A Man's Right to Choose

[DanielJohn]

I woke up in the middle of the night last night to ask an extremely puzzling question to the apologists of this forum. Now that I think about it, it might be a question that they cannot answer. This is because I think it would be church-sanctioned crime for them to answer it truthfully. It’s a long IF-THEN question, but I’ll fit it into one sentence. The IF part is a true story. The THEN part is a crazy idea that never occurred to the man in the IF part. Here is the puzzling question:

IF a woman gives a man consent to do the act that impregnates her before telling him that she is going to get an abortion even though he is begging her not to and promising her that he will do whatever it takes to provide for all the needs of his offspring, THEN is it morally acceptable for him to kidnap her and hold her in captivity long enough for his offspring to open her womb?

As crazy as it sounds, my fatherly instinct tells me that the answer is ‘yes.’ I believe it’s morally acceptable. In fact, I would even consider it a man’s duty to do this crazy thing, if the crazy thought were to occur to him. It’s much better to spend a few years in prison than to let your own offspring be put to death. I think that the father of the unborn child would be the only one with a moral right to do such a thing, and only if it wasn’t a rape, and only if she isn’t going to die in the process of bearing and delivering his child.

I realize that a woman is rarely that wicked, but this puzzling question helped me realize that the law of our civil authority has a fundamental flaw that goes beyond the unborn person’s unalienable right to open the womb alive. If we expose this fundamental flaw so that it gets corrected, then we will be in a good position to break the spell of deception that the devil has the “pro-choice movement” under. This is why. Once the fundamental flaw is corrected, it will suddenly become very easy to show everybody that the practice of a man sacrificing his unborn offspring to the abortion clinic is the same thing as the Old Testament practice of a man sacrificing his offspring to Molech. This is because the people will be hearing and thinking “man’s choice” instead of hearing and thinking “woman’s choice.”

Here’s the fundamental flaw in its shortest form:
If she consents to creation, then he needs to consent to abortion.

Here’s a 2nd way to state the fundamental flaw:
If she gives him permission to create, then she must get his permission to destroy.

Here’s a 3rd way to state the fundamental flaw:
A woman must get a man’s permission to let someone destroy a thing that she gave that man permission to create. (“thing” used for illustrative purposes, no disrespect intended to the unborn)

Here’s the fundamental flaw stated in it’s longest form (again, no disrespect intended to the unborn):
Q1: Did a man create the thing that is inside of her?
Q2: Did she give him permission to create the thing that is inside of her?
Q3: Will she live if she lets the thing that is inside of her grow and come out of her alive?
Q4: If the answer is ‘yes’ to the 3 questions above, then does she have a right to give someone permission to destroy the thing that she gave a man permission to create inside of her without first getting the permission of the man who created the thing inside of her?
Obviously, the answer to number 4 is ‘no.’ The answers to numbers 1 through 3 will all be ‘yes’ about 99% of the time. Where I’m going with all of this is that our civil authority must at least make it illegal for a woman to give a man permission to create a thing (no disrespect intended to the unborn) and then destroy that thing without his permission. This is just common sense. In other words, the man who she gave permission to create the thing inside of her must go to the abortion clinic himself and sign an abortion consent form before she can have the thing he created legally destroyed.

Once the fundamental flaw is corrected in the way I just described, it will suddenly become easy for everybody to see legalized abortion for what it is: the modern day version of child sacrifice to Molech. The man signing the abortion consent form will be the modern day version of the man sacrificing his offspring to Molech. Usually it’s the man’s unwillingness to provide for his own offspring that causes the woman to consider abortion anyway. By correcting the fundamental flaw in the way I just described, his unwillingness to provide for his own offspring, a hidden sin of omission (1st Timothy 5:8), will be transformed into a more clearly visible sin of commission (signing an abortion consent form). It will be a sin of commission that all the world will be able to see. They will start asking the same question they’ve been asking, but a little differently. The new question will be, “should a man have the right to choose whether or not to have his own work of creation destroyed?”
(cont.)

