We Don't Stone people for Adultery Anymore

So, my post about Baby Language brought forth a comment, and it contained a couple of interesting issues that I thought it would be worthwhile to bring them forward as a post.

Mark L started by saying:

Yes Von

And we don’t Stone people anymore for adultery, not so much any more.... And we Don't Execute Gays, Throw them off Buildings, Hang Them, Lash Them, imprison them,cut their heads off ( saudi), not so much any more... And we don't execute scientists anymore, like in the middle ages. Or threaten to execute Galileo for attempting to explain how the earth revolves around the sun...... We Don't burn our Neighbors at the stake for False Witness, or Witchcraft.... We don't kill people for changing religion, not so much....

1) Non sequitor

The first thing to notice is that this seems like a bit of a non-sequitur. I didn’t actually propose any of the things he lists, so I’m not sure how they are relevant to the conversation. Is he saying that because we don’t stone adulterers, we shouldn’t worry about murder?

It is a particuarly interesting non-sequitor as it is in a response to a post of mine talking about how we kill thousands of babies a day. If we were able to bring forward one of these people in time… let’s say Newton… and ask him if he would rather live in a time where he could be executed for his scientific theories, or stay in an era where mother’s routinely murder their children under the name of choice… he would likely ask you to send him back.

“Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the 'Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?’ But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did—if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather—surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.”

― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

2) Special Pleading

I find it interesting that when someone wishes to object to God’s Law, they always bring out certain parts of God’s Law. I would add to his list that we don’t execute people for rape anymore, even child rape. Or kidnapping or murder.  And we should.

Now

I’m a theonomist, so what happens in Saudi isn’t interesting to me. Looking at the above list, I think I only see one actual part of God’s law listed and a couple of hangers-on. I am perfectly willing to defend God’s Law, and those hangers-on, but I would do it in a different post, and I would only do it once we had separated out what God’s law said, and how it was to be implimented.

Solution

He goes on to propose a solution:

Here Von,

Instead of focusing on this issue, and bringing scripture into the conversation. Try this, instead of all women bearing the costs of rearing a child, and the state ( you)

Pass a law in every state that the men are as responsible as the women for the pregnancy.

Baby is born at full term, the man has to take full Resposibilty In Providing for the child from day one. ( DNA proven) Formula , Diapers, Clothing , Daycare, education, because the mother is going to have to work, without a doubt. All those men just looking to get their rocks off, a quicky, oh baby I love you so much, Wham Bam thank you mam. See how that works out for them when they get hit with the shock and realization of a lifetime responsibility of bringing up a Child. It might drop the Abortion Rate and Over Time a law like this might drop the rate Rate substantially. Just saying...

The problem with his solution is that it is actually the current system, more or less. A woman who gets pregnant by a man out of wedlock can sue him for child support, and if she divorces the father, ditto, plus alimony. If they are married, then he already has this responsibility.

One issue that his system didn’t address is: Do the men get to see these children they are paying for? Get to help raise them? Currently, the man is in the position of getting kicked out of the house, not getting to see or raise his children, and having to pay for them.

To the extent that Mark is proposing a system which is like the current system, only more so, his system would increase the pressure that boyfriends put on pregnant girlfriends to kill their children. It would increase, not decrease, the number of abortions.

Now, if he is proposing a system where the mother cannot murder the child, and if she doesn’t want the child she could give the child to the man to raise; and if she couldn’t just sue him for child support, then that might indeed lead to decreased abortions.

But it wouldn’t solve the problem, the moral problem. It is a moral problem to think of something as a ‘difficult moral dilemna’ when it is murder.

Indeed he followed up with:

It is Such a Difficult , Moral. Ethical, Medical, Personal Dilema.

If the word Gut wrenching could be applied to anything, this is it.

Tis actually the easiest moral dilemna on the planet. “Should I murder my child? No.”

There might be a lot of dilemnas involved in caring for a child, raising a child, discipling a child… but there are none in deciding if you should kill it. You shouldn’t.

Children are being murdered even when the father, grandparents, uncles and aunts, churches, and strangers are pleading to be allowed to take and raise the child.

Links