How Can Abortion Be Biblically Defended?

[JerseyChristianSuperstar]

God said that he knew them in the womb.
M-Bob

God is all-knowing, and He did know Jeremiah in the womb, because He preordained that Jeremiah would be one of his holy prophets, and God knows us all when we are developing in the womb because of His omniscience; as such, He knows how our lives will be like, even before we are born, before we grow old and marry, etc etc.

It does not mean that life begins at conception, that fetuses are people. The fetus is a potential human life, not an actual one yet.

The mother must have choice in this.

"Few decisions are more personal and intimate, more properly private, or more basic to individual dignity and autonomy, than a woman's decision – with the guidance of her physician and within the limits specified in Roe – whether to end her pregnancy. A woman's right to make that choice freely is fundamental."
-Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun

 

[Mountainmanbob]

True a person can decide to sin if they wish to.

Stop your sinning or something worse may happen to you.

M-Bob

 

[JerseyChristianSuperstar]

True a person can decide to sin if they wish to.

Stop your sinning or something worse may happen to you.

M-Bob

Not sinning. I have never paid for an abortion for a girlfriend or anybody else. I’m personally opposed to it, consider it a sin, but not murder. And I do believe that women should decide for themselves whether to keep her pregnancy or not.

 

[SPF]

Hi JCS, those are some good questions!

Science proves that embryos don't even have a heartbeat until three-four weeks, how can you possibly then say that life "begins at conception".

I can say that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization because a new human being is not dependent upon a beating heart. And that statement is problematic for you anyway because if you're going to argue that we do indeed have a new human being at a heartbeat, then as a heartbeat can be detected as early as 6 weeks, you're going to have a problem with being pro-choice.

One positive thing science has done for us in this area is helped us determine when a new human being comes into existence, and it has altogether proven that it is indeed at fertilization. I don't want to overwhelm the post with quotes, but here are a few:

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

I could post dozens more, but you get the point. We know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

As Christians then, how does the truth of when a new human being comes into existence play into Scripture? I think you'll agree that when we look at Scripture we cannot find a single example of a living human being without a soul. We also cannot find anywhere in Scripture where a human being is not created in the image of God, and not possessing inherent moral worth and value.

Remember John the Baptist in Luke 1? He literally leaped for joy in his mother's womb. Luke also tells us that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb!

The fact is that human beings are created unique among all of God's creation in that we alone possess inherent moral worth and value. We are all created in God's image. Our life begins at fertilization. We spend 25 years developing. At no point during our developmental period are we not a human being.

I don't understand why you're discriminating against a human being because they're simply young, or simply not as developed as another human being. Why?

Exodus 21:22-25

This passage has come up a number of times on this forum, and ironically it actually says the exact opposite of what you think it does.

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. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Now from the Hebrew Lexicon

So that her fruit:

Hebrew: יֶלֶד yeled
he 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 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 23:26 KJV
26 There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfill.

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).

שָׁכֹל shâkôl, 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.

In summary, Exodus 21 says life for life in the case of the death of the unborn.

I get that there are complicated practical issues that arise when we acknowledge that a human being begins its life at fertilization. I'm not oblivious to that. But difficult moral and practical situations don't change reality.

You've essentially come out and said that since there are difficult moral and practical situations that follow from acknowledging a new human being from fertilization that you're going to try and avoid those situations by making them go away by deciding, without any Biblical or scientific basis that a new human being doesn't come into existence until some point after fertilization. I can't help but wonder where your Biblical integrity is in that decision making. We don't change our views and beliefs as Christians because the world is corrupt, because sin has made things difficult, and because they are politically incorrect. Our beliefs should be guided by Scripture.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Hi JCS, those are some good questions!

I can say that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization because a new human being is not dependent upon a beating heart. And that statement is problematic for you anyway because if you're going to argue that we do indeed have a new human being at a heartbeat, then as a heartbeat can be detected as early as 6 weeks, you're going to have a problem with being pro-choice.

One positive thing science has done for us in this area is helped us determine when a new human being comes into existence, and it has altogether proven that it is indeed at fertilization. I don't want to overwhelm the post with quotes, but here are a few:

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

I could post dozens more, but you get the point. We know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

As Christians then, how does the truth of when a new human being comes into existence play into Scripture? I think you'll agree that when we look at Scripture we cannot find a single example of a living human being without a soul. We also cannot find anywhere in Scripture where a human being is not created in the image of God, and not possessing inherent moral worth and value.

