Why are Christians generally opposed to abortion?

[Dave RP]

I would hope the faith of the mother has nothing to do with the destination of the childs soul.
The Catholic Church used to teach that Limbo was the destination of such souls, but I'm not sure if they still hold to that.

I'm guessing that the baby, being innocent would be in eternal heaven but the mother would be in eternal damnation, according to Catholic beliefs? Mind you, other posters on here have said that non Christians may go to heaven, so they might be reunited in heaven, who knows?

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

I'm guessing that the baby, being innocent would be in eternal heaven but the mother would be in eternal damnation, according to Catholic beliefs? Mind you, other posters on here have said that non Christians may go to heaven, so they might be reunited in heaven, who knows?

I, for one, would hope so, but I'm speaking personally, not as an authority on Catholic teaching.

 

[SPF]

Yes thank you it does. I suppose it depends on when you believe the fetus is "life" does it, for example some women will take the "morning after pill" if they have had sex and are concerned they might be pregnant, in that case IF they were pregnant the pill will abort the fetus which will be a matter of days old and the woman would experience nothing more than a heavy period. Would some Christians say this is wrong and will some say it is not I wonder?

Hi Dave, my post back on page one answers this.

The morality of abortion stands or falls with how we understand the moral worth and value of humanity. For Christians, we believe that humans are unique among God's creation. We are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

Scientifically we know that human life begins at conception. From a Biblical perspective then, human life is morally valuable from its very beginning.

Therefore, it follows that terminating a human life for convenience sake (which is why 99% of all abortions are committed), is morally wrong, and consequently abortion becomes a form of murder.

The only reason that abortion is acceptable in the first place is because we have fabricated an artificial and subjective distinction between a human being and a human person. It is then asserted after this fabricated distinction is created that only human persons have moral worth and value. Therefore, actions may be committed against the non-persons that would otherwise be considered immoral.

The problem of course is that the distinction between a human being and a human person is a necessarily subjective and arbitrary line. It doesn't actually exist in reality.

So taking that principle, the answer to the practice of the morning after pill would be that it is certainly wrong if it terminates the life of a conceived human.

 

[jayem]

Hi Jayem, are you opposed to other kinds of murder being criminalized as well, or just abortion?

Would you oppose killing in defense of yourself, or another person being criminalized?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Frankly that's baloney.

Take it up with the former head of the SBC.

Or Bruce Waltke of Dallas Theological Seminary:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul no matter how far gestation has progressed,” wrote professor Bruce Waltke of Dallas Theological Seminary in a 1968 issue of Christianity Today on contraception and abortion, edited by Harold Lindsell, a then-famous champion of biblical “inerrancy.” His argument rested on the Hebrew Bible, “[A]ccording to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

One does not become a reactionary if there is nothing to react to.

The question is not why they grew active, but why these groups changed their theology because of a change in the law. (The answer, of course, is politics.)

 

[Dave-W]

I'm guessing that the baby, being innocent would be in eternal heaven

A popular but erroneous misunderstanding of the gospel. It is not about how good or innocent we are that sends us to heaven instead of hell - it is accepting on one's self the constraints and benefits of joining in the New Covenant.

Jewish babies are covered in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants from birth; but no such provision exists for gentile babies. So their fate is (at least as far as the bible is concerned) undefined.

 

[SPF]

Jewish babies are covered in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants from birth; but no such provision exists for gentile babies. So their fate is (at least as far as the bible is concerned) undefined.

I'm not sure how you can get that idea from the NT. Jesus came as a fulfillment of the OT, and the OT law is no longer applicable.

Galatians 3:24-29 - So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Salvation works the same now that Christ has come for both the Jew and the Gentile. Both are equally born with an inherited sinful nature, both need the atoning work of Christ to cover their sins. There is not a different path for Salvation for the Jew in comparison to the Gentile.

 

[Dave-W]

I'm not sure how you can get that idea from the NT. Jesus came as a fulfillment of the OT, and the OT law is no longer applicable.

That is a part of replacement theology which I reject.

Salvation works the same now that Christ has come for both the Jew and the Gentile. Both are equally born with an inherited sinful nature, both need the atoning work of Christ to cover their sins. There is not a different path for Salvation for the Jew in comparison to the Gentile.

Perhaps you should study the part about the 2 olive trees in Romans 11 a bit closer.

For the Jew that comes of age and gets "broken off;" yes, he is in the same boat as the gentile born on the wild olive tree of destruction. He has to be grafted in by faith.

But BEFORE he exhibits unbelief and gets broken off???

