E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Saturday, June 20, 2015

A good point on the "hard cases"

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Doug Wilson makes an important point:

So here is the problem. When a child is conceived in a rape, there are three parties involved in the consequences — the rapist father, the victim mother, and the victim child. This standard political response blurs over this reality completely, but this blurred reality sums up all the issues in the entire abortion debate.

If pro-lifers are correct, the unborn child is a person created in the image of God. As a consequence, it is a monstrous iniquity to execute him for the crime of his father. We are saying, in effect, that the guilty party will not be executed, but that one of the victims will be. What kind of thoughtful compassion is that?

Source: Blog and Mablog.

I have addressed this issue here and here and here and here and here and here.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.


At June 20, 2015 at 5:14 AM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

Nothing but a slightly more "compassionate" spin on the idiotic argument of some Republican spokesmen and preachers that pregnancy via rape is a "beautiful gift from god." Sometimes, in a truly sour mood, I can't help wishing they would be so blessed while they are telling women to be thrilled by sexual assault. Meanwhile, I see Ann Coulter is earning her latest speaking fees by saying women should be disfranchised. What self-respecting woman could support the Stupid Party in its death throes?

At June 20, 2015 at 10:20 AM , Blogger Scott Tibbs said...  

Seems strange that Coulter would argue that she herself should be disenfranchised. But regardless, she's a professional attention-seeker.

She often makes arguments for the purpose of getting attention, not making a genuine point.

Sometimes, I don't think she actually believes what she is saying, but is saying it to stir controversy, and therefore spur book sales and speaking dates.

At June 20, 2015 at 10:20 AM , Blogger Scott Tibbs said...  

As to the rape exception, an unborn baby is either a human being or he/she is not. If not, there is no reason for any restrictions on abortion whatsoever. If we are dealing with a human being, he/she should not be executed for the crimes of his/her father. Execute the rapist instead.

At June 20, 2015 at 2:53 PM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

And sentence the female victim to a life of caring for her rapist's child--while, of course, denying her financial assistance, as Jeb Bush insists that single mothers should be "publicly shamed"? Some "red" states are now in the process of granting rapist's parental rights in the name of "family." Your party could get no lower unless it starts tunneling toward Earth's core.

At June 20, 2015 at 3:15 PM , Blogger Scott Tibbs said...  

First, do you have a reliable source that "red states" are granting rapists parental rights? As in legislation, not court cases.

I have no problem with the baby becoming a ward of the state. A rape victim should not be forced to raise the child, but the child doesn't deserve the death penalty for the crimes of his/her father.

So let me ask you a question: If the baby is one year old, should the mother be allowed to stab him/her to death because she doesn't want to raise her rapist's child?

If your answer is "no" then we agree that children should not be punished for the crimes of their fathers. We disagree on where life should be protected.