Remember John the Baptist in Luke 1? He literally leaped for joy in his mother's womb. Luke also tells us that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb!

The fact is that human beings are created unique among all of God's creation in that we alone possess inherent moral worth and value. We are all created in God's image. Our life begins at fertilization. We spend 25 years developing. At no point during our developmental period are we not a human being.

I don't understand why you're discriminating against a human being because they're simply young, or simply not as developed as another human being. Why?

This passage has come up a number of times on this forum, and ironically it actually says the exact opposite of what you think it does.

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. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Now from the Hebrew Lexicon

So that her fruit:

Hebrew: יֶלֶד yeled
he 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 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 23:26 KJV
26 There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfill.

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).

שָׁכֹל shâkôl, 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.

In summary, Exodus 21 says life for life in the case of the death of the unborn.

I get that there are complicated practical issues that arise when we acknowledge that a human being begins its life at fertilization. I'm not oblivious to that. But difficult moral and practical situations don't change reality.

You've essentially come out and said that since there are difficult moral and practical situations that follow from acknowledging a new human being from fertilization that you're going to try and avoid those situations by making them go away by deciding, without any Biblical or scientific basis that a new human being doesn't come into existence until some point after fertilization. I can't help but wonder where your Biblical integrity is in that decision making. We don't change our views and beliefs as Christians because the world is corrupt, because sin has made things difficult, and because they are politically incorrect. Our beliefs should be guided by Scripture.

Thank you for your in-depth true to the Bible post.

Once again I have been to abortion Christian recovery classes and it's not a pretty sight. A lot of grief.
M-Bob

 

[JerseyChristianSuperstar]

Hi JCS, those are some good questions!

I can say that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization because a new human being is not dependent upon a beating heart. And that statement is problematic for you anyway because if you're going to argue that we do indeed have a new human being at a heartbeat, then as a heartbeat can be detected as early as 6 weeks, you're going to have a problem with being pro-choice.

One positive thing science has done for us in this area is helped us determine when a new human being comes into existence, and it has altogether proven that it is indeed at fertilization. I don't want to overwhelm the post with quotes, but here are a few:

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

And I could give you a plethora of quotes from many sincere scientists who believe that, while a new organism is formed at conception, the organism is not fully formed yet (won't be for nine months), and can only be described as a "potential" life, not a real life yet equivalent to an already born person. Quotes don't mean anything that are selective.

As Christians then, how does the truth of when a new human being comes into existence play into Scripture? I think you'll agree that when we look at Scripture we cannot find a single example of a living human being without a soul. We also cannot find anywhere in Scripture where a human being is not created in the image of God, and not possessing inherent moral worth and value.

Remember John the Baptist in Luke 1? He literally leaped for joy in his mother's womb. Luke also tells us that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb!

The fact is that human beings are created unique among all of God's creation in that we alone possess inherent moral worth and value. We are all created in God's image. Our life begins at fertilization. We spend 25 years developing. At no point during our developmental period are we not a human being.

I don't understand why you're discriminating against a human being because they're simply young, or simply not as developed as another human being. Why?

The fact that Elizabeth (John's mother) felt her unborn child kicking/leaping in her womb in no way dissuades me from my pro-choice position. It is hyperbole: babies can't leap in their mother's wombs, they are just kicking and moving around. It's an acknowledged fact that babies generally start kicking and leaping until 24-25 weeks:

24 Weeks Pregnant – Week by Week Pregnancy

https://www.webmd.com/baby/fetal-movement-feeling-baby-kick#1

And guess what: that is in the third trimester, a time by which I am already opposed to abortion as the baby is viable, as are most of my fellow pro-choicers who oppose third-trimester abortions (except to save the mother's life). Most pro-choicers and anti-abortionists are already in general agreement about the wrongness of third trimester abortions.

Consider Genesis 2:7, which says

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

When God formed Adam from the dust of the Earth 6000 years ago, it is clear from this text that Adam didn't have a soul until well after his development, when God gave him one. Adam's life certainly didn't begin at "fertilization" as you say, although he was a special case.

As for Exodus 21:22-25, the fact of the matter is that the interpretation can go both ways. The book of Exodus is one of the oldest books in the Bible (it is part of the first five books, the Pentateuch, after all) and ancient Jews themselves had differing interpretations on it.

