Abortion.

[Nihilist Virus]

It is my understanding that American Christians are generally against abortion for the following reason:

Every fetus has a soul, and as such every fetus is a human being. Therefore abortion is murder or at least homicide in some form.

I find this view to be generally consistent with the Bible.

However, it seems to me that there is near unanimous agreement among Christians that the aborted babies are all taken to heaven:

1.) The unborn are apparently sinless by default

2.) Romans 2:12 appears to absolve those who have not heard the gospel, so logically babies should be absolved (assuming they have even sinned, which apparently is a nonsensical notion)

3.) I believe most Christians would abhor the idea of God sending the unborn to hell

Therefore, in terms of consequences, abortions must be considered a generally good thing in the Christian worldview even if the act of abortion is contrary to God's will.

Furthermore, those who believe in the rapture presumably believe that God will commit abortions en mass in that event:

I'm not certain how many Christians actually believe in the rapture, but it is the form of Christianity that I once knew. Let's assume that worldview for the moment. Whether we take the pre-, mid-, or post-tribulation view, there will still be some point in which pregnant women who are unbelievers will have their unborn children snatched up. Provided you accept my reasoning above (that all unborn children do not go to hell, and hence go to heaven), and provided we can agree that anyone who is destined for heaven (even if they don't believe in the gospel) will be included in the rapture, it follows that God will remove the unborn from women and this by definition is abortion. Perhaps there is some disagreement as to whether or not the rapture will include those who are unborn, those who are not yet of the age of accountability, or those who have not yet heard the gospel.

My last point on this issue is that abortion seems to be Biblical, at least in some circumstances. Read Numbers 5:11-31 to satisfy yourself that I am not taking the Bible out of context here, and then focus on verse 27:

NIV
If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.

KJV
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

Now, it is vague to say that "her thigh shall rot." But you'll notice that in verse 28, it says that if she is found to be innocent then she will remain fertile (presuming, I suppose, that she already was). So verse 28, combined with what is stated in the NIV, combined with the fact that this passage is about marital jealousy, leads me to characterize the verse as follows:

My interpretation
Suppose the woman is discovered to be an adulteress. Then she will become permanently barren. If she is currently pregnant, she will miscarry. This rule is in place so that a man does not have to raise a child that is not his own.

Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding what is being stated here. I can't and won't debate you here, but please don't give me the whole "Old Testament" line. I just want to know whether or not there was some time, place, and situational context in which Jehovah sanctioned abortion. If you are a pro-life Christian and you believe that God did indeed sanction abortions at some point, then I'd like to know why you are against abortion (particularly if you also believe that the unborn child goes straight to heaven). I'd prefer that you give me a point of view that I can appreciate as an atheist.

And of course, as an atheist, I'm well aware that I can't bring up abortion on a Christian forum without having to explain or defend my position on the subject as well. My position is simple: it is wrong to kill anything that is alive. I'm aware that by this logic I shouldn't even be eating plants. I'm aware that this philosophy does not carry any practicality into today's reality. But I believe in the future of the human race, and I believe that one day there will be no need to abort fetuses (for various reasons relating to technological advancement) and in that society it would be a needlessly violent act. Perhaps one day we will no longer need to kill living things and eat them in order to survive, and in such a world eating a salad would be immoral. Seeing as how I generally do not look glowingly on people of the ancient world who perpetrated many violent and inhumane atrocities, I view myself through the eyes of a person from the future and I see that I am committing evils every day. I acknowledge that it is wrong to eat anything that is alive, and yet I continue to do so. So in that context I believe that while it is wrong to commit abortion, we as a society have absolutely no right to moderate this behavior in women any more than we would say that a father must, under penalty of law, stand his ground and fight to the death to protect his family rather than flee a situation to save himself. Every human, at least in this profane era, must have the right to defend his or her self at any cost.

