I keep being told that God objects to abortion...

pescador said:

Putting all abortions under one definition is like putting all cancer operations under one definition.

Click to expand...

Very well, but I'm not the one who is saying he approves of abortion as it currently stands under the law...but has to defend that position by picking and choosing among the reasons for having an abortion and, also, among the various types of abortions being committed/performed.

I

@SPF OK I will give you props on the miscarriage word. I did a word search on miscarriage in Hebrew, and read up on Nephel. That still doesn't change the long term health prospects of the child as far as infant mortality rates go for premature babies, which were high even into modern times.

pescador said:

Putting all abortions under one definition is like putting all cancer operations under one definition.

If you want to have a discussion like "the sky is falling! The sky is falling" without having an open mind, what is the point?

Many abortions are medically necessary. The people who choose to abort and the people who perform the abortions are most often caring adults who must make a very difficult decision. They don't need fire-and-brimstone, holier-than-thou "Christians" screaming hatred at them (the opposite of loving your neighbor).

Click to expand...

Statistically speaking, 98.5% of abortions are performed for non-medical, convenience reasons. When I talk about the morality of abortion, I specifically state that I'm referring to the 98.5% of abortions which are performed for convenience reasons. I would think as Christians we should be able to agree that these are immoral.

Pavel Mosko said:

@SPF OK I will give you props on the miscarriage word. I did a word search on miscarriage in Hebrew, and read up on Nephel. That still doesn't change the long term health prospects of the child as far as infant mortality rates go for premature babies, which were high even into modern times.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right about the high infant mortality rate that existed for premature babies. Heck, the infant mortality rate has been high for all infants until recently. But unless I'm mistaken, a high infant mortality rate has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of abortion.

SPF said:

Statistically speaking, 98.5% of abortions are performed for non-medical, convenience reasons. When I talk about the morality of abortion, I specifically state that I'm referring to the 98.5% of abortions which are performed for convenience reasons. I would think as Christians we should be able to agree that these are immoral.

<snip>

Click to expand...

What is the source of your information when you say "Statistically speaking, 98.5% of abortions are performed for non-medical, convenience reasons."

If you can't provide a neutral, credible source for this statement, nobody should pay attention to it.

Semper-Fi said:

These are the very attitudes that lead to illicit sex,
unwanted babies and brutal abortions—all signs that
confirm we are living in the last days.

Click to expand...

Jesus and the Apostles confirmed for us in myriad scriptures that THEY were living in the last days.

Were they wrong?

And if its always been the last days since then, how does any event today prove we are living in the last days? Couldn't we simply point to scripture to show its been the last days for 2000 years? Are not events of Today absolutely meaningless and unusable for determining whether or not we are in "the last days", if it's plainly been "the last days" for thousands of years?

Was there ever a time between the apostolic generation and today that was NOT the Last Days?

And, Should there be another 1000 years of "these last days" yet to go by, does it change the fact that today we are living in the last days just the same as those in the year 1000 were living in the last days, just the same as those in the year AD58 were living in the last days?

Can the term "the last days" truly have any discernable meaning if they go on and on for multiple millennia?

If someone from the year 957 said "Illicit sex, unwanted babies and brutal Abortions happening today prove the end is near & we are living in the last days", would they have been wrong?

pescador said:

What is the source of your information when you say "Statistically speaking, 98.5% of abortions are performed for non-medical, convenience reasons."

If you can't provide a neutral, credible source for this statement, nobody should pay attention to it.

Click to expand...

I've pretty much stopped paying attention to it. This whole thread is saturated with a lot of emotional kneejerk and hysteria and very little credibility (including scriptural credibility) or reason or common sense.

pescador said:

What is the source of your information when you say "Statistically speaking, 98.5% of abortions are performed for non-medical, convenience reasons."

If you can't provide a neutral, credible source for this statement, nobody should pay attention to it.

Click to expand...