Jewish Alexandrians tended to follow my interpretation (it's referring to miscarriage and if the mother is unharmed, only a judge's fine shall be levied) while the Palestinian Jews tended to follow your interpretation, that if the baby comes out prematurely but is alive, there will only be a fine, but if there is serious harm (such as death) either to mother or baby, then the penalty would be extremely severe.

You've essentially come out and said that since there are difficult moral and practical situations that follow from acknowledging a new human being from fertilization that you're going to try and avoid those situations by making them go away by deciding, without any Biblical or scientific basis that a new human being doesn't come into existence until some point after fertilization. I can't help but wonder where your Biblical integrity is in that decision making. We don't change our views and beliefs as Christians because the world is corrupt, because sin has made things difficult, and because they are politically incorrect. Our beliefs should be guided by Scripture.

It is frankly arrogant for Christians to accuse pro-choice Christians of having no "Biblical basis" and ignoring the Bible when we have genuinely shown why we believe our positions are Scriptural: yes, abortion is sinful and shouldn't be done in most cases, but it is not equivalent to murder.

Facts are, this pro-choice theology isn't a novel interpretation or position. The adamant "abortion-is-wrong-in-all-cases" is.

Saint Augustine believed that an early abortion isn't murder (like me), because the fetus did not have a soul in the early trimesters (which is also my position). See here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

Similarly, Thomas Aquinas and Popes Innocent III and Gregory XIV did not believe an early abortion was murder because in their view (and mine) the fetus does not have a soul until "quickening", when the baby starts to seriously kick and move—which, as I established before, generally starts in the third trimester, where most pro-choicers, myself included, would be opposed to abortion. That's why they felt early abortion in the first trimesters was not murder, but abortion in the last one was, and that is my position too.

The fact of the matter is this: an early fetus can not reasonably be seen to be a life, only a potential life, as such, an abortion is not in the same ballpark as killing an already-born infant.

As I said before: It is not reasonable to say that a woman who pays an abortion doctor $500 to abort her 4-month old fetus is in the same category as a woman who pays a hitman $600 to kill her already born, 4-month old infant, simply because she does not want to raise him anymore.

One is murder, the other isn't. It's as simple as that.

That is why I'm strongly pro-choice, while personally opposing abortion as sinful.

 

[SPF]

Thanks for the response JCS, unfortunately it was lacking in a lot of supportive content.

And I could give you a plethora of quotes from many sincere scientists who believe that, while a new organism is formed at conception, the organism is not fully formed yet (won't be for nine months), and can only be described as a "potential" life, not a real life yet equivalent to an already born person. Quotes don't mean anything that are selective.

They are quotes that reflect the general scientific and medical communities consensus on this. If you disagree, I actually would welcome to you to provide medical and scientific sources that support your position.

The fact that Elizabeth (John's mother) felt her unborn child kicking/leaping in her womb in no way dissuades me from my pro-choice position. It is hyperbole: babies can't leap in their mother's wombs, they are just kicking and moving around. It's an acknowledged fact that babies generally start kicking and leaping until 24-25 weeks:

I do find it a bit disheartening how easily you are rejecting Scripture. Verse 15 is very straightforward: " For he will be great in the sight of the Lord... and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb. So we know that while still in the womb John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit. I don't think you would be prepared to say that he wasn't a human being when this occurred, right? And with regards to John leaping in her womb at the sound of Mary's voice - your suggestion that this was a random kick and wasn't as Luke states as a response to Mary's voice again is contrary to what Scripture says. So perhaps we have less in common than I thought if you are this quick to ignore Scripture.

The fact of the matter is this: an early fetus can not reasonably be seen to be a life, only a potential life, as such, an abortion is not in the same ballpark as killing an already-born infant.

Again, this is an empty statement without any support. The science on this matter is actually very clear and straight forward - a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. If you have credible sources that say otherwise, I welcome you to actually provide them.

It is frankly arrogant for Christians to accuse pro-choice Christians of having no "Biblical basis" and ignoring the Bible when we have genuinely shown why we believe our positions are Scriptural: yes, abortion is sinful and shouldn't be done in most cases, but it is not equivalent to murder.

The reality is that you are ignoring the Bible with regards to being pro-choice. There is no Biblical support for abortion. The best you've been able to do is provide a passage from Exodus which actually doesn't say what you want, and then to bring up the creation of Adam, who is a unique example as he never existed in a womb, and is therefore not analogous at all.