 

[DanielJohn]

(cont.) Then all the world will be able to see abortion for what it truly is, the modern day version of the man sacrificing his own offspring to Molech. Then we will finally be able to convince our civil government to do its job of protecting the unalienable right to life of the citizens that haven’t opened the womb yet. If our fellow citizens don’t want to recognize the self evident truth that this unalienable right to life is endowed upon the unborn child by the Creator (God), then they must at least recognize that it’s endowed upon the unborn child by the creator (the man). The last hurdle would be convincing our civil authority to protect the unalienable right to life of the unborn child who is created through rape, because a rapist essentially signs an abortion consent form ipso facto (ie. through the act of rape). Whether it’s capital punishment, imprisonment, or castration for such a rapist, the civil authority would have to make the call on that one. The rapist’s amount of suffering should be greater than all the suffering the rape victim will have gone through by the time she has delivered his child and handed his child over to foster care (I’m assuming that a rape victim wouldn’t want to raise his child).

I prefer to say “HIS child.” That’s another thing I think we need to change. We tend to say “her unborn child” even though she didn’t create the unborn child. It’s better to say “his unborn child” so that we remember who the creator of that unborn child is and hold him to a higher level of accountability, as we should do, since God holds the man to a higher level of accountability in this earth. Another problem is that we keep thinking of God as our personal creator. I don’t know about you, but I find that to be utterly arrogant! I know that God created the man that created the fallen man that created the fallen man that … created the fallen man that created me inside my mother’s womb, and I am eternally grateful that God created the perfect man inside Mary’s womb during the “……” so that I, and every other person created by a fallen man, could have an opportunity to be born and then reborn before we die in our sins.

Does anyone see anything flawed in the man’s “right” to choose whether or not to have his work of creation aborted? If so, then please let me know. I’d like to write my congressman or something. If there is no God, then only a creator has a right to create and destroy that which he was given permission to create. That’s an undeniable conditional truth. Once that becomes evident, we will be at step 1 in breaking the devil’s spell of deception concerning abortion. Step 2 comes with the realization that there is a God who commands every person who believes in Him to require elected government officials to make it a capital crime for a man to sacrifice His offspring to Molech (Genesis 9:6, Leviticus 20:2-5). If these two steps were to happen, then the woman who seeks to get an illegal back alley abortion would know that she better get evidence of the creator’s consent so that he will suffer the consequences in the event she is caught getting the illegal abortion.

As for us, Jesus commanded us to preach the gospel to EVERY creature (Mark 16:15). How can we preach the gospel to creatures that we are allowing to be killed by the creator (the man) before he or she is old enough to hear the gospel? I’m convinced that the souls of our offspring go straight to God whenever they die stillborn, by miscarriage, or by abortion that has to be done to save the life of the mother. However, I’m also convinced that we can’t give the souls of our offspring to God by letting them be murdered. I have good reason to believe that the souls murdered in the womb, who believe in God, are in a baby purgatory of their own. It would not be as good as earth, but it would not be as bad as hell. They would one day be released from this baby purgatory, but not until their number stops increasing.

I can only think of two ways their number could stop increasing. Either the earth dwellers repent for letting them be killed in the manner they are being killed, or God kills all the earth dwellers that have played a role in them being killed in the manner they are being killed. Why do I have good reason to believe in this baby purgatory. Because it’s a perfect description of what St. John saw when the 5th seal of the Apocalypse was revealed to him (Apocalypse 6:9-11). Study it for yourself. I have spent a lot of time praying over the original Greek and I have found the “Modern King James Version” to be the most accurate translation. There’s no doubt that those souls were killed before they heard the gospel. They can’t be in heaven, because they’re crying out to a holy and true Master to avenge their blood upon earth dwellers. All the clues St. John recorded in this 5th seal point towards the existence of such a baby purgatory for souls killed in the womb. This conviction that I have concerning the 5th seal of the Apocalypse is giving me extra motivation in my prayers for the unborn. I hope you understand the ideas that are coming to me. If not, then please ask questions or add comments.