If you find this topic interesting, it isn't difficult to look up data yourself. I'll give you some numbers, feel free to look them up and confirm for yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.

A survey of more than 120,000 aborting women performed by the states of Louisiana, Nebraska and Utah was taken, here are the results:

• Total Number of Abortions: 122,083
  • Rape and Incest: 273 ( 0.22%)
  • Mother’s Life or Physical Health 513 ( 0.42%)
  • Birth Defects 250 ( 0.20%)
  • All Other Reasons: 121,047 (99.16%)

From a Christian perspective, I would even go so far as to say that the abortions performed due to rape/incest and birth defects were immoral. But even if you don't, in these three states, 99.16% of abortions were performed for convenience reasons.

Florida is also a state that gives good statistics. They regularly track the reasons for abortions. There were about 70,000 abortions performed in Florida in 2018. And guess what, fewer than 0.3% occurred due to the mother's life being in danger. 1% were performed due to serious fetal abnormalities, 0.14% were due to rape, and 0.01% were due to incest.

So again, in Florida the story is the same, 99% of abortions were performed for convenience reasons.

The statistics are well known and well documented. This isn't anything new.

For a Christian, the acknowledgment that the vast majority of all abortions, which are performed for convenience reasons, are immoral, shouldn't be difficult.

bekkilyn said:

I've pretty much stopped paying attention to it. This whole thread is saturated with a lot of emotional kneejerk and hysteria and very little credibility (including scriptural credibility) or reason or common sense.

Click to expand...

Actually, I've found a lot of what you have said to be arguments with very little credibility that stand any sort of rational test. I'm not surprised though after being called out that this is your response. Often people who don't have a good response will try ad hominem attacks.

See my reply #136 as an example of a post where you were addressed and couldn't come up with a reasonable response.

SPF said:

Actually, I've found a lot of what you have said to be arguments with very little credibility that stand any sort of rational test. I'm not surprised though after being called out that this is your response. Often people who don't have a good response will try ad hominem attacks.

See my reply #136 as an example of a post where you were addressed and couldn't come up with a reasonable response.

Click to expand...

Strange, I don't recall making any sort of response to your post, reasonable or otherwise, and thus it couldn't possibly be any sort of attack on you specifically. Do you sincerely believe it would be valuable for me to respond to your comments because I can already predict that I won't be actually listened to, and I'd be presented with more "facts" (opinions) that aren't backed by actual evidence or even any real, personal experience, and at least one other person would throw in one of the same three, dubious bible verses that I've already addressed 15 times already only to be ignored once again, and with the further expectation for me to spend even more time repeating myself.

And then there would be at least two or three others performing the equivalent of Sally Struthers back in the 70's with tears running down her race on TV pleading for us to "think of the children!" But then there's the difference that she had actual children to be concerned about versus an imaginary issue dreamed up by (primarily) men who can't stand to not be in control over everything and everyone.

So why don't you tell me why I should need to feel obligated to spend time continuing to respond to the people in this thread simply because you feel personally offended at my lack of response?

SPF said:

If you find this topic interesting, it isn't difficult to look up data yourself. I'll give you some numbers, feel free to look them up and confirm for yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.

A survey of more than 120,000 aborting women performed by the states of Louisiana, Nebraska and Utah was taken, here are the results:

• Total Number of Abortions: 122,083
  • Rape and Incest: 273 ( 0.22%)
  • Mother’s Life or Physical Health 513 ( 0.42%)
  • Birth Defects 250 ( 0.20%)
  • All Other Reasons: 121,047 (99.16%)

From a Christian perspective, I would even go so far as to say that the abortions performed due to rape/incest and birth defects were immoral. But even if you don't, in these three states, 99.16% of abortions were performed for convenience reasons.

Florida is also a state that gives good statistics. They regularly track the reasons for abortions. There were about 70,000 abortions performed in Florida in 2018. And guess what, fewer than 0.3% occurred due to the mother's life being in danger. 1% were performed due to serious fetal abnormalities, 0.14% were due to rape, and 0.01% were due to incest.

