I am an abolitionist and theonomist, not 'pro-life', but I certainly would be willing to discuss this issue:
>>Question for my pro-life readers: I know abortion stops a beating heart, but are you really sure you want rape to be a viable reproductive strategy?
From my perspective, I would question the definition of 'viable'. Given the fact that even in our perverse society, most rapists don't get to do it over and over and, when caught, get put somewhere where they aren't able to reproduce... is it a viable strategy? Getting married and having unprotected sex with your wife would tend to produce a LOT more children.
And as a theonomist, I believe the penalty for rape (given the rules of that system) should be death... which would seem to limit your total number of offspring somewhat.
I can definitely see that this is a situation where half measures cause problems, but if you can get your way on two issues, things might work! Unfortunately you may not be aware of the way criminals in America, through conjugal visits, father children while in prison. See for instance https://listverse.com/2018/06/04/10-creepy-fan-letters-written-to-mass-murderers-and-monsters/
However, I will definitely grant that in a more modest culture where norms were for women to go about in conservative dress and (usually) not enter in questionable circumstances unescorted, then I can see that abortion definitely wouldn't be necessary to prevent rapists fathering children in large numbers - though you may suffer from a brain drain in the long run as academics and freethinkers emigrate away.
Also, are you sure the penalty for rape would be death in a theonomist society? I do appreciate that the Old Testament was pretty strict about rape, but all I'm aware of in the New Testament is the admonition in Acts to abstain from "food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality," and no penalty is given there, just the advice that "You will do well to avoid these things." I'm guessing you have a specific take on the scriptures that I just don't know about.
I think that the word 'theonomy' is not a very popular one. Basically I believe that most of the OT laws should be applied... the civil laws. The injunction to abstain from food offered to idols was in the context of circumcision, not of murder or rape. Paul was not saying, "Hey, Gentiles can feel free to rape or murder (and actually rape is a form of sexual immorality, so it is included anyway)."
The underlying issue, of course, is this: I am fully in favour of executing rapists. I am not in favour of executing their children. The child should not pay for the sin of his father. Or his mother, for that matter. I believe most societies won't execute a pregnant mother.
I do understand the context of that passage from Acts - I'm just pointing out the NT says very little about criminal justice or the practical organization of society. So why apply most of the OT laws rather than all, or most rather than none? I may not feel the scriptures have any authority, but I am curious about your take.
This sounds like something that needs an entire post, or exchange :)
The really quick answer is that sometimes there are things in any law that have particular application. Take school zone speed limits. When I'm driving along the freeway at 75mph I am not ignoring the school zone speed limit... I'm driving along the freeway! When God's law says, "When you, the Jewish people, enter the land of Canaan, here is how you are to behave..." Well, I'm not a Jew, nor am I entering the land of Canaan.
So the only laws I believe are not to be obeyed are those that don't apply. But we do need to read... the whole law. Not just find one bit and ignore its context.
That may explain why you wouldn't strictly apply all OT laws; but why apply any at all? I know there are multiple accounts of Jesus claiming that not the least stroke of the law would disappear, but when I was a Christian, I personally found Peter's word in Acts 15 fairly convincing about gentiles having no need to obey Jewish law. Or you rather deferring to the OT more for guidance about how a virtuous society would wisely be arranged?
Doesn't OT law only prescribe death for the rape of a betrothed or married woman? In the case of an unmarried woman, the rapist is simply compelled to marry his victim.
Deuteronomy 22: 28-9
28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.
There is a good deal of discussion as to what this means. We should remember:
1) That the overwhelming majority of marriageable women would have been either married or betrothed.
2) That the law required two witness to qualify under 'if they be found'.
3) The pronoun is 'they' not 'he'... they do not find 'him' raping her; but 'them' having sex. Thus most theonomists that I have talked to regard this as representing illicit sexual activity between two unmarried persons. Illicit, because they are not allowed to have sex; but not rape... as she would have cried out and resisted and her brothers would have killed the dude.
That is the position I take. In any case, it still doesn't fall into the problem above. Almost no modern rapists rape the girl because they wish to marry her with no possibility of divorce after paying a fixed bride price. (And elsewhere it is pointed out that her father can refuse the marriage.)
I am an abolitionist and theonomist, not 'pro-life', but I certainly would be willing to discuss this issue:
>>Question for my pro-life readers: I know abortion stops a beating heart, but are you really sure you want rape to be a viable reproductive strategy?