Thanks and may God bless you,
Daniel John

 

[vera_dicere]

No. Absolutely not. It is not moral to kidnap the woman. You may be saving that child but think of the harm you’re doing to the woman, her family and friends. Not to mention the nusiance you will be causing the police and authorities as they search for her.

There is also the risk of the woman dying in your care. Unless the man has medical knowledge, then anything could go seriously wrong with teh pregnancy. What if the woman refuses to eat? Will the man force an NGT down her throat? Will he keep her unconscious?

Then there’s the part when the woman gives birth. Something could go wrong, and you could end up with a murder charge as well as a kidnapping one, then you’d end up in prison or on death row. How will that help your child?

I am as pro-life as they come, but what you are proposing is morally repugnant. Quite frankly, it reeks of a man wanting to control a woman, which is counter to both morality and church teaching. Men cannot just treat women like a quick bit of fun and then get angry that the woman wants an abortion.

Here’s the solution: don’t have sex outside of wedlock. You can not be 100% sure that the woman you shag is going to keep that child.

Any woman who would shag out of wedlock, her morality is already been established, so a man cannot be upset when she aborts.

Sex is not a toy. God did not make sex for just the man to use on a Friday night with some floozey. God created sex for marriage for a reason. And this is that reason. And the “abortion” conversation is one that must happen before marriage, before sex, for just this reason.

Men like this do not gain my sympathy. Women are NOT the property of men. If you don’t want your unborn child being slaughtered, don’t create one in the womb of a woman your’e not married too!

 

[crazzeto]

Actually the catechism deals with this very directly

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art4.shtml

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).

 

[Celtic_Catholic]

No. Absolutely not. It is not moral to kidnap the woman. You may be saving that child but think of the harm you’re doing to the woman, her family and friends. Not to mention the nusiance you will be causing the police and authorities as they search for her.

There is also the risk of the woman dying in your care. Unless the man has medical knowledge, then anything could go seriously wrong with teh pregnancy. What if the woman refuses to eat? Will the man force an NGT down her throat? Will he keep her unconscious?

Then there’s the part when the woman gives birth. Something could go wrong, and you could end up with a murder charge as well as a kidnapping one, then you’d end up in prison or on death row. How will that help your child?

I am as pro-life as they come, but what you are proposing is morally repugnant. Quite frankly, it reeks of a man wanting to control a woman, which is counter to both morality and church teaching. Men cannot just treat women like a quick bit of fun and then get angry that the woman wants an abortion.

Here’s the solution: don’t have sex outside of wedlock. You can not be 100% sure that the woman you shag is going to keep that child.

Any woman who would shag out of wedlock, her morality is already been established, so a man cannot be upset when she aborts.

Sex is not a toy. God did not make sex for just the man to use on a Friday night with some floozey. God created sex for marriage for a reason. And this is that reason. And the “abortion” conversation is one that must happen before marriage, before sex, for just this reason.

Men like this do not gain my sympathy. Women are NOT the property of men. If you don’t want your unborn child being slaughtered, don’t create one in the womb of a woman your’e not married too!

*I was just about to say all of this, then I read your post. Bravo! I couldn’t have said it better myself. Excellent post!

And to add something - MEN who have sex outside of marriage lose my respect just as much as women do. I mean, a mistake or two in your teens or early 20’s can be overlooked as immaturity if repentance and change is made. But for a mature adult man to put himself into situations over and over again where he could impregnant a less-than-moral woman OR could (God forbid) expose himself to HIV or other STD’s is outrageous and inexcuseable. Men have to remember that in today’s world decent women don’t overlook a players flawed character as “boys will be boys”. Decent women want decent men! *

 

[vera_dicere]

*I was just about to say all of this, then I read your post. Bravo! I couldn’t have said it better myself. Excellent post!