So again, in Florida the story is the same, 99% of abortions were performed for convenience reasons.

The statistics are well known and well documented. This isn't anything new.

For a Christian, the acknowledgment that the vast majority of all abortions, which are performed for convenience reasons, are immoral, shouldn't be difficult.

Click to expand...

Anyone can cite data from sources without naming them and/or proving their reliability. For example, I'll claim that in Utah, 97.3% of abortions were for medical reasons. No source given, so true or false?

bekkilyn said:

Strange, I don't recall making any sort of response to your post, reasonable or otherwise, and thus it couldn't possibly be any sort of attack on you specifically. Do you sincerely believe it would be valuable for me to respond to your comments because I can already predict that I won't be actually listened to, and I'd be presented with more "facts" (opinions) that aren't backed by actual evidence or even any real, personal experience, and at least one other person would throw in one of the same three, dubious bible verses that I've already addressed 15 times already only to be ignored once again, and with the further expectation for me to spend even more time repeating myself.

And then there would be at least two or three others performing the equivalent of Sally Struthers back in the 70's with tears running down her race on TV pleading for us to "think of the children!" But then there's the difference that she had actual children to be concerned about versus an imaginary issue dreamed up by (primarily) men who can't stand to not be in control over everything and everyone.

So why don't you tell me why I should need to feel obligated to spend time continuing to respond to the people in this thread simply because you feel personally offended at my lack of response?

Click to expand...

From what I've read of your contributions, you aren't providing any facts, but parroting misleading and flat out false assertions.

For example, you said:

Murder requires the killing of another *person*. A fertilized egg, as one example, is not a person.

Click to expand...

This line of reasoning is one that pro-abortion advocates use. The attempt to fabricate a distinction between a human being and a human person is only done so that an action can be performed against the human non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral.

This distinction is subjective, arbitrary, and the "line" between a human being and a human person is arbitrarily determined by whoever the person is making the argument.

Furthermore, you said:

They are genetically human, but they aren't viable human persons (which is what murder would require), at least up to some point of physical development when practically no one would dispute it and there can and likely should be some debate as to where and under what conditions to draw the line. But when we are simply talking about a fertilized egg or an embryo, no.

Click to expand...

Scientifically speaking, there is no line. It doesn't exist. Scientifically speaking, a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. You are discriminating against a human being and attempting to deny them moral value based upon their level of development. God doesn't discriminate, why are you?

pescador said:

Anyone can cite data from sources without naming them and/or proving their reliability. For example, I'll claim that in Utah, 97.3% of abortions were for medical reasons. No source given, so true or false?

Click to expand...

Sure, and as I said, this isn't some mysterious, secretive data. I'm not your clerk, please feel free to do some research yourself if you would like. If you want to believe that I just made up all that statistical data, feel free.

Back to my point. While there are many different secondary beliefs between Christians, one belief that still seems to be universal among Christians is the belief that human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

Our moral worth and value stem not from ourselves, but from the immutable, perfect character of God.

All human beings, regardless of age, race, gender, nationality, mental development, etc... are equally created in the Image of God. Does anyone believe that we have to somehow grow into our moral value? Where is that supported in Scripture?

Human development takes about 25 years. Yet at no point during our development are we not a human being!

So again, the argument is simple, yet profound.

1. All human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.
2. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.
3. Intentionally killing an innocent human being is morally wrong.

Conclusion: The 98.5% of abortions performed for convenience reasons are immoral.

SPF said:

You're absolutely right about the high infant mortality rate that existed for premature babies. Heck, the infant mortality rate has been high for all infants until recently. But unless I'm mistaken, a high infant mortality rate has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of abortion.

Click to expand...

