SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Questions on Defending Others

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re: Krispy

Quote:
I believe in gun control.

practice makes perfect?

 2009/12/1 10:08









 Re:

Quote:
"Whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child."

True or False?



Here is another way to think about the question..

[b]In defense of both born and unborn children, should we use necessary force or only whatever force the government allows?[/b]

I hope no one is overly intimidated by these questions. I haven't gotten any responses yet. I asked a similar question in crosswalk forums and had a great discussion going but the thread was removed and my username locked out. Hopefully they'll explain why that happened or change their mind about it.

I've seen atheists pose this question to pro-lifers but I've never heard a reasonable response. I'm not an atheist. I think we should know whether defending the unborn is loving our neighbor as ourselves or not.

 2009/12/1 15:29
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4501


 Re:

Hi IglueAsp...

In this nation, it is legal for a person to use "appropriate force necessary" in order to protect the life and limb of someone else. If someone were to break into a house and attempt to harm a member of their family, they are legally allowed to take the measures needed in order to protect and defend them.

Now, the laws vary from state to state. In some states, the law protects the residents through a set of laws known as a "castle doctrine" (which is actually taken from Matthew Henry's commentary on Exodus 22 regarding "a man's house is his castle"). However, every state allows a person to legally act in good conscience to defend someone else from harm. In other words, a man is not guilty of "assault" if he is defending the life or limb of someone else who is being attacked.

I suppose that the major difference in this particular scenario is that abortion is, unfortunately, legal in this nation. A man cannot legally claim "self defense" in regard to the life of an unborn child because the killing of that child is authorized by the state (through legislation and/or court decisions by a certain segment of politicians).

While it could be argued that defending the unborn might be [i]morally[/i] correct, abortion is (unfortunately) a legally protected practice in this nation and the desired prerogative of the mother. To "protect" the unborn through physical means is against the law. I suppose that, in cases like these, it will be God who will ultimately dispense justice when we all stand before Him in Eternity.

Quote:

"Whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child."

True or False?


So, my answer would be "false." As Christians and citizens of the nation into which God placed us, we are bound to the laws of this land. It is legal to protect a [i]born[/i] child from danger. However, in the case of abortion, it is illegal to protect such a child from being killed through physical means. The best defense, perhaps, is through legislation, petition and good, old-fashioned preaching about this unrighteous, evil practice.


_________________
Christopher

 2009/12/1 16:39Profile









 Re: ccchhhrrriiisss

Thanks for the reply ccchhhrrriiisss!

This stood out to me:

Quote:
every state allows a person to legally act in good conscience to defend someone else from harm. In other words, a man is not guilty of "assault" if he is defending the life or limb of someone else who is being attacked.


If this were true, wouldn't it include unborn children as well as fully grown fetuses like you and I?

Since pro-lifers are famous for urging that the unborn be treated no differently from the born, I would expect a pro-lifer to desire the law to read, [i]"every state allows a person to legally act in good conscience to defend unborn babies from harm. In other words, a man is not guilty of "assault" if he is defending the life or limb of an unborn baby who is being attacked."[/i]

What do you think about that? Would that be a morally correct state of the civil law to authorize defense of the unborn just as it already does in the case of born children?

I don't ask that question to start a political discussion but in order to get at the deeper moral issue which you hinted at in your post:
Quote:
it could be argued that defending the unborn might be [i]morally[/i] correct


Indeed, it has often been argued that this is the case. This is a very important question then, because, as you said,
Quote:
it will be God who will ultimately dispense justice when we all stand before Him in Eternity.


You seem to have advocated that we should obey the civil law regardless of whether it contradicts the moral law. Is that your objection to the statement about legitimate force then?

I would disagree with that stance because the obligation to obey the moral law is what gives civil law a right to exist in the first place. The one is more fundamental than the other.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood you.

You also said,
Quote:
The best defense, perhaps, is through legislation, petition and good, old-fashioned preaching about this unrighteous, evil practice.


In the long run this "perhaps" may be true. But perhaps not. And certainly not for any children who have been killed since you wrote that. These educational and legislative tactics do not determine the inherent morality of using force to defend the helpless, born or unborn. If they are effective, good. We still must answer whether a duty to defend others can be subject to civil law. Can it? If so, why? And how do we determine when civil law can override moral law and when it cannot?

