How can a Christian be in favor of abortion?
- Thread starter Unofficial Reverand Alex
- Start date
- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
- Jan 12, 2014
- 7,218
- 5,563
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
He gave himself... God didn't kill him. I asked for a verse that has God killing innocents.
Upvote
0
Understood, However this adds nothing to the argument for abortion. Unless you think that God plans for babies to be aborted.
Sorry, but I don't know what choice is being made here. It's a question.
Yes, God knows all that will happen. However, that does not justify the decisions that people make.
God knew that David would commit adultery with Bathsheba. He knew that David would try to get her husband to sleep with Bathsheba when he was home so that it would look like it was his own child ( dumb dumb dumb ) God also knew that David would then send her husband to the battle at the position where he would be killed.
God knew all this but it was not His will. It was not what He wanted David to do. Many people were hurt and even killed by Davids sins.. David even lamented and repented from these sins...
God still used it for His own glory, as He does with all good and bad decisions.
But, don't try to tell me that God is OK with an abortion due to the fact that He knew, before hand, that all the events surrounding, would take place.
That is not the thought process. The process is "you should remain pregnant because there is a life inside of you that you have no right to kill"
The other person is only saying that "if you don't want it... I'll take it".
So, again, muddy the water.. It sounds like you are saying:
"we have too many kids who are not being adopted, so it is justifiable to kill an unborn".
The two are not connected. It is not wrong to kill an unborn baby because others can adopt it.... It is wrong to kill an unborn baby because it's a living human and society has numbed our brains to such drastic levels that Christians can convince themselves that it's OK to kill a baby.. for any reason at all.
This is still a totally separate issue.
Again, abortion is not wrong due to there being bad parents, children that are not adoptable, or any other hypothetical excuse for changing the topic.
The topic is that a baby is a living human being. It is defenseless and has not say. It deserves a life. It is murder to kill it... You cannot "splaine" it away with deflection to other problems of society.
Except in the case of rape.... it's not me volunteering people to do something with their bodies... It's simple irresponsibility.
Society has singed our consciences to the extent that even Christians can stand up and say that abortion is OK...
That........is a symptom of a broken world.
Upvote
0
- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I didn’t say that God killed Him. The statement was that God killed only sinners. My statement was that God also died to save sinners.
Upvote
0
- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Just out of curiosity, do you believe that a woman whose life is threatened by her pregnancy has a right to abort to save her life?
Upvote
0
- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
OK, I’m pro-choice as well. I particularly don’t understand those who say that women whose life is at risk can’t gave an abortion to save their lives, but it is acceptable for them to shoot and kill an attacker.
Upvote
0
- Jan 12, 2014
- 7,218
- 5,563
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
That's fine... that has nothing at all to do with killing an unborn baby.
Upvote
0
- Apr 27, 2017
- 7,612
- 8,475
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Others
The so-called "logic" that was proposed is that women should be forced to have babies because other women who could not have babies would then be able to adopt them. My response was that there are already multitudes of babies that are needing adoption, but because they are not "desirable" for some reason, the people wanting to adopt must keep making women produce more babies until a "desirable" one can be adopted. In the meantime, the "undesirable" babies and children are tossed into the garbage can.
Then why not just remove it intact from the womb and allow it to survive on its own in the care of people who want to adopt it? Then everyone is happy.
This makes no sense. The term "pro-life" means that one cares about and supports *life* in general, which means far more than just an unborn child, but also what happens to that child once it is born, as well as the lives of the mother and other people living in the world. Quality of life is important.
If all you care about is trying to make sure that every single conception is forced into birth, regardless of circumstances, then the correct term is "pro-birth" and not "pro-life".
If the topic is solely about abortion, then don't use the term "pro-life" when what you are really supporting is "pro-birth".
A true pro-life position would be concerned with *both* the person who is mentally disabled who would support a living environment and educational and social programs to support the person *and* concern for starving children in the ghetto, and would support improving their economic and social circumstances rather than ignoring all of these issues and tossing all of these children into a garbage can because they are unfortunate enough to no longer be living in some other person's womb.
Yes, let's not.
And there are apparently a huge number of people calling themselves "pro-life" Christians that think it's perfectly okay to wait until a baby is born and then if it dies out of starvation, neglect, etc. then oh well.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
RaymondG
Well-Known Member
- Nov 15, 2016
- 8,545
- 3,816
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Fair enough.....i guess
Now in this case, how do you think a Woman would feel if, after being raped, the religious told her that if she couldnt bare keeping the seed of the rapist in her, that her actions would be viewed just as egregious as the man who just raped her?
Upvote
0
- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The claim was that God killed sinners but He also saved sinners, so the claim is moot.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Silmarien
Existentialist
- Feb 24, 2017
- 4,337
- 5,254
- 38
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Wait, you think women should go to prison for 30 years for suffering miscarriages?
Do you even know what a miscarriage is? I mean, I have heard a lot of crazy stuff on this site, but you've just won the grand prize with this.
Upvote
0
With that consideration, who, then is really at risk in the abortion act?