We agree. But I was never arguing for abortion. At the top of my post, I said I was conservative and against it. I was arguing for an accurate representation of the Bible, etc. on social issues.
Years ago, I had this one Facebook acquaintance minister friend talking about pedophilia in ancient times especially in Ancient Rome I was completely with him, until he eventually overstated and exaggerated things saying "the Romans (pagans) never loved their children until they became Christian". At that, I had disagree because it was an exaggeration etc. and if I would have thought about it I would have even quoted him a Bible passage that really went against his position, 13So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him! (The pagans had many problems but it is hard to argue that they never had affection for their children etc. having a flawed love is not the same as having no love etc.).


One of the words for Truth in the Bible is the word "Alethia" that describes truth in the objective sense, as far as something that is factual, reflecting reality etc. To many times this gets lost out because people are too vested in persuading people to their side that they demagogue, exaggerate, and do other things that can ultimately undermine their position for those that are knowledgeable and are paying attention.

Their is a saying that I heard long ago that I took to heart, "How you win people over, is what you win them over to."

bekkilyn said:

Strange, I don't recall making any sort of response to your post, reasonable or otherwise, and thus it couldn't possibly be any sort of attack on you specifically. Do you sincerely believe it would be valuable for me to respond to your comments because I can already predict that I won't be actually listened to, and I'd be presented with more "facts" (opinions) that aren't backed by actual evidence or even any real, personal experience, and at least one other person would throw in one of the same three, dubious bible verses that I've already addressed 15 times already only to be ignored once again, and with the further expectation for me to spend even more time repeating myself.

And then there would be at least two or three others performing the equivalent of Sally Struthers back in the 70's with tears running down her race on TV pleading for us to "think of the children!" But then there's the difference that she had actual children to be concerned about versus an imaginary issue dreamed up by (primarily) men who can't stand to not be in control over everything and everyone.

So why don't you tell me why I should need to feel obligated to spend time continuing to respond to the people in this thread simply because you feel personally offended at my lack of response?

Click to expand...

There’s been several cases of men being charged with double homicide for killing pregnant women and men convicted of murder for causing a miscarriage.

RDKirk said:

Different situation, different covenant. God does make the call in either case.

Abortion and infanticide are not compatible with the lifestyle Christ requires of Christians.

That does not, however, suggest that Christians have a mission to use the sheriff's gun to force pagans to act like Christians.

Click to expand...

I don't see any consistently in Christianity on not using the sheriff's gun to force pagans to act like Christians. From my perspective, just about all Christians have certain things that they will gladly use the sheriff's gun to force pagans into compliance with their particular Christian mores. That they are often likely to contend that their particular agenda item is not a Christian more at all is a rationalization from my point of view.

grasping the after wind said:

I don't see any consistently in Christianity on not using the sheriff's gun to force pagans to act like Christians. From my perspective, just about all Christians have certain things that they will gladly use the sheriff's gun to force pagans into compliance with their particular Christian mores. That they are often likely to contend that their particular agenda item is not a Christian more at all is a rationalization from my point of view.

Click to expand...

Well Christians aren’t allowed to compromise when it comes to God’s word. We aren’t allowed to condone sinful acts.

BNR32FAN said:

Well Christians aren’t allowed to compromise when it comes to God’s word. We aren’t allowed to condone sinful acts.

Click to expand...

Too bad Christians can't all seem to agree on what is and isn't a sinful act. I don't ask anyone to condone a sinful act. What I am pointing out is that if one is going to condemn using the force of government to make others comply with a religious belief then one should consistently oppose using government force to make others comply with religious beliefs. I do not see such consistency at all among the Christian population. Likewise if one is in favor of using the force of government to enforce one specific religious belief upon the entire populace, one should not then use the argument that using the force of government to enforce a different specific religious belief is inappropriate.