And to add something - MEN who have sex outside of marriage lose my respect just as much as women do. I mean, a mistake or two in your teens or early 20’s can be overlooked as immaturity if repentance and change is made. But for a mature adult man to put himself into situations over and over again where he could impregnant a less-than-moral woman OR could (God forbid) expose himself to HIV or other STD’s is outrageous and inexcuseable. Men have to remember that in today’s world decent women don’t overlook a players flawed character as “boys will be boys”. Decent women want decent men! *

It just really annoys me. The whole biological purpose of sex is the creation of a new life. For a man to have a sob over a woman aborting his child, well, yeah, that sucks, its awful for the child, but what was the man thinking? He thought he could just use that woman for his own pleasure and he then gets “righteously angry” when she’s going to have an abortion? Abortion is an indication of a seriously disordered society, and a man having sex out of wedlock is one of the causes of that.

There wouldn’t be a foetus to abort if there wasn’t a man who couldnt’ keep it in his pants or a woman willing to cast off her decency and appease him.

I know of a “devoutely christian” guy, as he described himself. Who was only too happy to engage in sexual activity with a woman of known disrepute who was also known to be pro-abortion. When she got pregnant and aborted he played the “poor victim” who was “oppressed by feminazis” and “what about his choice”?

Sinful actions lead to harm. The young man committed an awful sin in full knowledge of what the action was and what it could lead to. He knew the mindset of the woman he got knocked up. Some of these men need to know that a career minded pro-abortion woman isn’t going to change her mind on beliefs she’s spent years developing becuase some man starts nagging her. Its like if you punch your fist through a window. Its pretty obvious you’re going to cut yourself. But if you punch the window and cut yourself you can’t go blaming the window or the person who put it there if you are the one who choose to punch it!

 

[flyingfish]

The same logic would have you kidnapping and holding captives doctors who perform abortions, any woman who wants an abortion, anyone who pays for an abortion and so on.

Why aren’t you doing these things?

 

[Equites_Christi]

To be fair, the OP never mentioned the sex was out of wedlock, much less “simply for pleasure.” In fact the man begged the woman not to abort the child and promised to seek whatever was necessary to keep the child. The situation is not as misogynistic as has been portrayed.

It would not be right to kidnap the woman, just as it wouldn’t be right to force someone to convert. All you can do is pray.

 

[Annie_B]

What is moral is not always legal and what is legal is not always moral. The best idea is to not have sex outside of marriage - period - for so many reasons!

Annie

 

[DanielJohn]

Thanks for the comments! For everyone who guessed the unborn child in the true story was the product of mortal sin, good guess. It was fornication. Any sin that is added to the IF part of the crazy question would need to be accompanied with David-like repentance as well (2nd Samuel 12:13-23). The man in the true story appeared to have come to real repentance, but you can decide for yourselves at this link if you like: youtube.com/watch?v=tXZKsrSPixU Around the 5:40 mark in the video is when he describes the day before her abortion.

The same logic would have you kidnapping and holding captives doctors who perform abortions, any woman who wants an abortion, anyone who pays for an abortion and so on. Why aren’t you doing these things?

Good observation flyingfish, but I covered that base when I wrote, “I think that the father of the unborn child would be the only one with a moral right to do such a thing.” I was thinking that it’s the duty of a father (not any other man) to protect and provide for his own (1st Timothy 5:8).

No. Absolutely not. It is not moral to kidnap the woman. You may be saving that child but think of the harm you’re doing to the woman, her family and friends. Not to mention the nusiance you will be causing the police and authorities as they search for her.

There is also the risk of the woman dying in your care. Unless the man has medical knowledge, then anything could go seriously wrong with teh pregnancy. What if the woman refuses to eat? Will the man force an NGT down her throat? Will he keep her unconscious?