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. -- Matthew 10:28
The persons at risk of being destroyed soul and body are the woman and the doctor. The baby is actually not in any danger to be feared.
So the concern of the Christian should actually be for the woman and the doctor, and our efforts should be in reaching them to proclaim the love of Christ. What are we doing in that particular regard?
Upvote
0
RaymondG
Well-Known Member
- Nov 15, 2016
- 8,545
- 3,816
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
No... because if a man with an evil intent comes into my home to RAPE my daughter and make my wife watch before raping her... I will kill him and that isn't the same as killing an innocent unborn because your out of wedlock sexcapade became inconvenienced by a baby that now needs to be killed in order to continue your happy little lifestyle.
I see it differently, but unlike yourself, I can see and understand how others can see things a different way.
Man esteems one life higher than others.....accordance to what suits them.....This is one of the issues of Abortion.....Does the babies life have less value than the mother?
You cant say that the mother's well being is not more important than the baby, and then turn around and say your families life is more valuable than the man looking to do harm.
The sinners also love those that love them, and care nothing for the life of the one who would do them harm.
I think one filled with love would be a little different.
While I understand your view...I do not find it righteous. And I do find that the fact that you can devalue a life when it suits your desires....hinders any argument you can have about the value of any other life, beit born or unborn.
Upvote
0
RaymondG
Well-Known Member
- Nov 15, 2016
- 8,545
- 3,816
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Indeed....the moment he thinks his wifes well being may be threatened, he will take out the life of the one who means to threaten it without a second thought.
Yet states that he is against a woman deciding for herself that a baby may threaten their our well being and "ending that life"
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
ICONO'CLAST
Well-Known Member
At the White throne judgment is will be made crystal clear.
but this might help:
Abortion and Exodus 21
Abortion and Exodus 21
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
As traditional values (i.e., biblical values) continue to be systematically extracted from American culture, moral and spiritual confusion have been the inevitable result. While the Bible does not speak directly to the practice of abortion, it does provide enough relevant material to enable us to know God’s will on the matter. One insightful passage from the Old Testament is Exodus 21:22-25, which describes what action is to be taken in a case of accidental, or at least coincidental, injury to a pregnant woman:
If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no lasting harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (NKJV).
Several features of this passage require clarification. First, the NKJV and NIV rendering of the underlying Hebrew as “she gives birth prematurely,” and the KJV and ASV rendering “so that her fruit depart (from her)” are accurate reflections of the original. “Fruit” in the KJV is the noun form of a verb that means “to bring forth (children)” (Schreiner, 1990, 6:76; Harris, et al., 1980, 1:378-379). Thus the noun form (yeled), used 89 times in the Old Testament, refers to that which is brought forth, i.e., children, and is generally so translated (Gesenius, 1847, p. 349; Wigram, 1890, 530-531; cf. VanGemeren, 1997, 2:457). For example, it is used to refer to Ishmael (Genesis 21:8), Moses (Exodus 2:3), Obed, the child of Boaz and Ruth (Ruth 4:16), and even to the Christ child (Isaiah 9:6). It is used in the same context earlier in the chapter to refer to the children born to a Hebrew servant whose wife was provided by his master (Exodus 21:4). There is nothing in the word itself that indicates the physical condition of the child/children, whether dead or alive (cf. 2 Samuel 12:14-23).
Second, the term translated “prematurely” or “depart” (yatsa) is a Hebrew verb that has the broad meaning of “to go out, to go forth” (Gesenius, p. 359). It is used in the Old Testament to refer to everything from soldiers going forth to war (1 Samuel 8:20), or the sun going forth in its rising (Genesis 19:23), to a flower blossoming (Job 14:2) or the birth of a child (Job 1:21). The Hebrew is as generic as the English words “to go out or forth.” As with yeled, there is nothing in the word itself that would imply the physical status of the child—whether unharmed, injured, or dead (cf. Numbers 12:12; Deuteronomy 28:57). For example, referring to the births of Esau and Jacob, the text reads: “And the first came out red…Afterward his brother came out” (Genesis 25:25-26, emp. added). Only by contextual details may one determine the condition of the child.
Consequently, in Exodus 21:22, those translations that render the Hebrew as “miscarriage” (e.g., NASB, RSV, NEB) have taken a linguistically unwarranted and indefensible liberty with the text. Hebrew lexicographers Brown, Driver, and Briggs were accurate in their handling of the underlying Hebrew when they listed Exodus 21:22 as an instance of “untimely birth” (1906, p. 423).
In contrast, the Hebrew had other words more suited to pinpointing a miscarriage or stillbirth. For example, suffering Job moaned: “Or why was I not hidden like a stillborn child, like infants who never saw light?” (Job 3:16, emp. added). The psalmist pronounces imprecation against unrighteous judges: “Let them be like a snail which melts away as it goes, like a stillborn child of a woman, that they may not see the sun” (Psalm 58:8, emp. added). The word used in these verses (nephel), occurring only three times in the Old Testament (cf. Ecclesiastes 6:3-5), is defined by Gesenius as “a premature birth, which falls from the womb, an abortion” (p. 558; cf. Brown, et al., p. 658). In all three contexts, a miscarriage or stillbirth is clearly under consideration.
