Can a Christian make the following statement in good faith?

Xeno.of.athens said:

Can a Christian make the following statement in good faith?

I will never have an abortion nor would I advise another person to have one nor would I go out of my way to assist a person to have one. Yet I do not support the state making laws to criminalise the act of abortion for those who participate in an abortion in any capacity that I can think of.​

Please, when replying, do not make this into a pro-abortion vs anti-abortion debate. The intention is to ask if a faithful Christian can hold both that abortion is morally unacceptable and also that the state ought not to legislate to make a pregnant woman, her doctor, the nurses and other support persons into criminals because they participated in an abortion.

Click to expand...

Xeno.of.athens said:

I do not know why the law is as it is or even if the law really does allow a charge of double murder if a person kills a pregnant woman.

Click to expand...

Xeno.of.athens said:

What you say is true. How does it bear upon the question in the original post?

Click to expand...

DamianWarS said:

anything that leads us away from Christ leads to death. there are a lot of rights within a system that leads away from Christ but just because I disagree with it morally doesn't mean I don't recognize its role in a free society. If we support these freedoms then we support the right to reject Christ which is tantamount to choosing death over life. Does an unborn child have more value than a 40yr atheist? it would be inconsistent to judge one as more worthy than another but if we reject the right to choose death for one why do we not also reject the right to choose death for another? in the end the legal system is not there to save people so it will come to conclusions that will be inconsistent with our faith and regardless what the laws allows or rejects Christ still calls us to spread his life-giving message to those on a path to death. America is not the new Israel so let's recognize that the legal system is not an extension of our faith and the right to choose abortion is completely consistent with a free society which is what the law is more motivated to uphold.

Click to expand...

Michie said:

Myth: Treatment for ectopic pregnancy is considered an abortion, and thus many women will likely die from lack of treatment in states where abortion is illegal.

Ectopic pregnancies occur when an embryo implants outside the uterus, usually in the fallopian tube. Though relatively rare, the most recent data available from the CDC shows the rate of ectopic pregnancies increasing to about 1.4% as of 2013, and may today be as high as 2%.

Once implanted, the embryo’s growth is likely to rupture the fallopian tube, which can cause the death of both mother and child. And whether treatment is done or not, the embryo is highly unlikely to survive.

There are three common medical procedures to address ectopic pregnancies, two surgical and one involving a drug. In all of the procedures, the embryo dies. From a Catholic perspective, direct abortion — the intentional killing of an unborn baby — is never permitted, but a procedure to save a woman‘s life that has the unintended effect of an unborn baby’s death is morally permissible.

But medical professionals have noted that virtually every state regulation or ban on abortion contains an explicit exception for ectopic pregnancy treatment — which, again, is generally not considered the same as an abortion.

True enough, some recent state legislative proposals — which have garnered frenzied media attention — have included references to ectopic pregnancy that have worried some medical professionals for their ambiguity. But state legislatures have taken steps to address this issue and make sure that ectopic pregnancy treatments are allowed and accessible.

For example, a Louisiana bill under consideration would treat abortion as a homicide, and originally did not carve out an explicit protection for ectopic pregnancy treatment. However, a companion Louisiana bill, from pro-life Democrat Katrina Jackson, explicitly states that ectopic pregnancy treatments are not illegal under Louisiana’s abortion ban.

Continued below.
How to Debunk 7 Common Myths About Overturning Roe v. Wade

Click to expand...