Then there’s the part when the woman gives birth. Something could go wrong, and you could end up with a murder charge as well as a kidnapping one, then you’d end up in prison or on death row. How will that help your child?

Excellent points vera dicere. The kidnapper should in the very least explain everything in a letter to the family and friends of the woman, so that they don’t worry and so that the police don’t waste 9 months looking for her. They would all know the approximate date of him turning himself over to the authorities. He would be treating her well. It’s quite possible that she would even have a change of heart during the 9 months.

My main purpose in writing this post was to expose what appears to be an obvious flaw in our legal system (no matter which side of the abortion debate you stand on). If they’re going to keep making abortion legal, then they should at least require the mother to certify the father’s consent for the abortion, if in fact she gave him consent to create his offspring inside of her. Right? That’s the thing I wanted to write civil officials about. It seems like a no-brainer to me. If the father’s signature is required, then we will be putting the “choice” on his conscience and we will never see an unborn child’s father act upon the crazy kidnapping caper I mentioned.

 

[flyingfish]

Good observation flyingfish, but I covered that base when I wrote, “I think that the father of the unborn child would be the only one with a moral right to do such a thing.” I was thinking that it’s the duty of a father (not any other man) to protect and provide for his own (1st Timothy 5:8).

I understand that anyone would care more about their own child than the children of strangers, but from the point of view of morality there is no difference! God doesn’t care more about your children than strangers’ children. If it’s moral to hold a woman captive to prevent your biological child from being aborted, why is it immoral to do the same for children in general?

Why would you say that only the father of a child has the moral duty to protect an innocent child from being killed, and not say, an uncle, or a neighbor, or a stranger?

If you’re walking along and see a strange man attempting to murder a strange child, would you say it’s not your duty to stop him just because you are not the father of the child, and that only the father has such a duty?

If you had a gun say, no one would call you a murderer if you shot the strange man and saved the child. Why doesn’t the same logic apply to abortions?

(I should make it clear that I am pro-choice by the way, and this is part of the reason why. If saw someone trying to murder a child and had a gun, I would see it as my responsibility to kill the assailant and save the child. But I don’t have this reaction toward abortion donors or women seeking abortions.

How do you explain the inconsistency?)

 

[vera_dicere]

To be fair, the OP never mentioned the sex was out of wedlock, much less “simply for pleasure.” In fact the man begged the woman not to abort the child and promised to seek whatever was necessary to keep the child. The situation is not as misogynistic as has been portrayed.

The point still stands.

If you’re going to get married, and you’re very much pro-life, it stands to reason that you would have the “abortion” conversation with your future spouse.

If the pregnant woman is abortion minded then that guy really made an error of judgement marrying her. And the fact she would go against her husband’s wishes, there is obviously something flawed with their marriage.

 

[vera_dicere]

It’s quite possible that she would even have a change of heart during the 9 months.

But would it be a sincere change of heart? She’s obviously under duress. She’s obviously scared and afraid and alone. She might say anything to get back to her family and friends.

And what’s to stop her getting an abortion if she gets out at 8 months pregnant. The likes of Tiller were doing abortions right up until birth, and she could very easily get on under the whole “mental health” excuse, and boy would she have public sympathy.

Such an action would seriously damage the image of the Pro-Life movement.

 

[Qoeleth]

Sure, the man would be acting morally correctly to kidnap the woman, if his aim is to save the life of the child.

Saving lifes takes precedence over other moral considerations. In the same way that to take a dying person to hospital, you might pass through a red light. No problems at all.

 

[crazzeto]

Sure, the man would be acting morally correctly to kidnap the woman, if his aim is to save the life of the child.

Saving lifes takes precedence over other moral considerations. In the same way that to take a dying person to hospital, you might pass through a red light. No problems at all.