Pavel Mosko said:

We agree. But I was never arguing for abortion. At the top of my post, I said I was conservative and against it. I was arguing for an accurate representation of the Bible, etc. on social issues.
Years ago, I had this one Facebook acquaintance minister friend talking about pedophilia in ancient times especially in Ancient Rome I was completely with him, until he eventually overstated and exaggerated things saying "the Romans (pagans) never loved their children until they became Christian". At that, I had disagree because it was an exaggeration etc. and if I would have thought about it I would have even quoted him a Bible passage that really went against his position, 13So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him! (The pagans had many problems but it is hard to argue that they never had affection for their children etc. having a flawed love is not the same as having no love etc.).


One of the words for Truth in the Bible is the word "Alethia" that describes truth in the objective sense, as far as something that is factual, reflecting reality etc. To many times this gets lost out because people are too vested in persuading people to their side that they demagogue, exaggerate, and do other things that can ultimately undermine their position for those that are knowledgeable and are paying attention.

Their is a saying that I heard long ago that I took to heart, "How you win people over, is what you win them over to."

Click to expand...

Thanks for that reply, and I agree with you completely. For me, I strive to maintain intellectual and spiritual integrity and maintain a belief system that is consistent, and founded first and foremost upon the moral commands and principles found in Scripture.

God is immutable, perfect in character. Morality stems from His character. The only reason we have the capacity to even claim that something is right or wrong is because right and wrong stem from God's perfect character. If man was the measure of morality, morality would be subjective as no man possesses any more inherent authority over another.

So when I look at the topic of abortion, it honestly seems simple to me. Scientifically we now know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. Biblically, I don't see it as controversial to believe that all human beings are equally created in the Image of God and equally, at all times, possess inherent moral worth and value.

With just those two simple Truths, how can any Christian be OK with the 98.5% of abortions performed for convenience reasons? I think we overly complicate an otherwise clear situation.

SPF said:

From what I've read of your contributions, you aren't providing any facts, but parroting misleading and flat out false assertions.

For example, you said: This line of reasoning is one that pro-abortion advocates use. The attempt to fabricate a distinction between a human being and a human person is only done so that an action can be performed against the human non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral.

This distinction is subjective, arbitrary, and the "line" between a human being and a human person is arbitrarily determined by whoever the person is making the argument.

Furthermore, you said: Scientifically speaking, there is no line. It doesn't exist. Scientifically speaking, a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. You are discriminating against a human being and attempting to deny them moral value based upon their level of development. God doesn't discriminate, why are you?

Sure, and as I said, this isn't some mysterious, secretive data. I'm not your clerk, please feel free to do some research yourself if you would like. If you want to believe that I just made up all that statistical data, feel free.

Back to my point. While there are many different secondary beliefs between Christians, one belief that still seems to be universal among Christians is the belief that human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

Our moral worth and value stem not from ourselves, but from the immutable, perfect character of God.

All human beings, regardless of age, race, gender, nationality, mental development, etc... are equally created in the Image of God. Does anyone believe that we have to somehow grow into our moral value? Where is that supported in Scripture?

Human development takes about 25 years. Yet at no point during our development are we not a human being!

So again, the argument is simple, yet profound.

1. All human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.
2. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.
3. Intentionally killing an innocent human being is morally wrong.

Conclusion: The 98.5% of abortions performed for convenience reasons are immoral.

Click to expand...

Your conclusion doesn't fit the 1-2-3 arguments.

Aside from that repetitive error, let's look at three situations...

1) God killed all the firstborn of Egypt. If all people are created by God and precious to Him, how do you explain this mass murder of children?

2) God permitted Herod to kill all the firstborn males 2 years of age and younger. If every life is precious, why did God allow this to happen?

3) God let the first generation that left Egypt die in the wilderness without reaching the land promised to them.

3) Stephen was martyred; why didn't God prevent this from happening? Others were also killed for their faith in a similar fashion.

So, your argument that all life is precious to God doesn't stand up to Biblical truth in light of the above.

