The Narrow Path Ministries

Trump was recently asked 'if abortion was illegal in this country would you punish the women for having an abortion?" He responded that a crime was committed so there has to be some kind of punishment, but then he was widely condemned by right to choice and by right to life groups plus Cruz and Kasich. Everyone said the women was a victim and should not be punished and Trump changed his response and said only the doctor s/b
punished.

If you truly believe the fetus is a human being and if abortion were illegal then technically abortion would actually be murder. If your goal was to reduce abortions then wouldn't punishment for the woman be a deterrant and reduce the number of abortions? So why the outrage by "right to life" groups to Trump's initial response? I know it sounds compassionate to say the woman should not be punished but if abortion were illegal then the courts would have had to declare that the fetus was a human therefore he/she is entitled to the same protection as anyone else so why would the punishment be different?

What do you think?

The following U.S. state administer the death penalty for murder:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

Do you think that women who live in these states and have had an abortion should receive the death penalty?

I, as one who does not believe anyone does should receive punishment(in the sense of "penalties." See my signature statement), of course, do not agree to it for women who have abortions either, (though I do regard abortions as murder). I think women who have abortions need to be educated, so as to see the fœtus as a human being, and therefore abortion as murder, so that they will develop a conscience against the practice of abortion. Films that have depicted abortions, are helpful in this regard.

You may have heard of Karla Fae Tucker, who found her lover in bed with another woman. She then killed them both with a pickaxe.
However, when in prison, she became a beautiful Christian. Here whole countenance changed, and she just wanted to love and served Jesus.
But she was put to death anyway. Is this justice? In the eyes of the world it is, but God forgives a truly repentant person—not only forgives but delivers from wrongdoing, and regenerates him or her.

You can see the movie about her "Forevermore" in 14 parts at this site:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... freload=10

I think women who have abortions need to be educated, so as to see the fœtus as a human being, and therefore abortion as murder, so that they will develop a conscience against the practice of abortion. Films that have depicted abortions, are helpful in this regard.







Thanks for the response Paidion. My sister in law said to me that even if the fetus is a human being the women (mother) should have the right to kill it because its' her body so its' not always a matter of education.

Steve,

When I heard all the controversy, my response was the same as yours. If two people conspire to commit murder, both are guilty of criminal behavior, and it makes no sense to punish one and not the other. To my knowledge, abortion doctors do not go out preying on pregnant women, forcing them to abort their babies.

I would ask your sister-in-law, if the baby is the woman's "body"—does the woman live in two bodies simultaneously? How many distinguishing sets of fingerprints does one person have? The baby has its own—unlike its mother's—before and after its birth. Is the baby's DNA the same as the mothers? If not, how can it be her body? Was the father's "sperm" also her body? If not, what became of the half of the baby that was his body? How did it become entirely hers? If a parasite, having DNA differing from a woman's should invade her body, does that parasite become her body also? I don't understand the reasoning. By what argument is the baby her body?

If the argument is, rather, that the baby is an inconvenience to her body, are we wishing to affirm that we all have the right to terminate the lives of people who are inconvenient to us? A mother and her unborn child are (in a limited sense) analogous to Siamese twins—each has her own body, but they are connected to each other and may be inconvenient to each other. Each party has her own identity and equal right to life.

Do pro-abortionists have a rational argument for killing a baby simply because it has invaded a woman's body (involuntarily, on the baby's part, but usually voluntarily on the woman's)? Do women know where babies come from? Don't the overwhelming majority of pregnancies result from a woman's voluntary participation in the acts that is known to cause conceptions? Is anybody thinking anymore?

Hi again Steve 7150,

I think it is perfectly obvious to any thinking person that the fœtus is a separate human being from the mother that is carrying it, and not a mere blob of flesh that is part of her body.
Steve Gregg has spelled it out clearly.

Further to Karla Fay Tucker, I provided a link to 14 parts of a movie about her. The movie consists of actors, of course, and not Karla herself.