You are absolutly incorrect in your analogy and thinking. Running a red light doesn’t violate the natural law, kidnapping sure does. I would exhort you to read the CCC reference I provided earlier.

 

[Ruthie_again]

My main purpose in writing this post was to expose what appears to be an obvious flaw in our legal system (no matter which side of the abortion debate you stand on). If they’re going to keep making abortion legal, then they should at least require the mother to certify the father’s consent for the abortion, if in fact she gave him consent to create his offspring inside of her. Right?

No, not right. In this culture of death, sex has been almost completely divorced from procreation. Contracepting is seen as the “natural” state, and having a baby is seen as a deliberate choice, not as a risk.

That means she did not consent to pregnancy.

I’ll also point out that it takes two persons to fornicate. The man is not blameless in this abortion. He just got his jollies without any concern for the baby he might create; it was only afterwards that he thought, “Oh, no! She wants to kill my child!”

As for the kidnapping, the idea is abhorrent. It treats the woman as a thing, as a mere decanter for the baby. It ignores her essential human dignity, which the Church requites us to respect, no matter how sinful the person may be. And we may not do evil that good should result.

CCC1789

Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;

• the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”

• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”

The Catechism also defines kidnapping as morally wrong in # 2297.

You would also be creating scandal, “wounding their conscience,” in that your act might inspire others to do violence to participants in abortions.

Yes, abortion is intrinsically evil, and a grave sin. That does not allow us to do evil that good may result.

Moral: keep it zipped.

God bless,
Ruthie

 

[DanielJohn]

Why would you say that only the father of a child has the moral duty to protect an innocent child from being killed, and not say, an uncle, or a neighbor, or a stranger?

How do you explain the inconsistency?

Ah yes, inconsistencies. Thank you flyingfish for pointing this out. I hope I’m able to bring understanding to you. These inconsistencies come from living in a parallel universe. Those of us who are walking after the Spirit instead of the flesh (Romans ch. 8) are spiritually walking under God’s PERFECT civil law (the Messiah’s interpretation of Torah) while we physically walk under man’s IMPERFECT civil law. We must do everything in our power under our civil law (man’s) to move it towards alignment with God’s perfect civil law. But the two civil laws will never be in perfect alignment until the Messiah returns. So until then, we must live in this parallel universe. Since these two civil laws are different, there are often conflicts of interest. This is what causes the inconsistencies you see. Whenever I encounter a conflict of interest, I remember two duties of mine:

1. Prevent God’s law from being transgressed
2. Witness the Light to the children of darkness

Let’s apply these two duties to the abortion issue. First, let me say that there are two types of pro-life people, worldly and godly. Both types know that abortion (except to save the life of the mother) should be illegal, but only the godly pro-life people know why. The worldly pro-life people believe they’re on earth to SAVE LIVES. The godly pro-life people believe they’re on earth to PREVENT MURDER. These are two different things. LIFE is our spirit inside our flesh. MURDER is a transgression of God’s law. The man who murdered Dr. Tiller is a worldly pro-life man. His defense is that he murdered one man in order to SAVE many LIVES.

Here’s a shocker for you. If God dwelt inside the flesh of unborn people (He doesn’t - I’m just saying IF He did), then the unborn people headed for the abortionist would NOT be asking us to save their lives. This is because Jesus said “whoever will save his life shall lose it” (Matthew 16:25). They would instead be praying, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34, Acts 7:60). The Father can only forgive them if they experience repentance (ie. a change of mind). The “Father forgive them” prayer would be answered at the time they experience repentance, if that time ever comes. Repentance is not something you can schedule at a certain time. It’s a gift from God. It’s part of the grace that God gives to humble ones that experience godly sorrow.