 2009/12/1 21:46
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7472
Mississippi

 Re:

Iglue,

In scanning your posts it appears to me you are making the point that it would indeed be justifiable to do whatever it takes to protect the life of the unborn, even so far as to engage in civil disobedience... and may that include the killing of the abortionist? I seem to get this sense....

You are using a lot of philosophy and rhetoric to make your point, arguing and making it appear that logic would justify to use whatever means to protect the unborn.

Let me ask YOU a question: how long have you worked in the pro-life ministry?

I await your reply, and if I do not answer it soon it means I am away from the computer...But I do want to hear your answer - it is very important to me. I want a brief answer - I do not have much time for long posts...

ginnyrose

PS: If you have answered this question in any of your posts, please direct me to it, please. You see I have limited time to read all of them. Thank-you!


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2009/12/1 23:46Profile
Miccah
Member



Joined: 2007/9/13
Posts: 1752
Wisconsin

 Re:

Quote:

IglueAsp wrote:
Quote:
"Whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child."

True or False?



Here is another way to think about the question..

[b]In defense of both born and unborn children, should we use necessary force or only whatever force the government allows?[/b]

I hope no one is overly intimidated by these questions. I haven't gotten any responses yet. I asked a similar question in crosswalk forums and had a great discussion going but the thread was removed and my username locked out. Hopefully they'll explain why that happened or change their mind about it.

I've seen atheists pose this question to pro-lifers but I've never heard a reasonable response. I'm not an atheist. I think we should know whether defending the unborn is loving our neighbor as ourselves or not.




You do as the Lord guides you, but you will suffer the consequences of man's law if you break the law.

Love brother. Love.

You can never go wrong with love. You may go wrong with arming yourself for battle and defending others, but you will never go wrong with loving your neighbor as yourself.

Would you kill yourself? Is this loving yourself? Did our Lord tell us to harm others, or to love others? Did the Lord tell us to defend, or to turn the other cheek?

When all else fails, turn to love.


_________________
Christiaan

 2009/12/1 23:54Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4501


 Re:

I IglueAsp...

Quote:

IglueAsp wrote:

This stood out to me:
Quote:
every state allows a person to legally act in good conscience to defend someone else from harm. In other words, a man is not guilty of "assault" if he is defending the life or limb of someone else who is being attacked.


If this were true, wouldn't it include unborn children as well as fully grown fetuses like you and I?



Well, the law (or law[u]s[/u] in this case) aren't limited to [i]intent[/i]. In this particular case, the law extends a right to defend (by protection) only as legally defined by the state. Since abortion is currently legal (since 1973) in various measure in every state of this nation, a person cannot be protected by the law for "defending" someone who cannot be legally defended under the law. In other words, a person is not guilty of an "assault" if he is defending a person (as defined by law) from an attacker, but he would be guilty of "assault" if he attacked a surgeon about to perform an abortion simply to "defend" the pre-born child.
Quote:
Since pro-lifers are famous for urging that the unborn be treated no differently from the born, I would expect a pro-lifer to desire the law to read, [i]"every state allows a person to legally act in good conscience to defend unborn babies from harm. In other words, a man is not guilty of "assault" if he is defending the life or limb of an unborn baby who is being attacked."[/i]

What do you think about that? Would that be a morally correct state of the civil law to authorize defense of the unborn just as it already does in the case of born children?



Actually, there are already federal laws and laws in many states that protect the life of the unborn in certain circumstances. Even in a liberal state like California, there are laws that make it a criminal offense to kill a child that hasn't been born yet. A few years ago, infamous California resident Scott Peterson was convicted under California's fetal homicide law. Not only was Peterson found guilty of killing his wife, but he was also found guilty of killing his own pre-born son -- a double homicide. This state law became a basis for what was known as "Conner's Law." This law, Public Law 108-212, was passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2004 and declares it a crime to injure or kill a "child in utero" while in federal land (within federal workers) while the perpetrator is committing another crime.

Now, it should be noted that abortion clinics are exempt from this particular law (PL 108-212) because it can only be used in cases in which another crime is taking place. Since abortion is currently legal in most states, abortion practitioners cannot be prosecuted for a crime (unless they are performing an "illegal abortion").

Personally, I would like to see the initial Supreme Court case that legalized abortion to be reassessed. This case was highly unique. The Justices of the High Court actually allowed Roe's attorneys to leave and return almost a year later because their case was so flimsy. Roe's attorneys returned and made it a case about the "right to privacy" (part of the 14th Amendment's "Due Process" clause). They argued, and seven justices agreed, that a woman has a "right to privacy" when it comes to the child living within her body.

