http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/18.2-71.1.HTM

However, as the final section of the code states, the mother cannot be prosecuted. But that doesn’t protect the physician.

David was not a Christian. Christianity didn’t exist until after Christ died. The born again spirit makes a world of difference.

Desert Pastor, you said this: “However, the Bible makes it clear that a true Christian will act and resemble the Saviour they claim. A person who is willing to abort/kill/murder their baby does not evidence the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, according to the Scriptures, she was not and could not be a Christian.”

Don’t be so sure. There are records of saints in the Bible that have done horrible things in sin. For example, David, a man after God’s own heart, committed adultery – and then murder to cover it up. I am not brave enough to say that it is impossible for a true Christian to have an abortion. (What would it take for me to believe that you are right? It would take you showing exactly where in the Bible it says – not implies, says – that someone who is redeemed cannot commit this sin.)

So how is it possible that a true Christian would commit such a vile thing? Three factors I can think of.

First, the sin nature, while dead, is still there. We still sin. Peter, redeemed as he was, had to be rebuked by Paul, Jesus, God the father, and probably others that weren’t recorded.

Second, society, which we do live in, defines the unborn as alive ONLY WHEN IT IS CONVENIENT FOR US TO THINK SO. Deception is all around us; Satan has been in this game a LOT longer than us, and is very good at what he does.

Third, people tend to panic and make bad decisions when doing so, especially when consequences of sin and/or poor decision are involved. Combine with points one and two, and nothing good can come of it. (Again, King David.)

Now, let’s go to the next level. Teenage girl, about 15, growing up in a church. Let’s assume she is a true Christian, because this is my story and I make the rules. She starts dating some guy, one night “one thing leads to another”, and now she’s staring at a positive pregnancy test. Her being a true Christian, she repents. Her sin is forgiven, but the test is still positive. There are really 2 options.

She carries the baby to term. Her parents find out. Assuming they don’t kick her out (not as common as it once was), her church finds out. What are they going to do? Most likely shun her. If they don’t explicitly kick her out (A church I attended 15 years ago had in its Constitution that a female in sexual sin had to confess it before the congregation to be restored to full fellowship.), they find way to have her isolated. After all, don’t want bad examples around the other teens. Even after the baby is born, she’s still, well, known as the church slut. She stops attending the church at her earliest opportunity (probably when she turns 18) and never returns.

Or she quietly walks down to the abortion mill, kills the baby, and nobody knows a thing.

You’re 15 and scared – and remember that for a teenager, social circles seem like the entire world – now which one do you do? Deal with shame and degradation from all corners of your world – which you cannot escape, or not deal with shame and degradation from all corners of your world?

To be fair, I don’t have an answer. This is the problem with churches today – they are filled with people. Obviously, the Church shouldn’t just ignore sin. But in dealing with sin, there are times when we become facilitators in sin ourselves by creating an atmosphere where sinning has a more pleasant outcome than not sinning.

So, I’m not sure what the point of your comment was, but it certainly didn’t refute the fact that “the downfall of [Western] civilization continues.”

Because in history, no one has killed their children..

LYN

‘unworthy1′ is correct because the Bible makes it clear that ALL of mankind is influenced to commit their wickedness because they are ALL totally depraved and wicked before God. We are ALL born into a fallen world and we all need a Saviour.

It is clear that Obama has NO love for the commands of God. He has been proven to be a liar and as previously stated is a depraved, wicked sinner in need of a Saviour. He allows babies to be aborted because he has more love for votes and politics and money than he does for the unborn who are ALL gifts from God. Even if McCain or somebody else had been voted in, abortion would still be legal. However, it would still be murder in the eyes of God.

‘marie’ is also correct in that there is an extreme level of secular humanism that pervades our nation. It is NOT a Christian nation by any means if for no other reason than a nation cannot be saved. It is individuals who place their faith in Christ alone for salvation.

One final point, the woman may have been conservative and Republican. However, the Bible makes it clear that a true Christian will act and resemble the Saviour they claim. A person who is willing to abort/kill/murder their baby does not evidence the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, according to the Scriptures, she was not and could not be a Christian. However, the Lord may in His grace and mercy bring her to the point of repentance and save her. At such point, she will seek forgiveness for all she has done.

The question is – what will YOU do with Jesus Christ?

Lyn

Not only that, but even if being ‘pro-choice’, or ‘pro-abortion’ if you prefer, was a principle of secular humanism, I doubt very much that it would extend to including a child that had been carried to term and delivered as is apparently the case here.

I appreciate your clarification in your final paragraph there – I know the passions and emotions that can be associated with this topic and it’s good to see that a reasonable discussion is possible!

Regards,

By that I mean that while the pro-abortionist may believe that every person who has exited the womb has the right to life, they will then deny that right to the child who is still in utero, hence their desire to be called “pro-choice“–they will not grant the unborn child the right to not be killed, while at the same time defending the woman’s “right” to end the pregnancy however she sees fit. (I hope I said that as clearly as I tried to!)

As far as I’m aware, women’s reproductive rights are not a specific focus of Secular Humanism, though I’m sure their members would be more likely to fall on the ‘pro-choice’ side, if asked.