Now, here’s another shocker for you. If I go out tomorrow to grab a pregnant woman against her will in order to stop her from going into the abortion clinic, then I may SAVE a LIFE but I will not PREVENT a MURDER. This is because she is still letting the murder happen in her heart, where it matters most to God. Murderers are destined to die the 2nd death regardless of whether or not they actually commit the murder. By grabbing her like that, I would not be doing my 1st duty listed above. The only way I can PREVENT the MURDER is by speaking to her with the hope of helping her come to repentance (ie. change of mind) in her heart before she lets the abortionist commit the murder.

Also, if I were to grab her against her will, then I would not be witnessing Light to the children of darkness. That’s my 2nd duty above. I would be witnessing the sin of violence. This is because the children of darkness don’t see me preventing a murder or saving a life. They just see me being violent with a woman. These are the reasons why it’s immoral for me to grab her. Now when the pregnant woman is my wife, who is heading to the abortion clinic because she has lost her mind, the conflict of interest is different. The Spirit inside me would be telling me that I am WORSE than an unbeliever if I do not protect my own offspring (1st Timothy 5:8). That word “WORSE” would really convince me that in that hellish nightmare, it’s much better for me to grab my wife and stop her than for me to allow her to continue.

If you have seen and understand the “Back to the Future” movies, then you will understand the following explanation of the parallel universe merging into one on the abortion issue. Let’s say that I see a pregnant woman (not my wife) walking towards an abortion clinic and then suddenly the abortion laws written by our past civil officials change inside our country’s law books to align themselves with God’s perfect civil law. The abortion clinic she is walking towards may then transform before my eyes into a back alley where an abortionist would be hiding. Suddenly, there is no longer a conflict of interest. Man’s civil law, at least on the matter of abortion, would be in alignment with God’s civil law. She would be trying to get an ILLEGAL back alley abortion (ie. giving a man’s offspring to Molech - Leviticus 20:2-3). In this case, it would not only be moral for me to grab her, but I would have a God-given duty (Leviticus 20:4-5) to grab her and then hang onto her until the civil authorities arrive. In this case, the children of darkness would not see me being violent to a woman. They would see me obeying our civil law and preventing a crime that our civil law would be calling “murder” or “sacrificing his offspring to Molech.”

 

[DanielJohn]

"If they’re going to keep making abortion legal, then they should at least require the mother to certify the father’s consent for the abortion, if in fact she gave him consent to create his offspring inside of her. Right? - Daniel John

No, not right. In this culture of death, sex has been almost completely divorced from procreation. Contracepting is seen as the “natural” state, and having a baby is seen as a deliberate choice, not as a risk.

That means she did not consent to pregnancy.

God bless you Ruthie. I know you’re humble, because God has given you the grace to clearly discern between holiness and uncleanness. You’re observation about today’s moral degradation is absolutely correct (fornication, adultery, divorce, sodomy, abortion, culture of death, etc.). But what I am trying to explain is a scientific observation. The key word in this observation is not “morality” but “disorder.” The two words are related, because God is the Creator. But in this scientific observation, the focus is on “disorder.” Please pretend like you’re an alien from outer space looking on the earth at human beings like a biologist studying our human species. One of the first things a biologist studies when he discovers a new species is how that species reproduces. The following list are the laws of science that the alien biologist would arrive at.