 

[redleghunter]

Yes thank you it does. I suppose it depends on when you believe the fetus is "life" does it, for example some women will take the "morning after pill" if they have had sex and are concerned they might be pregnant, in that case IF they were pregnant the pill will abort the fetus which will be a matter of days old and the woman would experience nothing more than a heavy period. Would some Christians say this is wrong and will some say it is not I wonder?

After all, a large number of pregnancies fail in the early stages, and the woman might not have known she was pregnant, the morning after pill does the same thing, potentially. Often it is just precautionary.

Did you look at the thread I linked on the "Science of Abortion?" I think it is explained all life including human life begins at conception. That is a biological fact. For example:

A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)

http://www.textbookrush.com/browse/...calinventory&gclid=CJGkm7nNncoCFQqpaQodVZINSA


The French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune has stated:

“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” [The Human Life Bill: Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981). See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), p. 149 also Francis J. Beckwith,Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and Mayo Clinic physician stated:

“I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life – when life begins – is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.” [The Human Life Bill – S. 158, Report 9, see Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

To cite just a few examples, the American Heritage Science Dictionary defines “conception” as “the formation of a zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and egg cell; fertilization.” (For reference, a zygote is the first stage of a human embryo.)

Likewise, the entry for “life” in the American Heritage Dictionary of Science states that life is “the form of existence that organisms like animals and plants have and that inorganic objects or organic dead bodies lack; animate existence, characterized by growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli.”

[The] statement that “human life begins at conception” is consistent with both of these definitions, because human zygotes display all four empirical attributes of life:

1. Growth – As explained in the textbook Essentials of Human Development: A Life-Span View, “the zygote grows rapidly through cell division.”

1. Reproduction – Per Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia, zygotes sometimes form identical twins, which is an act of “asexual reproduction.” (Also, in this context, the word “reproduction” is more accurately understood as “reproductive potential” instead of “active reproduction.” For example, three-year-old humans are manifestly alive, but they can’t actively reproduce.)

1. Metabolism – As detailed in the medical text Human Gametes and Preimplantation Embryos: Assessment and Diagnosis, “At the zygote stage,” the human embryo metabolizes “carboxylic acids pyruvate and lactate as its preferred energy substrates.”

1. Response to stimuli – Collins English Dictionary defines a “stimulus” as “any drug, agent, electrical impulse, or other factor able to cause a response in an organism.” Experiments have shown that zygotes are responsive to such factors. For example, a 2005 paper in the journal Human Reproduction Update notes that a compound called platelet-activating factor “acts upon the zygote” by stimulating “metabolism,” “cell-cycle progression,” and “viability.”

Furthermore, the science of embryology has proven that the genetic composition of humans is formed during fertilization, and as the textbook Molecular Biology explains, this genetic material is “the very basis of life itself.”

In accord with the facts above, the textbook Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects directly states: “The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” This may be controversial from a political perspective, but the sciences of embryology and genetics leave no doubt as to when human life begins.

The science of abortion: When does life begin? - Just Facts

 

[redleghunter]

Abortion has an evolution from deep history in sacrifice.


It is considered a women's health issue today - ignoring the activity of promiscuity, or sex with someone who one doesn't love as a problem itself. And, it isn't only a female issue: the men who participate in the fornication that would drive one to dissolve potential life within them are equally responsible.

Therefore, regardless of religious or philosophical persuasions, you see the abysmal practice of elective abortion as a personal responsibility issue. As a 'we need to be true to ourselves and others' approach? If so, I agree.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm completely in favor of comprehensive gun safety courses being a requirement for gun owners.

I agree people should not pick up a firearm unless they know the consequences of their actions. This applies to when two 'tango' knowing that if they are 'trigger happy' someone else may suffer the consequences.

 

[redleghunter]

What does the Catholic Church and other churches teach in this situation? For example if an atheist woman (therefore heading to hell) got pregnant would that babies soul be heading to heaven if it died as an aborted fetus, a still born, a child death? Is there a consensus on this?

There is not a consensus when mankind applies rigid theologies God did not create.

However, Biblically, we are judged by the Law; we are saved by Grace. Being conscious of that Law and understanding the need for God's Grace to be saved is beyond the comprehension of a child in the womb, and frankly beyond some adults with mental incapacities.

For example, King David, one of the most prolific Psalms composers stated when his infant son died “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23 But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.”(2 Samuel 12)

Some have waved this off as a grieving father's sentimentality. However, against the backdrop of the inspired of God Psalms David composed this makes perfect sense. David trusted God and knew he would one day be joined to him.

This is the David who composed the first 'sinners prayer.'

Psalm 51: New King James Version (NKJV)
A Prayer of Repentance
To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David when Nathan the prophet went to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba.