Interesting. However, does a "right to privacy" apply to a [i]death[/i] simply because it takes place within the privacy of a person's own...person? Remember the "Castle law" that I spoke of earlier? A person is able to use physical force ONLY when there is a threat of life or limb. Using this as a primer, then the "right to privacy" in regard to abortion should occur only if a woman's life is in danger. Oddly enough, it is this same clause ("Due Process") of the 14th Amendment that has the greatest chance of actually overturning abortion. One could argue that unborn children are robbed of "due process under the law" simply because of their mothers (and abortion clinics) desire for "privacy." Most Constitutional attorneys feel that this would be the strongest argument AGAINST abortion.

Actually, it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would make abortion [i]illegal[/i]. It is possible under a "due process" or "equal protection" argument. However, the slightly conservative Court would probably simply reverse the notion that a mother's "right to privacy" is extended to abortion and then hand the right to law back to the states. In other words, it would be a lot like it was BEFORE Roe v. Wade. Remember, certain states protected abortion even before the 1973 ruling. Even Texas allowed abortion before 1973, but only if the life of the mother was in danger. This is similar to the concept of homosexual "marriage." Some states currently allow homosexual couples to be married (only because of the actions of judges and/or legislators) while the vast majority do not.

Quote:
I don't ask that question to start a political discussion but in order to get at the deeper moral issue which you hinted at in your post:
Quote:
it could be argued that defending the unborn might be [i]morally[/i] correct


Indeed, it has often been argued that this is the case. This is a very important question then, because, as you said,
Quote:
it will be God who will ultimately dispense justice when we all stand before Him in Eternity.


You seem to have advocated that we should obey the civil law regardless of whether it contradicts the moral law. Is that your objection to the statement about legitimate force then?

I would disagree with that stance because the obligation to obey the moral law is what gives civil law a right to exist in the first place. The one is more fundamental than the other.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood you.


I think that you understood me...but not in the ultimate application of this concept. One is certainly more fundamental than the other. I certainly feel that abortion is morally, ethically, medically and spiritually wrong. However, the law protects this in many circumstances. As a Christian, I am called to abide by the laws of the land in which God has placed me. Now, since this is a "[i]government of the people, by the people and for the people[/i]," I have a voice in legislation. I feel that it would be much more effective to attempt to stop abortion through practical measures of legislation rather than by resorting to unlawful physical means.

Quote:
You also said,
Quote:
The best defense, perhaps, is through legislation, petition and good, old-fashioned preaching about this unrighteous, evil practice.


In the long run this "perhaps" may be true. But perhaps not. And certainly not for any children who have been killed since you wrote that. These educational and legislative tactics do not determine the inherent morality of using force to defend the helpless, born or unborn. If they are effective, good. We still must answer whether a duty to defend others can be subject to civil law. Can it? If so, why? And how do we determine when civil law can override moral law and when it cannot?


Like I said, I think that the best method of protecting unborn children is through legal means. This includes legislative means (speaking with members of Congress) AND through word-of-mouth. Remember, abortions are only legal in this nation BECAUSE women choose to kill their pre-born children. Their reasons will often vary. However, if we remind the women of this nation (and the world) that this is a [i]moral[/i] and [i]spiritual[/i] crime, it has a chance to stop the root (which I think is [i]selfishness[/i]).

When I was a teenager (shortly after becoming a Christian), I used to visit the government housing projects. There was a very poor, uneducated woman that I spoke with who was about to have an abortion. She had already gone through "Planned Parenthood" counseling, which encouraged her to kill the child in her womb. She said that she knew that abortion was considered a sin, but she didn't know anything else about it. She was even under the impression that an unborn child is "not alive."

I explained to this woman that I was a child who escaped an abortion. I told her that my biological father tried to force my mother to have an abortion, but she refused. He then physically beat my mother (by punching her and kicking her in the stomach) in an attempt to force my "abortion." By the grace of God, I survived...and with no birth defects. When I explained the truth about the biological development of unborn children (from a biology textbook), she was horrified. She decided to NOT go through with the abortion. A few years later, I saw that little boy. They still lived in the projects, but he and his family were attending the church that I attended.

Again, according to the New Testament, I feel that we have a spiritual obligation to obey the laws of the land. Further, you have a responsibility to your own family first. If you were to physically and illegally "defend" an unborn child, you will be arrested. Consequently, you will not be able to provide for your own family (which, according to I Timothy 5:8, would make you "worse than an infidel").