Jeremiah 31:15 and Matthew 2:18, "This is what the Lord says: “A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”

SPF said:

From what I've read of your contributions, you aren't providing any facts, but parroting misleading and flat out false assertions.

For example, you said: This line of reasoning is one that pro-abortion advocates use. The attempt to fabricate a distinction between a human being and a human person is only done so that an action can be performed against the human non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral.

This distinction is subjective, arbitrary, and the "line" between a human being and a human person is arbitrarily determined by whoever the person is making the argument.

Furthermore, you said: Scientifically speaking, there is no line. It doesn't exist. Scientifically speaking, a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. You are discriminating against a human being and attempting to deny them moral value based upon their level of development. God doesn't discriminate, why are you?

Sure, and as I said, this isn't some mysterious, secretive data. I'm not your clerk, please feel free to do some research yourself if you would like. If you want to believe that I just made up all that statistical data, feel free.

Back to my point. While there are many different secondary beliefs between Christians, one belief that still seems to be universal among Christians is the belief that human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

Our moral worth and value stem not from ourselves, but from the immutable, perfect character of God.

All human beings, regardless of age, race, gender, nationality, mental development, etc... are equally created in the Image of God. Does anyone believe that we have to somehow grow into our moral value? Where is that supported in Scripture?

Human development takes about 25 years. Yet at no point during our development are we not a human being!

So again, the argument is simple, yet profound.

1. All human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.
2. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.
3. Intentionally killing an innocent human being is morally wrong.

Conclusion: The 98.5% of abortions performed for convenience reasons are immoral.

Click to expand...

Your basic assumption here seems to be that a person is the same as the physical substance of a physical body, so that once there is no longer a physical body or any part of one, the person as such entirely ceases to exist. I reject this argument. We *have* bodies in order to live a physical existence, but we are not our bodies. There is no personhood in a fertilized egg or embryo. It's a vessel of clay (speaking metaphorically) that one day may contain a person.

And if we are going to talk morality under some assumption that an embryo is a person, then why not talk about why it is moral for one person to use the body and resources of another person against that other person's will? Just because a person may die without some other person donating its resources to it doesn't mean that the other person has any moral obligation to do so. While we may have a right to life as human beings, we do not have the right to life at the cost of the autonomy and lives of other people. We can ask, of course, but they don't owe us their agreement and they aren't guilty of murder or anything else for refusing.

The fact that an embryo is "innocent" is irrelevant. If it's going to be recognized as a person at all, then it needs to abide by the same rules and limitations as actual persons.

But none of this has anything to do with the OP. God hasn't made his opinion known on the topic and those who have declared "God's will" one way or the other by misusing scripture out of context to "prove" something that's not there are creating a god in their own image. There are no bible verses to present as proof. Arguments of morality based on non-existent bible verses are irrelevant. Even arguments based on bible verses are irrelevant when taking into consideration culture as a whole since Christians are in the minority and becoming even more of a minority, and thus most people don't even care what the bible supposedly says about anything, so you're not going to convince non-Christians unless you come up with reasonable arguments that aren't based on religion or personal opinion. And when that religious belief or personal opinion threatens the lives, freedom, choices, and autonomy of others, then don't be surprised when they push back.

bekkilyn said:

And if we are going to talk morality under some assumption that an embryo is a person, then why not talk about why it is moral for one person to use the body and resources of another person against that other person's will? Just because a person may die without some other person donating its resources to it doesn't mean that the other person has any moral obligation to do so. While we may have a right to life as human beings, we do not have the right to life at the cost of the autonomy and lives of other people. We can ask, of course, but they don't owe us their agreement and they aren't guilty of murder or anything else for refusing.

The fact that an embryo is "innocent" is irrelevant. If it's going to be recognized as a person at all, then it needs to abide by the same rules and limitations as actual persons.

Click to expand...

Excellent Point.
If I need a Kidney or I'll Die, and you @SPF, are a donor match, should you be required by law to give me one of your Kidneys?