Skye1300 said:

Well, doesn't ANY law or anything that's illegal infringe upon a person's free will? You can say that about anything that's illegal. So why not just abolish all laws and live in a completely free society? After all, who's to say that just because I see robbing a bank as wrong doesn't mean everyone has to see it that way. What about the person who feels he has a right to the money the bank owns? Who are we to impose our morals on him in a free society?
How come when it comes to abortion people say we need to be in a free society that respects everyone's beliefs, but when it comes to other horrible things it's perfectly fine to impose our beliefs on people and make other things illegal? People who are against making abortions illegal, why aren't you against other laws that make other things illegal? After all, people should have the right to choose whether they want to rob a bank or not right? Just because I see it as wrong, why should I get to tell someone else that robbing a bank is wrong? What if they need that money for medicine or to save someone's life? Then should bank robbing be all right? I mean we need to live in a free society right? So why make any laws at all then? Just let everybody make their own choices of what they think is right or wrong regardless of who their choices might hurt or kill.
Who are we to tell people they can't drink and drive? We should live in a free society where people get to choose for themself if driving while drunk is okay. Isn't that a law telling people what they can or can't do with their own body? Same with drug use. Who are we to tell people they can't put illegal drugs in their body? Shouldn't they have the right to choose that for themselves? Their body, their choice, right? We should live in a free society where people are able to freely choose to use illegal drugs if they want to. So make drug use legal while you're making abortion legal. We live in a free society right?
People who say abortion should be legal are hypocrites if they stand behind any other laws because ALL laws take away people's right to choose. All laws tell people what they can or can't do with their body. What about people who believe they have to right to walk around naked? Isn't a law requiring shoes and a shirt telling people what to do with their body? Isn't that infringing on their freedom of choice? Where's the free society we're supposed to live in then? You're either for a free society and choice where there are no laws, or you're for laws. You can't have it both ways. People need laws to tell them to do the right thing because not everyone has morals or make good choices. People are not instinctively good. People are selfish and sinful. A free society is an unsafe society for everyone.

Click to expand...

Xeno.of.athens said:

Would your view mean that gun laws need to be written that will stop people owning any guns because owning guns and especially owning guns that can rapidly fire certainly does contribute to the number of people killed by mass shootings.

Click to expand...

BNR32FAN said:

Why should we think that the state cannot criminalize abortion? This seems like a separation of church & state idea which isn’t actually biblical it’s secular.

Click to expand...

Xeno.of.athens said:

I see your concern. The post arose from a meandering stream of theology running this way and that from the basic question posted in the Original Post of this discussion thread. In summary the meander arrived here by asking

Isn't it the duty of a Christian to protect the innocent even if they are not yet born. So wouldn't a Christian who would not have an abortion nor advise anyone to have one nor aid anyone to have an abortion logically also want to have the law of the land phrased in such a way that it will help to protect the innocent, unborn infants in the womb, from acts that will kill some infants in the womb.​

And from that line of reasoning comes the question about the government protecting "the right to remain alive" over a supposed "right to avoid inconvenience", which the interlocutor whose post I answered raised as an objection to the Original Post's framing of the legislation question.

I hope that explains how we got to the issue of a government's responsibility to protect "the right to remain alive" of the innocent from "the right to avoid inconvenience" - as for example, the inconvenience of not owning guns just because you want to own them being overruled by "the right to remain alive" of mass killing victims.

Click to expand...

fhansen said:

We seem to be a bit schizophrenic about all this. 38 states have laws that consider the killing of an unborn child during the commission of a crime to be homicide. The federal government likewise recognizes this fact for its own purposes. It seems it all depends on whether the child is wanted or not. Strange. Abortion is fascism against the unborn. Systematic legalized genocide by the irresponsible usually for convenience.

Click to expand...

pescador said:

I understand basic human biology, especially of the female sex, very, very well. Do you think that personal criticism will get you very far in this discussion (or any other)?

FYI, rape and incest can and do produce unwanted pregnancies. What is your solution to pregnancies that are the result of those acts?

Click to expand...

BravoM said:

You've shown you don't and another fact, arguing from a marginal stance does not define the majority.
When pregnancies happen from these small groups at even lower rates they do not define the rest.
No marginalized group defines anything than what they are. The normal are planned and unplanned pregnancies where the child is NOT killed.

Click to expand...

Xeno.of.athens said:

Can a Christian make the following statement in good faith?

Click to expand...