51 Have mercy upon me, O God,
According to Your lovingkindness;
According to the multitude of Your tender mercies,
Blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
And cleanse me from my sin.

3 For I acknowledge my transgressions,
And my sin is always before me.
4 Against You, You only, have I sinned,
And done this evil in Your sight—
That You may be found just when You speak,
And blameless when You judge.

5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
6 Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts,
And in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom.

7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8 Make me hear joy and gladness,
That the bones You have broken may rejoice.
9 Hide Your face from my sins,
And blot out all my iniquities.

10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me away from Your presence,
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

12 Restore to me the joy of Your salvation,
And uphold me by Your generous Spirit.
13 Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
And sinners shall be converted to You.

14 Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God,
The God of my salvation,
And my tongue shall sing aloud of Your righteousness.
15 O Lord, open my lips,
And my mouth shall show forth Your praise.
16 For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it;
You do not delight in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,
A broken and a contrite heart—
These, O God, You will not despise.

18 Do good in Your good pleasure to Zion;
Build the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness,
With burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
Then they shall offer bulls on Your altar.

 

[Cearbhall]

I've never fully understood why many Christians are opposed to abortion and why it seems to be a very controversial subject, particularly in the US.

Hi,
I'm formerly Catholic and formerly pro-life, so my statements will be based on that doctrine.

They believe that our lives and our bodies belong to God, not ourselves. They also believe that everything that happens is part of God's plan. So, abortion is seen as a form of "playing God" in the same way that euthanasia is. Imagine a villain in a movie who goes back in time to keep the hero from being born. That's viewed as immoral and unnatural because the villain has knowledge that things are "supposed" to happen a certain way, but they artificially manipulate it because they feel that their desires are more important. Many Christians believe that interfering with God's intentions will lead to imbalance and corruption.

Furthermore, in Christianity, a human being is theologically defined by his or her soul. Since the soul enters the organism at fertilization and doesn't change after that, this belief gives a zygote the same standing as an adult.

I read somewhere that god had allowed the death of thousands or possibly millions of unborn babies, for example in Noahs flood and at Sodom/ Gomorrah (if you believe the bible) as there must have been many pregnant women killed in those incidents, does this affect the thinking of Christians in the modern world when abortion is discussed?

My background isn't fundamentalist, so this wasn't really an issue in my case. Anything that contradicts real history was considered to be something that didn't actually happen.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm guessing that the baby, being innocent would be in eternal heaven but the mother would be in eternal damnation

The woman (by aborting they really can't be called a mother) who procures the abortion has sinned. However, God in His Great Mercy and Grace forgives sorrowful repentant sinners who come the Cross of Christ for salvation.

 

[redleghunter]

Take it up with the former head of the SBC.

Or Bruce Waltke of Dallas Theological Seminary:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul no matter how far gestation has progressed,” wrote professor Bruce Waltke of Dallas Theological Seminary in a 1968 issue of Christianity Today on contraception and abortion, edited by Harold Lindsell, a then-famous champion of biblical “inerrancy.” His argument rested on the Hebrew Bible, “[A]ccording to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

A good chop job on Waltke. Here's the context of Waltke's remarks:

"Waltke was writing about Old Testament views on contraception. The Old Testament does, in fact, seem to make a distinction between the life of a child and the life of a fetus (it never extracts a "fetus for a fetus" principle, for example). But as Waltke notes, the Old Testament nonetheless "protects the fetus," And "while the Old Testament does not equate the fetus with a living person, it places great value upon it." ('When Evangelicals Were Pro-Choice'—Another Fake History)."

However, there are other theologians who based this presupposition on their eisegesis of Holy Scriptures and not the exegesis. I know you don't care and are just digging up quotes which seem to support your theory. When in fact when looking at the literal Hebrew word for word translations of Exodus 21:22-24 we find the very first Fetal Homicide statute in human history.

Here's why:

Exodus 21: King James Version (KJV)

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Now another word for word literal translation from a modern English version.

Exodus 21: NASB


"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25 NASB
http://bible.com/100/exo.21.22-25.NASB


Now we take a look at the Hebrew lexicon.



If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

So that her fruit:

Hebrew: יֶלֶד yeled

The KJV translates Strongs H3206 in the following manner:child (72x), young man (7x), young ones (3x), sons (3x), boy (2x), fruit (1x), variant (1x).


child, son, boy, offspring, youth

1. child, son, boy
2. child, children
3. descendants
4. youth

Yeled is not not miscarriage nor still birth, it's a live child.

Is there a Hebrew word for miscarriage and stillborn? Yes and it is not Yeled.