I would like to close with a potential solution. Perhaps we can move toward the future a bit faster. I don't know where you're from, but in America we stand for death at every turn. Abortion, meat, and the death penalty are all legal; it is only fitting that human cloning, a process in which new life is created, is illegal. I think this is the exact opposite of how it should be. So if you are truly against abortion, why not start a petition for a mass compromise? No abortion, no meat, and no death penalty. Everyone gives up something so that death is taken off the menu. This would of course have to be implemented over a long period of time to avert economic crisis. Thank you for reading this.

 

[Sketcher]

There is a difference between God taking a life and people taking lives. God is the author of life, it is his to give and take according to his will. It is not for people to take outside of his permission. Therefore, in the rapture scenario, there is no problem. People are being literally taken by God at that point. In the case of the OT bitter drink, that is an appeal to God himself to judge the woman, and either punish her or vindicate her. Therefore, if the womb were to shrivel and the miscarriage occur, God would be the one doing it, not the drink. Any abortive properties the drink might have would also be neutralized by God if he found her to be innocent.

In terms of the unborn having been aborted and going to Heaven, is that a "good thing"? Well, no more than a martyrdom is a good thing. It may be good for the individual soul at the time of death, but it's still an injustice. Christianity acknowledges the horrors of injustices, we can't call them good things, yet looks forward to when we will no longer have to deal with them.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There is a difference between God taking a life and people taking lives. God is the author of life, it is his to give and take according to his will. It is not for people to take outside of his permission. Therefore, in the rapture scenario, there is no problem. People are being literally taken by God at that point. In the case of the OT bitter drink, that is an appeal to God himself to judge the woman, and either punish her or vindicate her. Therefore, if the womb were to shrivel and the miscarriage occur, God would be the one doing it, not the drink. Any abortive properties the drink might have would also be neutralized by God if he found her to be innocent.

In terms of the unborn having been aborted and going to Heaven, is that a "good thing"? Well, no more than a martyrdom is a good thing. It may be good for the individual soul at the time of death, but it's still an injustice. Christianity acknowledges the horrors of injustices, we can't call them good things, yet looks forward to when we will no longer have to deal with them.

So by what you are saying here, I infer your position is the following:

1.) There is nothing intrinsically wrong with abortion
2.) Abortion is acceptable if performed by God, or else unacceptable otherwise
3.) If God reveals to certain people that abortion of a particular baby is his will, then that abortion is justified (in fact it is obligate)
4.) Revelation from God is subjective and unfalsifiable
5.) Abortion should not be illegal as it can infringe upon the will of God

Does that look correct?

 

[bookofjade]

It is my understanding that American Christians are generally against abortion for the following reason:

Every fetus has a soul, and as such every fetus is a human being. Therefore abortion is murder or at least homicide in some form.

I find this view to be generally consistent with the Bible.

However, it seems to me that there is near unanimous agreement among Christians that the aborted babies are all taken to heaven:

1.) The unborn are apparently sinless by default

2.) Romans 2:12 appears to absolve those who have not heard the gospel, so logically babies should be absolved (assuming they have even sinned, which apparently is a nonsensical notion)

3.) I believe most Christians would abhor the idea of God sending the unborn to hell

Therefore, in terms of consequences, abortions must be considered a generally good thing in the Christian worldview even if the act of abortion is contrary to God's will.

Furthermore, those who believe in the rapture presumably believe that God will commit abortions en mass in that event:

I'm not certain how many Christians actually believe in the rapture, but it is the form of Christianity that I once knew. Let's assume that worldview for the moment. Whether we take the pre-, mid-, or post-tribulation view, there will still be some point in which pregnant women who are unbelievers will have their unborn children snatched up. Provided you accept my reasoning above (that all unborn children do not go to hell, and hence go to heaven), and provided we can agree that anyone who is destined for heaven (even if they don't believe in the gospel) will be included in the rapture, it follows that God will remove the unborn from women and this by definition is abortion. Perhaps there is some disagreement as to whether or not the rapture will include those who are unborn, those who are not yet of the age of accountability, or those who have not yet heard the gospel.