Ultimately, we will all stand before our Judge. I believe that every mother who chose to claim that she had a "right" to kill her unborn child will be held just as accountable as those abortion clinics that physically slaughtered their unborn babies. The best way to stop it is to handle it at the root. In this case, this is the selfishness of some of the women in this world. In addition, legislative means help to stop the practice at the source.

Just a thought, but there was a policy case that I read about a few years ago. American narcotic officers were having a problem with a particular drug. They had been arresting many people who were dealing these drugs, but the problem seemed to have been getting out of hand. Finally, they tried something entirely different. They attempted to lay the ax to the root (so to speak). Instead of tracking down and arresting the dealers, they decided to go after the chemical manufacturers of the active ingredients. It worked. Within months, drug arrests had dropped dramatically. As a result of the success with this campaign, the US worked with pharmacies to limit sales of medication that contained the active ingredients for another major illegal drug, methamphetamine. Now, these OTC drugs are only sold behind the counter and in limited supply. While some drug dealers are able to get around it (through theft or multiple buyers), these steps have already had a noticeable effect upon the drug scene.

I wholeheartedly believe that this would be the best and most correct method of preventing future deaths. In addition, it doesn't resort to any sort of lawbreaking on our part. I hope this helps...and makes a little more sense.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2009/12/2 0:06Profile









 Re: ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi ccchhhrrriiisss,

Thank you for sharing all of that. That was a great story about the woman who repented of hurting her baby.

You said,

Quote:
As a Christian, I am called to abide by the laws of the land in which God has placed me.

Do you mean without exception? What if God requires something contrary to the laws of the land? Your statement seems to assume that the national rulers will never outlaw obedience to God. Or it assumes that defending the unborn is NOT obedience to God. Either way, could you justify the apparent assumption?

Quote:
you have a responsibility to your own family first. If you were to physically and illegally "defend" an unborn child, you will be arrested. Consequently, you will not be able to provide for your own family (which, according to I Timothy 5:8, would make you "worse than an infidel").

Why did you put the word "defend" in quotation marks? I know they would not use that terminology on the police report, but defending an unborn child is a coherent, specific, and legitimate concept whether it is right or wrong. Perhaps you are thinking of things in legal terms whereas I am approaching it from a standpoint that considers the overriding obligation to obey God rather than man. I am aware of the general state of the civil law regarding the unborn. What few people seem to have considered is how God sees this. What is our obligation in [i]his[/i] supreme court? That is why I asked those questions to see what you thought of it morally. Is defending the unborn inherently right or wrong? Should it really be up to the federal or state government? Is defending other humans a God-given duty or a government-given right? And why?

About being an infidel... According to your reasoning all POW/MIA soldiers with families are infidels. Jesus must also have been an infidel when he left his mother to be taken care of by someone else. A much better example is that the apostles could have avoided being arrested by simply not preaching the gospel. They could have just followed the laws of the land "as Christians". Why did they prefer to be criminals? Why did they do what they knew would mean getting arrested? Shouldn't they have been more concerned with their own families than with preaching? Or what if I was able to provide financially for my family even if I was arrested and perhaps even executed? Would that mean I am free from the charge of being worse than an infidel? Obviously the verse must assume that the cause of neglect is selfishness and not self-sacrifice. Remember, we are talking about saving lives. Your objection using this bible verse appeals to the possibility of poverty, which I think is invalid because the church would take care of my family if it meant lives would be saved.


In summary, I still don't know what you think about the following questions:

[b]Is it inherently morally right or wrong to defend the unborn with the same force we would use for born children?
Why or why not?

If defending the born and unborn children is a duty, is this duty inalienable and God-given or is it man-given?
Why or why not?[/b]

[b]Would that be a morally correct state of the civil law to authorize defense of the unborn just as it already does in the case of born children?[/b]

[b]Can a duty to defend others be subject to civil law?
Why or why not?

How do we determine when civil law can override moral law and when it cannot?[/b]

[b]Do overall pro-life tactics DETERMINE the inherent morality of using force to defend the helpless (born or unborn) OR is defense inherently morally right even though better (legal) tactics win out as the greater of two goods?[/b]


I hope you will be patient with the number of questions I have. I simply see getting to the bottom of these questions as being the most important goal of my studying this matter.