Exodus 23: KJV


26 There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.

The above now in the Hebrew lexicon:
שָׁכֹל shakol


The KJV translates Strongs H7921 in the following manner:bereave (10x),barren(2x), childless (2x), cast young(2x), cast a calf (1x), lost children (1x),rob of children(1x), deprived (1x), misc (5x).


שָׁכֹלshâkôl, shaw-kole'; a primitive root; properly, to miscarry, i.e. suffer abortion; by analogy, to bereave (literally or figuratively):—bereave (of children), barren, cast calf (fruit, young), be (make) childless, deprive, destroy, × expect, lose children, miscarry, rob of children, spoil.


So we can see shakol is not used in Exodus 21:22ff.

Yaled is alive; shakol is miscarriage.

 

[redleghunter]

The question is not why they grew active, but why these groups changed their theology because of a change in the law. (The answer, of course, is politics.)

I can see why you think "politics" has to do with every breath we take. For the blood life and summit of many (their religion) is politics. I guess you see such from that filter. Well not everyone does.

A few theologians does not make a movement change. The Biblical and historic teachings on abortion for Christians has been made clear throughout history even in the most ancient of documents. One of the earliest extant documents is the Didache. This is not a creed but how Christians instructed and lived their faith.

Didache: (50-120 AD)

Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.

 

[RogerRoger]

Then have the NRA come in and teach firearm safety the same day PP comes in to teach safe sex. Teens are just going to experiment with firearms and explosives too.

I don't really understand this approach - if you were to allow your kid to shoot, you would want them to be trained, with the proper equipment, and safe. Of course in this case you're not sanctioning the activity, but I can't see any reason to not invest in prevention, safety training, etc. other than the idea that you'd be (tacitly or otherwise) endorsing the activity.

As others have mentioned, I don't really think that argument holds up. Abortions are objectively less prevalent in states that provide so-called 'comprehensive' sex-education. This is true not only of abortion, but the effectiveness of abstinence only education results in worse teenage outcomes in the following categories:

• Age of first sexual experience
• Number of partners
• Rate of abstinence
• Use of contraception
• Pregnancy
• Sexually Transmitted Disease

I don't think arguing your point from an evidence-based approach really works. I think you'd be better off arguing from a principled stand-point

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I would hope the faith of the mother has nothing to do with the destination of the childs soul.

Actually, it does.
It is written directly in God's Word that if one of the parents is born again, then the other spouse (opposite sex, legally and morally married) even if not a believer is clean, and also the children , if any, are clean. Otherwise they are all unclean.

Man's thoughts and other expectations do not change this.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't really understand this approach - if you were to allow your kid to shoot, you would want them to be trained, with the proper equipment, and safe. Of course in this case you're not sanctioning the activity, but I can't see any reason to not invest in prevention, safety training, etc. other than the idea that you'd be (tacitly or otherwise) endorsing the activity.

As others have mentioned, I don't really think that argument holds up. Abortions are objectively less prevalent in states that provide so-called 'comprehensive' sex-education. This is true not only of abortion, but the effectiveness of abstinence only education results in worse teenage outcomes in the following categories:

• Age of first sexual experience
• Number of partners
• Rate of abstinence
• Use of contraception
• Pregnancy
• Sexually Transmitted Disease

I don't think arguing your point from an evidence-based approach really works. I think you'd be better off arguing from a principled stand-point

My point was if we believe comprehensive sex education needs to be a staple in high schools in order to prevent pregnancies, why not make the opportunity to also safely teach other safety protocols. It won't happen because of political reasons. We can allow schools to teach our kids that anal sex is safe 'if done correctly' but can't have a trained marksmen train them to not treat guns as toys.

 

[RogerRoger]

My point was if we believe comprehensive sex education needs to be a staple in high schools in order to prevent pregnancies, why not make the opportunity to also safely teach other safety protocols. It won't happen because of political reasons. We can allow schools to teach our kids that anal sex is safe 'if done correctly' but can't have a trained marksmen train them to not treat guns as toys.

I think I'd definitely agree! Training safety, taking things seriously, those are all things we want to instill in our youth. I think where the disconnect is that sexual experiences are far more common, and with a lower-cost of participation, than shooting a rifle/handgun. In the latter, you need the weapon, the ammo, etc. At least from my experience, as someone living outside of the United States, shooting seems to be a more niche subject, albeit one with extremely dire consequences if not taken seriously.

In a country where guns are more accepted, I wouldn't be opposed to information about gun safety. I just think the two are different in terms of scale - far more youth are engaging in sexual activity than are getting their hands on guns. Great point though