Even in the situation dealing with two men quarreling (logically, at least one of the two was acting in self-defense), the Bible places guilt on the one who strikes with deadly force. (Compare Ex. 21:12-13 with 21:18-19.) I'd be interested in hearing you and/or others give a good biblical defense for the use of lethal force in self-defense.
Second, even assuming that there IS a God-given right to defend oneself against an aggressor, I fail to see how an unborn child can be considered an “aggressor.” Though it might be said that the unborn child is a passive aggressor, that is a self-contradiction. Although there may a personality disorder under the same name, one cannot be both passive and aggressive—they are mutually exclusive.
Third, the argument denies the providences of God and His ability to supernaturally intervene in situations that are out of our control and smacks of a “if God won’t do something about it, then I will” attitude. While there is nothing wrong with doing something to alleviate physical ailments (e.g., see a doctor, remove a malignant tumor, etc.), violating the Scriptural injunction against taking human life IS wrong. Rather, it appears that the biblical response to this situation would be that of Job: “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.” (Job 13:15.)
Granted, I have not personally been faced with this situation, but that does not invalidate what the Bible teaches. I would argue that those who are NOT personally faced with the situation are better equipped to analyze what is biblically right. Personal involvement in issues, especially one of this emotional magnitude, can often muddy our objectivity and frankness with the Scriptures.
Kevin, I was only citing the cannabalism (sp?) in the bible. Not all the other issues that were addressed.
But I'm glad I got you riled up, that is always a good thing and it provokes thought and forces you to examine what you believe.
Best wishes.
First of all – Rachelle: I agree – if the baby can be born early to spare mommy’s life, then by all means that’s the best choice. But what about tubal pregnancies? I haven’t really researched this dilemma but, if my understanding is correct, mom won’t live very long into the pregnancy unless something is done ASAP.
Kevin, I think there IS a general biblical right to self-defense. The verses most “on point” appear to be Ex. 22:23, which you’ve already cited. This clearly establishes the right of a person to defend himself and his family in his own home. The reason self-defense is not justified during daylight hours, in these verses, is most likely because at that time of day, a killing in “self-defense” is unnecessary and, thus, unjustified. In Luke 22:35-38, Christ encourages his disciples to sell their garments and “buy a sword” in self defense. In Luke 11:21-22, using a spiritual analogy, Christ said: “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. But when a man stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils.”
Maybe the word “aggressor” is not appropriate. But, certainly, you know what I mean – the unborn child is a risk to the mother’s life if she carries it to term. And, in the spirit of self-preservation, the mother makes the decision to end the pregnancy. YES, I know there are many success stories out there where, even though ten billion doctors said the mother would die, along with the baby, but, would you know it, she and the baby both lived. And YES, I think with advanced medical science, every avenue should be explored before this weighty decision is made. But I can’t say that I could look a woman in the eye and judge her for making a decision to terminate her pregnancy if ALL ten billion doctors she consulted told her that she’d surely die otherwise, especially if she has OTHER children to care for and raise. What about the obligation to those children?
Kevin, you know I’m as big into God’s Sovereignty as you are. You say that a woman who terminates her pregnancy to save her life shows an attitude of ‘if God won’t do something, I will.’ Um, honestly, you can say this about any action we take in life. Does putting money in a retirement account mean I don’t trust that God will provide? You mention the classic example of removing a tumor and say this is okay because a tumor is a “physical ailment.” Well, actually, I would say that if an unborn child threatens your life, it’s analogous to a tumor because they’re both deadly. (Before you all think that I’m a heartless savage to compare a baby with a tumor, I admit that the analogy isn’t perfect.) You say that taking human life is wrong. I agree. But I don’t think it’s always wrong. (And I don’t think you, if pressured, would say it’s always wrong either.) I don’t think it’s wrong if it’s a matter of war, capital punishment, defense of others, or self-defense. If a killing in self-defense is thus justifiable, the question then becomes is the self-defense really necessary? (And that’s already been touched upon by the other comments and would take case-by-case consideration.)