Still another Hebrew term would have been more suitable to identify deceased offspring. When Jacob protested his father-in-law’s unkindness, he exclaimed, “These twenty years I have been with you; your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried their young” (Genesis 31:38, emp. added; cf. Job 21:10). Hosea called upon God to punish the nation: “Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts!” (Hosea 9:14, emp. added). In fact, just two chapters after the text in question, God announced to the Israelites details regarding the conquest of the Canaan and the blessings that they would enjoy: “No one shall suffer miscarriage or be barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days” (Exodus 23:26, emp. added). The underlying Hebrew verb in these verses (shachol) means “to cause abortion (in women, flocks, etc.)” or “to make abortion, i.e., to suffer it” (Gesenius, p. 822; cf. Brown, et al., p. 1013). Despite these more precise terms to pinpoint miscarriage or stillbirth, Moses did not use them in Exodus 21:22.
Third, consider the next phrase in the verse in question: “yet no lasting harm follows” (NKJV), “but there is no serious injury” (NIV), “and yet no harm follow” (ASV). These English renderings capture the Hebrew accurately. Absolutely no grammatical indication exists in the text by which one could assume the recipient of the injury to be either the mother or the child to the exclusion of the other. As Fishbane observed: “it is syntactically and grammatically unclear whether the object of the ‘calamity’ is the foetus or the pregnant mother” (1985, p. 93). In order to allow Scripture to stand on its own and speak for itself, one must conclude that to understand “injury” to refer exclusively to the mother is to narrow the meaning without textual justification.
Hence, one is forced to conclude that the absence of specificity was deliberate on the part of the inspired writer and that he intended for the reader to conclude that the prescription applied to both mother and child. The wording is, therefore, the most appropriate and economical if the writer intended to convey all possible scenarios without having to go into tedious elaboration—which would have included at least the following eight combinations: (1) non-lethal injury to the child but no injury to the mother; (2) non-lethal injury to the mother but no injury to the child; (3) non-lethal injury to both; (4) death to the child but no injury to the mother; (5) death to the child with non-lethal injury to the mother; (6) death to the mother with no injury to the child; (7) death to the mother with non-lethal injury to the child; and (8) death to both mother and child. Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer Jr. summarized the point of the passage:
What is required is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life (ne-pes’) of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule (1982, p. 248, emp. added).
Numerous commentators agree with this assessment of the text. Responding to the poor translation of the Hebrew in the Septuagint, and the corresponding misconception of the Alexandrian Jew, Philo, Keil and Delitzsch correctly countered: “But the arbitrary character of this explanation is apparent at once; for yeled only denotes a child, as a fully developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it has assumed a human form” (1976, pp. 134-135). They also insisted that the structure of the Hebrew phraseology “apparently renders it impracticable to refer the words to injury done to the woman alone” (p. 135). Walter Kaiser noted: “For the accidental assault, the offender must still pay some compensation, even though both mother and child survived…. Should the pregnant woman or her child die, the principle of talio is invoked, demanding ‘life for life’ ” (1990, 2:434, emp. added). In view of this understanding of the text, under Mosaic Law “the unborn child would be considered viable in utero and entitled to legal protection and benefits” (Fishbane, p. 93).
In his Treatise on the Soul (ch. 37), Tertullian (who died c. A.D. 220) alluded to this passage in Exodus 21: “The embryo therefore becomes a human being in the womb from the moment that its form is completed [i.e., at conception—DM]. The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion, inasmuch as there exists already the rudiment of a human being, which has imputed to it even now the condition of life and death” (1973, 3:217-218).
So Exodus 21 envisioned a situation in which two brawling men accidentally injure a pregnant bystander. The injury causes the woman to go into early labor, resulting in a premature birth of her child. If neither the woman nor the child is harmed, then the Law of Moses levied a fine against the one who caused the premature birth. But if injury or even death resulted from the brawl, then the law imposed a parallel punishment: if the premature baby died, the one who caused the premature birth was to be executed—life for life. To cause a pre-born infant’s death was homicide under the Old Testament—homicide punishable by death.
Notice that this Mosaic regulation had to do with injury inflicted indirectly and accidentally: “The phrasing of the case suggests that we are dealing with an instance of unintentional battery involving culpability” (Fishbane, 1985, p. 92). Abortion, on the other hand, is a deliberate, purposeful, intentional termination of a child’s life. If God dealt severely with the accidental death of a pre-born infant, how do you suppose He feels about the deliberate murder of the unborn by an abortion doctor in collusion with the mother? The Bible states explicitly how He feels: “[D]o not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked” (Exodus 23:7). As a matter of fact, one of the things that God hates is “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17; cf. 2 Kings 8:12; 15:16; Hosea 13:16; Amos 1:13). Abortion is a serious matter with God. We absolutely must base our views on God’s will—not the will of men. The very heart and soul of this great nation is being ripped out by unethical actions like abortion. We must return to the Bible as our standard of behavior—before it is everlastingly too late.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