I consider myself to be a secular humanist but am anti-abortion, so make of that what you will!

My intention was not to paint all “Secular Humanists” with a broad brush. Everyone has their own individual beliefs, no matter what “group” they belong to. There are plenty of people who hold views that oppose the general opinions of the group they belong to (Just as one example, pro-life Democrats and pro-abortion Republicans). But, as you said, most (not all) Secular Humanists would indeed fall under the “pro-abortion” banner.

How does “the right to protect life” work as a battle-cry for ‘pro-abortionists’?

By the same token, there have been enough instances of (supposedly) Christian women killing their kids to spare them the possibility of sinning and going to Hell, but I wouldn’t hold that up as evidence that Christian theology is to blame for infanticide. How do we know that the woman wasn’t acting under this false ideology? We don’t. Let’s wait for the facts, eh?

As far as I’m aware, women’s reproductive rights are not a specific focus of Secular Humanism, though I’m sure their members would be more likely to fall on the ‘pro-choice’ side, if asked.

I consider myself to be a secular humanist but am anti-abortion, so make of that what you will!

I’m not going to comment any further on the whole ‘fallen creation’ thing because it’s a bit off-topic.

Cheers,

–Foremost among those “basic human rights” being, in their minds, that women have a “right to choose” to terminate their pregnancy
–Women should not be “punished with a baby” if they “make a mistake”
–An “unplanned” pregnancy should not interfere with a woman’s lifestyle and/or her pursuit of a career

And, yes, this is exactly what we see due to the fact that we live in a fallen creation–one that has given itself over to the worship of self, rather than worship of God. And when a nation drifts–or, in the case of this country recently, sprints–away from God He will turn His back on that country. “Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man…Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 1:22-25).

- The Pilgrim

As to secular humanism. I’ve been browsing through the website of the Council for Secular Humanism and can’t see anything that advocates or encourages the kind of selfish action that took place in this case or that you imply with your statement about “rights”.

From their Declaration;

“We are for the defense of basic human rights, including the right to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”“.

“Moreover, philosophers have emphasized the need to cultivate an appreciation for the requirements of social justice and for an individual’s obligations and responsibilities toward others”.

From their Affirmations;

“We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves”.

“We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence”.

“We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality”.

No matter what the CSH say, however, it has no bearing on the actions of this particular woman (unless she was a card-carrying Secular Humanist, which I see no evidence of). If you’re a Christian, surely this is just what you’d expect in a ‘fallen’ Creation, no?

Regards,

1) The statute only applies to the act of abortion, and to abortionists performing partial-birth abortion, as found in Virginia state law 18.2-32.2:

Killing a fetus; penalty
A. Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation kills the fetus of another is guilty of a Class 2 felony.
B. Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately and maliciously kills the fetus of another is guilty of a felony punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than five nor more than 40 years.
(2004, cc. 1023, 1026.)

In fact, prosecutors sought to charge another woman in a similar situation in 2006:

According to the Virginia-Pilot, Skinner, now 23, was “charged in Circuit Court with producing an abortion or miscarriage, a felony charge that her attorney argues cannot be used to prosecute a woman who ends her own pregnancy.”

A lower court judge had already thrown out a charge of producing an abortion against Skinner, concluding that the law was not aimed at pregnant mothers who harm themselves or their yet-to-be born children. Yet the case was resurrected this summer when prosecutors went to a grand jury, who directly indicted Tammy Skinner in July. (Online Source)

2) Another burr in this matter is contained in the verbiage of the section Matt quoted–“regardless of the duration of pregnancy, which after such expulsion or extraction breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles” They found the baby nearly 10 hours after delivery, and the baby’s airways had not been cleared, and they have not been able to prove the child ever provided any of the other “signs of life”.

3) Another theory I have heard is that the law quoted was written to protect mothers who gave birth to stillborn babies from over-zealous prosecution.

Keep in mind, these are, at this point in time, theories, and until the authorities involved give us more info, this is not a definitive assessment. But I hope it helps.

As far as your question What has ‘extreme secular humanism’ got to do with this?–I’m sure Marie can speak for herself, but this kind of thing becomes commonplace in a society when a people think so much of their own perceived “rights” that the pursuit of those “rights” becomes more important to the individual than the actual rights of others (e.g., a woman who does not want to be “punished with a baby” will kill the child in her womb).

Marie,

What has ‘extreme secular humanism’ got to do with this?

Cheers,

———–

ExPatMatt,

I’m doing some digging on why that law wasn’t used. I’m finding pieces here and there; hopefully I can put something together tonight or tomorrow.

Just so you all know, there is a state law, already on the books, for this case;

§ 18.2-71.1. Partial birth infanticide; penalty.

C. For the purposes of this section, “human infant who has been born alive” means a product of human conception that has been completely or substantially expelled or extracted from its mother, regardless of the duration of pregnancy, which after such expulsion or extraction breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. .

So there is a law in place in Virginia to deal with this and I don’t know why the Sheriff’s Office aren’t using this part of State Law.

Regards,

I mean come on…….this is murder!

I think I’m going to be sick…

“Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” 1Jn.3:15

As an aside, these so-called leaders should be contacted and rebuked as John did unto Herod.