My last point on this issue is that abortion seems to be Biblical, at least in some circumstances. Read Numbers 5:11-31 to satisfy yourself that I am not taking the Bible out of context here, and then focus on verse 27:

NIV
If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.

KJV
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

Now, it is vague to say that "her thigh shall rot." But you'll notice that in verse 28, it says that if she is found to be innocent then she will remain fertile (presuming, I suppose, that she already was). So verse 28, combined with what is stated in the NIV, combined with the fact that this passage is about marital jealousy, leads me to characterize the verse as follows:

My interpretation
Suppose the woman is discovered to be an adulteress. Then she will become permanently barren. If she is currently pregnant, she will miscarry. This rule is in place so that a man does not have to raise a child that is not his own.

Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding what is being stated here. I can't and won't debate you here, but please don't give me the whole "Old Testament" line. I just want to know whether or not there was some time, place, and situational context in which Jehovah sanctioned abortion. If you are a pro-life Christian and you believe that God did indeed sanction abortions at some point, then I'd like to know why you are against abortion (particularly if you also believe that the unborn child goes straight to heaven). I'd prefer that you give me a point of view that I can appreciate as an atheist.

And of course, as an atheist, I'm well aware that I can't bring up abortion on a Christian forum without having to explain or defend my position on the subject as well. My position is simple: it is wrong to kill anything that is alive. I'm aware that by this logic I shouldn't even be eating plants. I'm aware that this philosophy does not carry any practicality into today's reality. But I believe in the future of the human race, and I believe that one day there will be no need to abort fetuses (for various reasons relating to technological advancement) and in that society it would be a needlessly violent act. Perhaps one day we will no longer need to kill living things and eat them in order to survive, and in such a world eating a salad would be immoral. Seeing as how I generally do not look glowingly on people of the ancient world who perpetrated many violent and inhumane atrocities, I view myself through the eyes of a person from the future and I see that I am committing evils every day. I acknowledge that it is wrong to eat anything that is alive, and yet I continue to do so. So in that context I believe that while it is wrong to commit abortion, we as a society have absolutely no right to moderate this behavior in women any more than we would say that a father must, under penalty of law, stand his ground and fight to the death to protect his family rather than flee a situation to save himself. Every human, at least in this profane era, must have the right to defend his or her self at any cost.

I would like to close with a potential solution. Perhaps we can move toward the future a bit faster. I don't know where you're from, but in America we stand for death at every turn. Abortion, meat, and the death penalty are all legal; it is only fitting that human cloning, a process in which new life is created, is illegal. I think this is the exact opposite of how it should be. So if you are truly against abortion, why not start a petition for a mass compromise? No abortion, no meat, and no death penalty. Everyone gives up something so that death is taken off the menu. This would of course have to be implemented over a long period of time to avert economic crisis. Thank you for reading this.

Absolutely hilarious!

 

[Sketcher]

So by what you are saying here, I infer your position is the following:

1.) There is nothing intrinsically wrong with abortion
2.) Abortion is acceptable if performed by God, or else unacceptable otherwise
3.) If God reveals to certain people that abortion of a particular baby is his will, then that abortion is justified (in fact it is obligate)
4.) Revelation from God is subjective and unfalsifiable
5.) Abortion should not be illegal as it can infringe upon the will of God

Does that look correct?

No.

God has the authority to make exceptions to the rules that he gave us. However, he has spoken already and will not make new exceptions. It's like saying if God says we should kill or steal, we can and should - but he's not going to do that. Private revelations that people claim are from God, where God allegedly tells them to go kill their neighbors or their children are not from him. There are a few guidelines as to where the death penalty can be used, but people do not have carte-blanche authority to say "God told me to kill Bob." Likewise, people can't say that God told them to have an abortion or put their baby in a trash bag or anything like that.

On your point about legality, I can just as easily say the opposite - since God is knitting together a life in the mother's womb, one could call a man-made interruption of that process an infringement. Therefore, abortion must be illegal.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No.