However there is an excellent documentary of the real Karla, the horrible murders she committed, and her amazing conversion. Even the wife of the man she hacked to death, forgave her after she saw Karla's transformation (as well as several others who were involved in the case). I highly recommend this documentary. If you watch it from beginning to end, I'm sure you will be greatly touched.

Though it is not a youtube video, one can download it using youtube downloader.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2eibt ... ary_people

Steves,

When a surgical abortion is carried out, wouldn't the mother's crime be solicitation to murder? Isn't the abortionist the one actually carrying out the murder? I believe (but could be wrong,) that solicitation, while a very serious felony, is not in the same category (capital crime) as murder.

I suppose murder might be the crime of the mother when a medically induced abortion takes place. In those cases, however, wouldn't it be difficult to separate spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) from induced abortion?

From what I understand, although I have not listened to the entirety of Mr. Trump's remarks, he also said that the fathers of aborted children should suffer no penalties. This seems to overlook, either willfully or out of ignorance, the fact that many, many abortions are coerced (estimates range from about a third to well over half.) I know that friends, grandparents, and society at large may also be coercive, but it's a good chance that the fathers bear some responsibilities in coercive abortions. Why not charge and punish them with conspiracy?

This link takes you to Al Mohler's response to Donald Trump's remarks. In it, he says that the pro-life movement has historically seen abortion as a crime against both mother and child.

If, as Donald Trump seems to be advocating, you begin to penalize all mothers who have aborted their offspring, but hold men not responsible at all, are we not buying into the pro-choice argument that it's always the woman's choice? That is just another lie from their camp.

I agree that the father who encourages, or even agrees with, the abortion of his own child would be equally guilty before God in the conspiracy to murder. I am not sure that the laws, as they now exist, even give the father of the child the right of a veto. If a father cannot prevent the death of his child, even over his protests, I am not sure that he can be said to have been in control of the situation, even if he encouraged the abortion. We are all encouraged to sin by other people, from time to time. Those people bear guilt before God, but it is the one who actually can make the decision that should be culpable at law, in my opinion.

Those people bear guilt before God, but it is the one who actually can make the decision that should be culpable at law, in my opinion.





If a crime is committed people who aid the crime can be charged with conspiracy so a father who aids in the abortion process like driving the mother to the doctor or helping financially or encouraging it can be culpable, if abortion were illegal.
Even a father who is against it yet knows where and when it would take place but does nothing to prevent it may be charged with aiding and abetting , if abortion were illegal.
In the Federal criminal laws there is a statute called "conscious avoidance" which gives the federal govt the power to charge based on "should have could have."

Consider two scenarios:

1. A woman is pregnant and at 7 months into the pregnancy decides to abort the baby. Her boyfriend, the father of the baby, agrees. She has an appointment with the abortionist and her boyfriend drives her there, a two hour trip. All goes as planned and the baby is aborted and the body disposed as medical waste. The mother avoids having a child to care for, the father avoids paying child support, the abortionist makes some money.

2. A woman is pregnant and at 7 months into the pregnancy decides to abort the baby. Her boyfriend, the father of the baby, agrees. She has an appointment with the abortionist and her boyfriend is driving her there but shortly after the trip begins she goes into labor. The baby comes before they can get to the abortionist; they are only half way there. The boyfriend asks the woman what they should do. The mother says to smother the baby and he does. They dispose of the body. The mother avoids having a child to care for, the father avoids paying child support, the abortionist makes no money.

The baby's life is terminated at the same point in either case. According to our laws all parties are innocent in scenario #1. In scenario #2 the woman and boyfriend have committed a criminal act.

Why the difference? Practicing "medicine" without a license?

Interestingly when a pregnant expectant mother is murdered, the killer is often charged with two counts of murder even in CA, so in this case there is no issue of recognition that that fetus is a human being.
So it seems that it is the intention of the mother that the secular law uses to define what the fetus is.