Science Laws of Reproduction of the Human Species
Law #1: It’s a proven scientific fact that this thing which the human’s are calling “sex” is a male’s ATTEMPT at creating his offspring inside of a female.
Law #2: Sometimes the male reduces the probability of having a SUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT at creating his offspring by using an artificial device or by scheduling his ATTEMPT at a carefully selected time. However, this will not change the scientific fact that sex is him making an ATTEMPT to create his offspring inside of the female.
Law #3: The female either gives the male PERMISSION to make this ATTEMPT or she does NOT give the male PERMISSION to make this ATTEMPT. The former is called consensual intercourse and the latter is called rape.
Law #4: If a reproductively confused male makes an ATTEMPT at creating his offspring inside of another male, then there is a 0% chance that his ATTEMPT will be SUCCESSFUL.
Law #5: If the female gives the male PERMISSION to make an ATTEMPT at creating his offspring inside of her and his ATTEMPT is SUCCESSFUL and he has not given her PERMISSION to destroy his offspring, then the act of her destroying his offspring is an unusual act that we will call ABSOLUTE REPRODUCTIVE DISORDER.
Law #6: Once the humans that bring ORDER to the society give every female the PERMISSION to do ABSOLUTE REPRODUCTIVE DISORDER, then the human species has entered into a state that we will call ABSOLUTE REPRODUCTIVE CONFUSION. If the human species remains in the state of ABSOLUTE REPRODUCTIVE CONFUSION long enough, then it is inevitable that some of the males will eventually start doing an unusual act that we will call FORCEFUL OFFSPRING PROTECTION. This is when the male uses his superior physical strength to PREVENT his female partner in sex from committing the act of ABSOLUTE REPRODUCTIVE DISORDER.

Ruthie and vera dicere, I agree with both of you that the kidnapping idea is abhorrent. Keep in mind that what I asked is just a question. I don’t know of any man who is seriously entertaining the kidnapping idea at the moment. Please understand this: the question of whether or not the kidnapping idea is moral is not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is the fact that it is currently possible for a male to entertain the thought of carrying out the kidnapping idea. The only reason why it is possible for a male to entertain this thought is because the human species has entered into a state that I have defined “ABSOLUTE REPRODUCTIVE CONFUSION” (Law #6 above).

If the abortion clinics in our country were required to obtain the signature of the unborn child’s father before performing the abortion, then we would still be in a state of reproductive confusion, but we would no longer be in a state of ABSOLUTE REPRODUCTIVE CONFUSION. This is because it would no longer be possible for a female to legally do the act that I have defined “ABSOLUTE REPRODUCTIVE DISORDER” (Law #5 above), and it would no longer be possible for the male to do the act that I have defined “FORCEFUL OFFSPRING PROTECTION” (Law #6 above).

From a morality standpoint, the requirement of a father’s signature would put this thing that human beings are calling “choice” primarily on the man’s conscience, where it belongs. At the present time, “choice” is primarily being put on the woman’s conscience, where it does not belong. The reason why “choice” needs to be primarily on the man’s conscience is because God’s role for the man is for him to be the servant leader (like Christ). God therefore holds the man to a higher level of responsibility and accountability. It would then start becoming more evident that the man who makes the “choice” to sign that form is sacrificing his offspring to Molech and is worse than an unbeliever (1st Timothy 5:8).

 

[lordssoldier]

I believe a man should always get the right to choose. some nights she don’t want it, but i say, girl flip over and give it up. MY right to choose. Friday night, I wanted to watch the new night at the museum, because ben stiler is mass funny, she wanted to watch walk to remember, I won, because MY RIGHT to CHOOSE…another example, she wanted chinese and I hate chineses foods so I told her either pizza or sandwiches at quiznos and she had some choice but over all her choices were two choices from MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE. see fellas, our women are stronger because we use MAN’S RIGHT TO CHOSE. If I was choosing, flush the fetus down the poopchute and dump the dame is my advice.

be strong like christ men.

 

[flyingfish]

Let’s apply these two duties to the abortion issue. First, let me say that there are two types of pro-life people, worldly and godly. Both types know that abortion **(except to save the life of the mother) **should be illegal, but only the godly pro-life people know why.

As far as I understand, Catholic teaching is that abortion is never okay, even if the woman will die without it.

I read what you wrote, but I have to say, I still don’t understand why it’s moral to kidnap a woman you impregnated to prevent her from having an abortion but immoral to kidnap a random woman to prevent her from having an abortion.

Doubtless it is a horrible thing to do nothing while someone murders your child, but it is an equally horrible thing to do nothing while a random child is being murdered. Either both should be a duty, or neither. Either both should be immoral, or neither.