Additionally, when you say there is a scriptural prohibition on taking human life (which I agree with), I think if it’s a question between a) baby dies and mother lives or b) baby dies and mother dies too, then the most pro-life option is to kill the baby and spare the mother. (And YES, I know that you ALL know people where the mother AND baby actually LIVED. Heaven BLESS those people. But there are also a lot of cases where mom and baby both died. Everyone has to make their own decision, prayerfully, with their own conscience open before God.) THE END.
[Now, just to let you know, Kevin is probably going to post again saying something that sounds very logical and is very provocative, but I’m going to exercise self-control and not respond. Kevin would like you to think that it’s because I don’t have an answer for him. Maybe. Maybe not.]
-Amy
I totally agree with you and Kevin.
-Ang
Is the choice necessarily between killing the baby and allowing the mother to die? If it is a danger for the mother to carry the baby any further, then how is it an act of killing to separate the two--one then does whatever is available to help the baby survive, but if it dies, it isn't your fault.
The analogy is not so much to self-defense (which, btw, I would argue is simply a proactive application of God's edict to Noah) but to a dangerous situation where one can only rescue one person at a time. Sometimes one just has to choose who is going to get helped first--and it makes more sense to first rescue the person who has a chance of survival than the one who is already doomed.
In the case of an ecoptic pregnancy, there is nothing medical advances can do to save the baby--it is implanted in the wrong place, there is nowhere for it to grow. You can remove the baby before it kills the mother, or you can wait until it does.
I can understand the way you feel, Amy, but you mention the baby being a threat to the life of the mother... If the mother decides to kill her baby than the MOTHER is a threat to the life of her BABY. SIMPLE. Also, I read a story once where the mother was faced with this choice, allowed the pregnancy to go forward and she DIED. It was an amazing circumstance and a GREAT testimony... God used this circumstance (yes, I know He can use any circumstance, but like I said, it was a great testimony.) Also, a side note to something else you mention: the Bible proclaims it good to save up for the future... As far as the tumor goes, there is nothing wrong with taking a tumor out of your body (if you have prayed and feel God directing it...I believe God gave us medical knowlege), but murder is a sin. You could still die from an unknown tumor if God wants you to ... and you could die in a car accident the day after you abort. GOD has reasons for exactly what He allows.
So I'm sure no one even reads this thread anymore, but I just stumbled across your site and read the post and the comments and thought: "Hey, why don't I throw in my opinion as well". Now I'm young, unmarried, and a guy, but I feel like I can still make a valid point simply through empathy. I think this is one of those area's that's really dependent on circumstances. I'm a Christian, pretty devout, and I don't think God would find a woman evil for choosing her life in a 'life or death' situation. Likewise, he wouldn't condemn the woman for, in a sense, committing suicide either. There's a real blur in a case like this on everything, and the only defining light that one could walk away, as a Christian mind you, is that God IS sovereign over you. So if you live or die, it's all taken care of. If he chooses to take your life, then hey this world wasn't your home anyways. Problem is, we have a choice right, and hey, I love my life. So even though one can see the moral goodness in choosing to let your child live and you die, we don't want to die. It's a fact, there's no getting around it... so now all we're left with is choice, to which there is no applicable answer except whatever one chooses to do is, A)Forgivable (even though you wouldn't want to forgive yourself) and B)equally as meaningful. I mean what if the mother were to choose her life, and then in 15 years helps find a treatment that eliminates the dangers of pregnancy??? You see it's all up to the person based on their circumstances.
P.S. For such a big issue, the woman was stupid for calling a radio help show. That kind of issue needs long in-depth help and discussion. And also, it's not a matter of self-defence at all. That's just a made-up reason to make someone feel like they have a right to abort and save their life. It's a choice, and neither is always right or wrong.
Post a Comment