When we wrote part one, we knew that there would be 2 people writing in opposition to what we wrote. So far one has done just that. Normally we would let it slide and not respond but this is a very delicate topic we wrote on.
You can read that person’s response as we did post his link in the comment section of part 1. We will just get into it.
Hang on, is David suggesting what I think he is suggesting? Is there absolutely no room in his heart to consider the impact of a rape-derived pregnancy on a child?
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.
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.
We said in our response to that author in the same comment section that he believes 2 wrongs make a right. That is never correct from anyone’s point of view. We do not commit more sins to solve a problem.
Also, the severity of the crime is not a reason to commit another crime.
There seems to be absolutely zero empathy or sympathy in David’s position for children, which is incredibly ironic for a supposed champion of life.
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 very clear that David cares only about forcing birth, not about quality of life
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?
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.
David has no room in his heart for kindness, even to victims of serious, horrific crimes
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.
but forcing them to go through with the pregnancy would be a punishment.
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.
and he cannot get pregnant, so he will never be at risk from all the complications pregnancy can bring, especially for a child.
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.
To put it bluntly, fuck the notion of sin.
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.
They have no moral ground as a foundation for their point of view. Their argument is based solely on what their deceived minds tell them. If they think they have any moral ground it is often selective and someone has to suffer to be moral, kind, have empathy, and so on.
That is not a foundation anyone can live with for it can be transferred to adult Republicans, Consrvatives, Christians, and more. Then the members of those people groups are sacrificed for the greater good of society.
5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of [f]their hearts was only evil continually. (Gen 6)
We often wondered how the people of Noah’s time turned so evil. We do know part of the answer, but were those thinking of evil, killing off those who disagreed with them? It is food for thought as people like that author are thinking evil and only of evil.
In this case and in the case of other young girls, in this situation, it does start with the parents. They are the ones charged with educating, raising, and protecting their children. When they fail, children become victims.
Good parents and people in society do not lead those helpless children to sin more y killing an unborn child. People like that author would because they only go y their own concept of what is right and because of that, unborn children and others become victims.
Does not that author have any empathy, kindness, or sympathy for those victims? Or are they expendable for a quality of life or to have a childhood? Two things that are never guaranteed in this lifetime.
theologyarchaeology 