From my perspective, I would question the definition of 'viable'. Given the fact that even in our perverse society, most rapists don't get to do it over and over and, when caught, get put somewhere where they aren't able to reproduce... is it a viable strategy? Getting married and having unprotected sex with your wife would tend to produce a LOT more children.
And as a theonomist, I believe the penalty for rape (given the rules of that system) should be death... which would seem to limit your total number of offspring somewhat.
I can definitely see that this is a situation where half measures cause problems, but if you can get your way on two issues, things might work! Unfortunately you may not be aware of the way criminals in America, through conjugal visits, father children while in prison. See for instance https://listverse.com/2018/06/04/10-creepy-fan-letters-written-to-mass-murderers-and-monsters/
However, I will definitely grant that in a more modest culture where norms were for women to go about in conservative dress and (usually) not enter in questionable circumstances unescorted, then I can see that abortion definitely wouldn't be necessary to prevent rapists fathering children in large numbers - though you may suffer from a brain drain in the long run as academics and freethinkers emigrate away.
Also, are you sure the penalty for rape would be death in a theonomist society? I do appreciate that the Old Testament was pretty strict about rape, but all I'm aware of in the New Testament is the admonition in Acts to abstain from "food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality," and no penalty is given there, just the advice that "You will do well to avoid these things." I'm guessing you have a specific take on the scriptures that I just don't know about.
I think that the word 'theonomy' is not a very popular one. Basically I believe that most of the OT laws should be applied... the civil laws. The injunction to abstain from food offered to idols was in the context of circumcision, not of murder or rape. Paul was not saying, "Hey, Gentiles can feel free to rape or murder (and actually rape is a form of sexual immorality, so it is included anyway)."
The underlying issue, of course, is this: I am fully in favour of executing rapists. I am not in favour of executing their children. The child should not pay for the sin of his father. Or his mother, for that matter. I believe most societies won't execute a pregnant mother.
I do understand the context of that passage from Acts - I'm just pointing out the NT says very little about criminal justice or the practical organization of society. So why apply most of the OT laws rather than all, or most rather than none? I may not feel the scriptures have any authority, but I am curious about your take.
Hopefully I have, at least, demonstrated how a theonomist deals with the issue of fruitful rape.
This sounds like something that needs an entire post, or exchange :)
The really quick answer is that sometimes there are things in any law that have particular application. Take school zone speed limits. When I'm driving along the freeway at 75mph I am not ignoring the school zone speed limit... I'm driving along the freeway! When God's law says, "When you, the Jewish people, enter the land of Canaan, here is how you are to behave..." Well, I'm not a Jew, nor am I entering the land of Canaan.
So the only laws I believe are not to be obeyed are those that don't apply. But we do need to read... the whole law. Not just find one bit and ignore its context.
That may explain why you wouldn't strictly apply all OT laws; but why apply any at all? I know there are multiple accounts of Jesus claiming that not the least stroke of the law would disappear, but when I was a Christian, I personally found Peter's word in Acts 15 fairly convincing about gentiles having no need to obey Jewish law. Or you rather deferring to the OT more for guidance about how a virtuous society would wisely be arranged?
Now we're definitely getting into full post territory. Have you read anything by Bahnsen?
The really quick and you can't consider this as anything like a full explanation is:
Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Psa 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
And Psalm 119
and lets do a study of 'The Law' in the book of Romans :)
Doesn't OT law only prescribe death for the rape of a betrothed or married woman? In the case of an unmarried woman, the rapist is simply compelled to marry his victim.
Deuteronomy 22: 28-9
28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.
what happens i f they have no silver
There is a good deal of discussion as to what this means. We should remember:
1) That the overwhelming majority of marriageable women would have been either married or betrothed.
2) That the law required two witness to qualify under 'if they be found'.
3) The pronoun is 'they' not 'he'... they do not find 'him' raping her; but 'them' having sex. Thus most theonomists that I have talked to regard this as representing illicit sexual activity between two unmarried persons. Illicit, because they are not allowed to have sex; but not rape... as she would have cried out and resisted and her brothers would have killed the dude.
That is the position I take. In any case, it still doesn't fall into the problem above. Almost no modern rapists rape the girl because they wish to marry her with no possibility of divorce after paying a fixed bride price. (And elsewhere it is pointed out that her father can refuse the marriage.)