God has the authority to make exceptions to the rules that he gave us. However, he has spoken already and will not make new exceptions. It's like saying if God says we should kill or steal, we can and should - but he's not going to do that. Private revelations that people claim are from God, where God allegedly tells them to go kill their neighbors or their children are not from him. There are a few guidelines as to where the death penalty can be used, but people do not have carte-blanche authority to say "God told me to kill Bob." Likewise, people can't say that God told them to have an abortion or put their baby in a trash bag or anything like that.

On your point about legality, I can just as easily say the opposite - since God is knitting together a life in the mother's womb, one could call a man-made interruption of that process an infringement. Therefore, abortion must be illegal.

Are you a cessationist then?

 

[Sketcher]

Are you a cessationist then?

No. Continued gifts of the Spirit and continued prophetic words do not truly allow for "God told me to kill my baby" or "God told me to steal that car."

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Absolutely hilarious!

You find abortion hilarious? Is the Holocaust funny as well?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No. Continued gifts of the Spirit and continued prophetic words do not truly allow for "God told me to kill my baby" or "God told me to steal that car."

You receive prophecies?

 

[bookofjade]

You find abortion hilarious? Is the Holocaust funny as well?

Check your emotions at the door, I was talking about how you wrote your thread not the subject.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Check your emotions at the door, I was talking about how you wrote your thread not the subject.

Then I can only take the comment as inflammatory. This is a serious thread. Please check your jokes at the door.

 

[bookofjade]

Then I can only take the comment as inflammatory. This is a serious thread. Please check your jokes at the door.

Oh ok, you still upset.

 

[Sketcher]

You receive prophecies?

If I did, I wouldn't claim them as prophesies, I'd let what I say speak for itself, and if it happens to be prophetic, so be it. But that's completely besides the point.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If I did, I wouldn't claim them as prophesies, I'd let what I say speak for itself, and if it happens to be prophetic, so be it. But that's completely besides the point.

I'm just considering the following questions: "Is God still interacting with humanity, and if so what new message might he have? Or if God's interaction has ceased, we have to figure everything out for ourselves. How do we go about doing that? Is it by scripture, reason, or both?" I'm examining abortion in the context of those questions.

 

[orangeness365]

You're kind of saying why not do evil so that good may come of it with abortion, which I don't think Christians are supposed to support.

Romans 3:5-8
5But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) 6God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? 7For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? 8And notrather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You're kind of saying why not do evil so that good may come of it with abortion, which I don't think Christians are supposed to support.

Romans 3:5-8
5But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) 6God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? 7For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? 8And notrather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

I'm also asking how abortion can be evil if the Bible gives instructions for it.

 

[dcalling]

I'm just considering the following questions: "Is God still interacting with humanity, and if so what new message might he have? Or if God's interaction has ceased, we have to figure everything out for ourselves. How do we go about doing that? Is it by scripture, reason, or both?" I'm examining abortion in the context of those questions.

God is still interacting with us, by ways of holy spirit, it is more of less on a personal level.

As for abortions, I am not sure when is the soul given to the baby, or if it is more difficult to save a soul that didn't enter this world or through this world, but for us all we can do is tell people that it is sinful to kill another person, and if they don't listen, shake off the dirt on our shoes and leave.

 

[dcalling]

I'm also asking how abortion can be evil if the Bible gives instructions for it.

Where did God give instructions for abortion?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Where did God give instructions for abortion?

Yet again you completely ignore the OP and ask a question that is answered there. I do not know if conversation between us can ever be fruitful.

 

[Sketcher]

I'm just considering the following questions: "Is God still interacting with humanity, and if so what new message might he have? Or if God's interaction has ceased, we have to figure everything out for ourselves. How do we go about doing that? Is it by scripture, reason, or both?" I'm examining abortion in the context of those questions.

I believe he is still interacting with humanity. I do not believe any of these interactions will contradict what he has already told us. "Interaction" doesn't necessitate having a new prophet saying that we can't do or must do this or that (example: alcohol, it is permitted in the Bible though drunkenness is not - if a so-called prophet were to say no Christian must ever drink any beverage containing alcohol ever again, that wouldn't be valid).