 2009/12/2 2:50









 Re: Miccah

Thanks Miccah!

I deserve a lot worse than the consequences of man's law! May the Lord teach us how to suffer as Christians and not as evil doers.

I agree we can never go wrong with love. Isn't it amazing how God has revealed this solid truth to us? It is like a warm solid rock to cling to in the middle of an exhausting ocean of confusion.

Why did you ask if I would kill myself? Are you a non-violent Christian? The bible says that no murderer has eternal life. What is suicide other than murdering yourself?

I appreciate the excellent advice but I think you probably misunderstand the turn the other cheek passage as meaning we should not defend others.

If you want to discuss nonviolence I'd be glad to in a separate thread if you start one. I haven't committed myself against nonviolence but I haven't had my objections to it answered yet so I can't in good conscience be a pacifist.

When I think about those little babies being hurt and killed and they would probably scream if they had air in their lungs... How awful it must be for them! They must be so terrified and alone feeling if they are developed enough to have those emotions. If it was me, if I was being hurt and torn apart or whatever else before I was even born, I would want someone to save me. I would probably wish that someone would come and kill the monster who is destroying me. This makes me wonder if I have been loving my neighbor as myself or not. One of the apostles warned that the love of many people would grow COLD because lawlessness would abound. What if that is what has happened regarding the unborn? What if we have all seared our consciences by neglecting them?

Thanks again for the encouragement to love.

 2009/12/2 3:20
Miccah
Member



Joined: 2007/9/13
Posts: 1752
Wisconsin

 Re:

IglueAsp wrote:

Quote:


Is it inherently morally right or wrong to defend the unborn with the same force we would use for born children?
Why or why not?



No. You are called to suffer for Christ, not make others suffer.


Quote:
If defending the born and unborn children is a duty, is this duty inalienable and God-given or is it man-given?
Why or why not?[/b]




Respectfully, you are starting your question out wieghted towards your pre-determined beliefs. It is not your duty to defend anyone (outside of your family), except spiritually in my belief. To say that defending others is a duty in my opinion is not a "Lord" question, but more of an opinion of circumstance.

The Lord defends. The Lord needs no hands of man to make things happen or not. The Lord's will WILL be done regardless if you or I or anyone else is alive.


Quote:
Would that be a morally correct state of the civil law to authorize defense of the unborn just as it already does in the case of born children?




Sickinning as it is, the law of the land is the law. Morally there should be no abortion. MOrally there should be no pre-marital sex. Both are sin, yet you are willing to stone one and not the other?


Quote:
Can a duty to defend others be subject to civil law?
Why or why not?




Depends. Are you a trained, qualified professional that the civil law hires to defend others or not? If so, yes it is subject to civil law, since you are working under the law. If you are not one of the above, then you are called to pray, tarry and fast for as a defense.


Quote:
How do we determine when civil law can override moral law and when it cannot?




Good question that cannot be easily answered. First thing to do is seek the Lord in these matters, and set aside things that are taught by men. There are many folks out there that are very persuasive in their arguement, and they are dead WRONG.

Seek first the Kingdom, and the King. If you are truly walking with Him, He will not lead you astray.


Quote:
Do overall pro-life tactics DETERMINE the inherent morality of using force to defend the helpless (born or unborn) OR is defense inherently morally right even though better (legal) tactics win out as the greater of two goods?




Questions a bit choppy, but it has been a while since I was in collage :-P

First, what pro-life tactics are you speaking of, force? Inherent, by whom? If you are talking of hurting doctors or providers of abortions, then I would say that the pro-life tactics that you are talking about go completley against the Word of the Lord.


[u][b]Deuteronomy 32:35 (NKJV)[/b][/u]

35 Vengeance is Mine, and recompense;
Their foot shall slip in due time;
For the day of their calamity is at hand,
And the things to come hasten upon them.’


As for the second part of your question, defense is not inherently morally right. I know many interpret the Bible to say this, but there are many who believe otherwise.

Are you absolutly positive that the Lord says to use force to defend the unborn? Are you willing to sin to achieve an objective? Because harming others could very well be leading you into sin. Ends never justify the means. Even Jesus stated that if HIs kingdom was of earth, his disciples would fight. But it is not. He chose to suffer.

I'm not sure if I helped or not. I am 100% against abortion. I just am not sure that force should be used. To much personal emotion involved, which in turn can cloud judgements.


_________________
Christiaan

 2009/12/2 3:33Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy