Doug Phillips #fundie

Doug Phillips #fundie visionforumministries.org

[Why the Life of the Mother is Not a Valid Exception for Abortion]

What shall we think of Susie? Shall we bless a mother who kills her own child to save herself? Are we proud of such a woman? Shall we sing of her virtues? Perhaps we should just chalk-up her decision to feed her son to the sharks as “an unfortunate, but necessary evil.” After all, she was just acting in self-defense. It was either the mother or the child. One would live and the other would die. Who could blame Mama for wanting to fight for her life, even if it meant that her son would be torn to pieces in the darkness of night?

In point of fact, this woman’s behavior is utterly despicable. Susie is a criminal. Her behavior is indefensible. To murder another is wrong, but for a mother to murder her own child as an act of self-preservation is a crime of unspeakable ignominy.

90 comments

old comment by Swede

It wasn't "one would live and the other would die", it was either both die, or the woman could live after removing a lethal parasite.
If the woman dies, the fetus will die too, idiot! If she has an abortion this time, she might be able to have a child later on.

What do you think about self-defense in other situations? What about the soldiers in Afghanistan, killing foreign soldiers to save the lives of their mothers and sisters? What about the US soldiers in foreign countries, killing people in that country so that the US oil companies can get cheaper oil.

A blastocyst is not a person, it's just a potential person. Some 50-90 percent of all fertilized eggs are washed out in late periods or early miscarriages.
Who cries for those "children"? You, Dougie?

old comment by Giveitaday

What shall we think of Susie?

What you, or anyone else for that matter, thinks of Susie is irrelevent.

Shall we bless a mother who kills her own child to save herself?

Is anyone asking you to bless or condone what is already a hard enough choice to make? No, they are not.

Perhaps we should just chalk-up her decision to feed her son to the sharks as “an unfortunate, but necessary evil.” After all, she was just acting in self-defense. It was either the mother or the child. One would live and the other would die.

What you fail to point out is that in the vast majority of such cases it's not an either/or choice, in such cases continuing the pregnacy means the death of both mother and child. And to act as if any woman has made the decision to end her pregnancy to save her life in such a flippant and off hand manner is an insult to anyone wo actually has dealt with such a tragic and traumatic event.

In point of fact, this woman’s behavior is utterly despicable.

In your eyes maybe, but you make that determination for no one other than yourself and you speak for no one other than yourself. And until you have had to make this same decision you don't get to talk down to those who have.

Susie is a criminal. Her behavior is indefensible.

According to US law it is not a criminal act in any way, shape, or form. You do not have the right to dictate or impose your religious laws on others.

To murder another is wrong, but for a mother to murder her own child as an act of self-preservation is a crime of unspeakable ignominy

Is it now? Because I can recall dozens of incidents in the bible in which your "god" orders his followers to commit many murders up to and including genocide and infanticide. Moreover, the bible proscribes or advocates the murder of men, women, and even children for insignificant or imagined slights.

old comment by Mudak

Would you please stop using the word 'child' to refer to a fertilized egg? It is not a child. I think I've had fingernail clippings that more properly resemble a human being. It's a collection of DNA that might -- MIGHT -- grow into a fetus and then, further, it MIGHT be born. It is not sentient, or self-aware.

I got news for you, buddy. A woman is more than just a breeding ground for the next generation. Hell, her body is more than just a breeding ground for the next generation. Some people complain that pornography contributes to the objectification of women. Without disputing that claim, this kind of objectification -- treating them as little more than walking incubators -- is at least as pernicious a form of objectification (if not moreso; we can debate the nuances) as treating them as little more than vessels for male horniness.

old comment by JSS

What shall we think of Jehovah? Shall we praise a father who kills his own son to satisfy his bloodlust? Are we proud of him? Shall we sing his praises? Perhaps we should just chalk-up his decision to have mankind's salvation be determined by his son's willingness to be fed to the barbaric Romans as "the end justifying the means". After all, he was acting in justice. All of mankind is equally and infinitely evil and only he is morally good, says himself. Who could blame God for wanting to watch someone be tortured, even if it was his only son.

In point of fact, this deity's behavior is utterly despicable. Jehovah is a psychopath. His behavior is indefensible. To murder another is wrong, but for he to demand the torture and murder of his own child in turn for forgiveness is a crime of unspeakable ignominy.

Surely this is what you believe, is it Doug?

old comment by Deep Search

Yeah, because if a woman doesn't have an abortion the fetus would continue to live- Oh, wait...

Actually I really don't care, because an embryo or fetus is just a potential thing. It totally depends upon the woman to continue to grow and possibly become a baby. And if a woman wants to stop the process, whatever, it's her business. But really this ass potato should stop to consider that if a woman dies so does the damn fetus. DERP. Plus a woman may choose abortion because she already has children to consider. Would a risky pregnancy be worth chancing if she's thinking of her children or family, or gawd forbid, herself?

@ Brendan Rizzo: What kind of acid are you on to believe that? I'm sure this guy is talking about *all* abortion. Late term abortions are done if a fetus is deformed/dying/dead (something that is extremely unpleasant and emotionally taxing; imagine having to go through it even knowing that the fetus's head is so large and malformed that an abortion is the only real option) or if it could/would be fatal for the woman to continue carrying it. But in that case if a woman had wanted a baby and the fetus was viable they could try to induce an early labor, unless that was too risky for whatever reason.
SO, no, I'm sure this guy is talking about *all* abortion because he believes a woman should never make that choice and should be "dutiful" and carry the fetus even if it kills her. Because that's GOD'S WILL if she dies and GOD could always intervene at the last minute with a MIRACLE so they both live. This asshole is just crazy and ignorant and doesn't have compassion for women.

old comment by A. Person

I expected from the title and the first paragraph that maybe this would be a real argument for an ethical postion. How wrong I was! Doug sets the scene with an interesting delimma, but instead of answering it rationaly, Doug chooses to respond emotionally. He throws his whole point out the window. Perhaps he realised his analogy didn't prove what he wanted it to, as I did when I was reading this peice. Susie did the right thing in this situation: she had no other options. Better to sacrafice one child then to turn 5 into orphans... and that's assuming the kid on the raft doesn't die at sea without his mother to protect him. Which he probably would, because the chances of his surviving on his own, at 3 years old on a raft in the middle of the ocean, are so exceptionaly low that they're not worth thinking of as possible.

old comment by emau99

What shall we think of Susie? Shall we bless a mother who kills her own child to save herself? Are we proud of such a woman? Shall we sing of her virtues?

Nobody is asking you to bless her, Doug, but would it hurt you to show her a little empathy and compassion?

Perhaps we should just chalk-up her decision to feed her son to the sharks as “an unfortunate, but necessary evil.”

Why wouldn't we? If the whole point is that the mother is going to die without an abortion, why wouldn't she abort?

After all, she was just acting in self-defense. It was either the mother or the child. One would live and the other would die.

Wrong. The issue is not choosing one or the other. It's a matter of one dying vs. both dying. The fetus can't survive without the mother--consult any grade-school sex-ed textbook for details.

Who could blame Mama for wanting to fight for her life, even if it meant that her son would be torn to pieces in the darkness of night? In point of fact, this woman’s behavior is utterly despicable.

Evidently, you can (and do) blame her. Then again, you're apparently entirely ignorant of the matter.

Susie is a criminal.

What law has she broken?

Don't give me any crap about God's law--that has nothing to do with this. What specific law has "Susie" broken?

Her behavior is indefensible.

Uh...no, it isn't.

Case 1: The fetus is aborted. The mother lives. Net result: 1 dead, 1 alive.
Case 2: No abortion. Both the mother and the fetus die. Net result: 2 dead, 0 alive.

I'm sorry that you're having so much trouble with this, but it's really not that hard to understand, Doug.

To murder another is wrong, but for a mother to murder her own child as an act of self-preservation is a crime of unspeakable ignominy.

You're opposed to murder, but you're perfectly fine with letting somebody die needlessly? You're a monster.

old comment by Brendan Rizzo

@ Deep Search:

Maybe you're right. Maybe I was reading it wrong. But I don't think that personal attack was necessary over a semantic issue.

By the way, I am not denying how ridiculously-misogynistic the OP is. The very fact that the word "son" is being used instead of "child" suggests that had the unborn in question been female, Phillips could not care less. I know that someone else mentioned that Phillips thinks that killing in self-defense is okay... which makes him a hypocrite. If we are dealing with abortion necessary to save the life of the mother, then even if you think that abortion is murder, this particular circumstance would be no different from killing in self-defense.

There actually are some non-misogynistic arguments against abortion (I'll list them if you ask)... it makes you wonder why these people never use them. I guess their misogyny trumps everything else, then. Going along with the "killing in self-defense" analogy, Phillips probably only supports that if a man does it. If a woman were to, say, cause serious harm to a man who tried to rape her, Phillips would probably demand the woman in question be tried for assault, and treat the rapist as an innocent victim of radical feminists...

old comment by gadfly

You know what the real hilarity is here? Doug has admitted on his blog that he circumcises his sons (despite the fact that he's Christian and that circumcision is condemned for Christians). So he's perfectly a-OK with risking his sons' actual lives, the functionality of their penises, their future sex lives, and causing them blood-loss, great short-term pain, and a wound that requires using the infant's limited bodily resources to heal.

But ending an ectopic pregnancy that has little to no hope of actually becoming an infant that can live outside the mother's body is baaaaaad and murder. Ending that infant's life through choosing to circumcise and then the infant bleeding to death or dying of infection? Apparently not murder.

Funny how these things work out, isn't it?

old comment by Gloria

As long as we're comparing this to real-life violence, it's more like a mother who stops her son's attempted murder-suicide by shooting him herself before he can kill her. He was going to die anyway, but he was trying to kill her as well, and she stopped him - self-defense.

Or, if you're hung up on the shark metaphor, mother and child are in the water when the shark attacks. Mother is not an excellent swimmer - child can hardly swim. When the mother attempts to drag her child to safety he kicks and squirms so much that even to hold on to him occupies both arms and one leg, so that as long as she is holding him, they cannot swim away, and in fact both are starting to sink. Finally as she's starting to drown she lets go of the child and kicks herself to the surface and away from the shark. Is it a tragedy? Yes. But if you try to make it her fault most people would slap you in the face.

@ gadfly
Circumcision is not condemned for Christians. just not required. The references I suspect you're thinking of are a response to attempts to Judaise new converts who came to Christianity from other cultures, not a general condemnation. Do it if you want, just don't force it on people.

old comment by Hamster

My brain refuses to process this post - it just says * meh *

I just read the article - and I still fail to see a meaningful connection.

A mother adrift at sea, with only food and water for one person is legally permitted to kill anyone competing for those resources. That she chooses to survive and care for her other children is reasonable, sacrificing herself for the other child would be reasonable too. It is her choice alone.

Murder is unlawful killing, abortion is legal so not murder.
The choice to save the child or the mother is only an option after the child has a chance to survive with some support. An entopic pregnancy and such are not in that category.

Doug Phillips #fundie visionforumministries.org

90 comments

Confused?