Would Jesus Punish Her?
January 3rd, 2008 by Vlad | Filed under Pro Life, abortion.In the abortion debate there seems to be one particular question that is look at without much clarity. The pro-abortion side is not interested in presenting the question clearly but intentionally tries to lure their opponents into their way of thinking. The pro-life side on the other hand, entraps itself by attempting to answer this ill conceived question. And the question runs along these lines: “If Roe vs Wade is overturned and abortion becomes illegal, should a woman attempting the illegal abortion be punished?”
It amazes me that many on pro-life side consider this question to be a valid one without challenging it. Accepting this question as a valid one we again abandon the woman, as she was abandoned once before. Her protector was gone, not keeping watch over the Garden. And the woman was all alone, not having her protector by to speak to, so she spoke to the serpent.
But what really is troubling that in order to be logical, some in the pro-life movement are answering “yes, she should be responsible for braking the law”.
In order to answer this question correctly, we must not answer it at all. It is designed to entrap.
Since the majority in the pro-life movement are Christians, I offer you a short reflection on the passage from the Gospel of John found in the chapter 8. This story is well known to us yet we tend to miss a few very important points from it. The woman was caught in the act of adultery, yet she was shamefully and all alone dragged by the enraged mob. The men she committed adultery with is not mentioned in the passage at all. She had to carry the burden of the sin by herself. Don’t you think there is a sort of similarity in this story and the ill designed question that pro-abortion side is presenting?
But Jesus saw right through their wicked plan. Even more than that. He saw and understood the predicament this woman found herself in. If we think for a moment we might find out that forgiveness that woman received might have been much deeper than our eyes meet initially. The passage does not say if this was the only time this woman engaged in adultery, but chances are it was not her only time. Was her life scourged by abortions? The passage does not say that, however one can’t help but wonder. What about the forgiveness she received, was it only in respect to this one act of adultery? Most likely not. When Jesus engages in peoples lives, not a single part of those lives remain untouched by his mercy and forgiveness.
Going back to the ill designed question. The pro-abortion side clearly wants to entrap us, so they have something to accuse us for- but we must not to cave into their way of thinking. While none of us can do what Jesus have done, that is to make our accusers to face their own conscience. We can offer the women (and men) our forgiveness- Christ would do just that.
Tags: abortion, pro-choice., prolife

So you are a theologian too Vlad. The biggest argument for legalised abortions was the saftey of the woman. The question carries assumptions that a good lawer should not miss.
When outlawing something we outlaw a very specific action. In this theoretical case we outlaw abortions. Let us compare outlawing tattoos. It is the tattooing that is forbidden not the having of the tat. Therefore it is the tattooist that has broken the law not the subject and although you could argue they are are an accessory you could also argue that they were a victim albeit a willing one.
Compaire back the act of abortion to be outlaws requires that there be a victim and as the law does not recognise the baby it must recognise the mother as a victim of a crime. This makes those who carry out the procedure the criminals. You are right when you say it is a trap from one end to the other because it comes complete with false assumptions as a “what if”.
So you are a theologian too Vlad. The biggest argument for legalised abortions was the saftey of the woman. The question carries assumptions that a good lawer should not miss.
When outlawing something we outlaw a very specific action. In this theoretical case we outlaw abortions. Let us compare outlawing tattoos. It is the tattooing that is forbidden not the having of the tat. Therefore it is the tattooist that has broken the law not the subject and although you could argue they are are an accessory you could also argue that they were a victim albeit a willing one.
Compaire back the act of abortion to be outlaws requires that there be a victim and as the law does not recognise the baby it must recognise the mother as a victim of a crime. This makes those who carry out the procedure the criminals. You are right when you say it is a trap from one end to the other because it comes complete with false assumptions as a “what if”.
Hey Matt,
What is it with you Brits that you always go straight to the point? lol
Thanks for keeping an eye on me!
Hey Matt,
What is it with you Brits that you always go straight to the point? lol
Thanks for keeping an eye on me!