What we do know Biblically is that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

What you're doing is discriminating against humans based upon their level of development. The reality though is that a human beings gender, race, and age have no bearing upon their moral worth and value. Yet, here you are for nothing more than the sake of attempting to simplify a morally tough issue, ignoring both Biblical principles, and scientific fact.

An embryology textbook describes how birth is just an event in the development of a baby, not the beginning of his/her life:

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

 

[JerseyChristianSuperstar]

I do find it a bit disheartening how easily you are rejecting Scripture. Verse 15 is very straightforward: " For he will be great in the sight of the Lord... and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb. So we know that while still in the womb John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit. I don't think you would be prepared to say that he wasn't a human being when this occurred, right? And with regards to John leaping in her womb at the sound of Mary's voice - your suggestion that this was a random kick and wasn't as Luke states as a response to Mary's voice again is contrary to what Scripture says. So perhaps we have less in common than I thought if you are this quick to ignore Scripture.

Unlike you, I am more quick to notice Scriptural metaphors or hyperbole.

Isaiah 55:12 says "For you shall go out with joy,
And be led out with peace;
The mountains and the hills
Shall break forth into singing before you,
And all the trees of the field shall clap their hands."

Are we supposed to take this to mean that the trees literally had hands and were clapping, and the mountains and hills had mouths and started singing songs before the people? No, of course not. The same with the unborn John "leaping" in his mother's womb. Babies can only kick and move in mother's womb, not leap, they are still tied to the umbilical cord and in the fetal position.

As for the science community, they all unanimously agree that human development begins at conception, but not life, a crucial difference.

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]

So we know that while still in the womb John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit. I don't think you would be prepared to say that he wasn't a human being when this occurred, right?

Verse 15 does indeed say John would be filled with the Holy Spirit while in his mother's womb, it doesn't say starting when in his mother's womb, particularly not from conception. It might have been in the late-second to third trimester when the Holy Spirit came upon him, by which point I do believe the fetus is a human as it is viable.

The reality is that you are ignoring the Bible with regards to being pro-choice. There is no Biblical support for abortion. The best you've been able to do is provide a passage from Exodus which actually doesn't say what you want

This is a common tactic for anti-abortion people that Christian pro-choice people "support" abortion. We support it being legal for women who are confused and may want to choose the option for themselves. I still personally consider it to be a sin, would not pay for it for my future girlfriend or wife, and would hope that the woman would consider adoption, but at the end of the day it is her choice, not mine.

I mean, I don't want to bring back Prohibition. I support drinking being legal, with some regulations, but I would probably never drink myself (at least not heavily), as I am a Christian. Does that mean I support drinking, that I am "pro-drinking"? No, anymore than me supporting legalized abortion makes me pro-abortion.

I have already demonstrated with sources that Exodus 21:22 is vague, and both pro-choice and anti-abortion interpretations are completely reasonable, which is why ancient Jews were divided about it back then from different schools of theology, just as Christians are now (see this article here, and notice how he says "I'm afraid that I cannot give a conclusive argument either way").

I agree that "all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value." What I do not agree is that a fetus is a live human being from the moment of conception.

If there were really no Biblical support for my position, then why was it so easy for me to find people like Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and Popes Innocent III and Gregory XIV who agreed with my reasoning—that early abortion is not murder, but later abortion in the third trimester is murder as the baby is then viable. St. Augustine also agreed that a fetus is not ensouled at the moment of conception.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

Read it, study it. This debate is more nuanced than anti-abortion hardliners like you pretend it is.

 

[SPF]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

The quotes you provided prove my point. The scientific community, thanks to advancements in what we can see and know, recognizes that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

As for Augustine, his ignorance can be excused as he didn’t have the benefit of the scientific knowledge we do today.

If you want to rely on the early church fathers, then actually go back to the disciples of the apostles and you’ll find them saying abortion is immoral. It’s in the Didache and other ECFs works.

You keep attempting to make a distinction between “human life” and a “human being”, but no such distinction actually exists.

You’ve been honest enough in your first couple posts to state that you’re attempting to rationalize abortion and avoid moral dilemmas by creating this distinction. The problem is that it just lacks intellectual integrity because in reality there is no such distinction.

 

[JerseyChristianSuperstar]

You’ve been honest enough in your first couple posts to state that you’re attempting to rationalize abortion and avoid moral dilemmas by creating this distinction. The problem is that it just lacks intellectual integrity because in reality there is no such distinction.

The fact of the matter is, we have separation of church and state in this country. You consider abortion to be a murder of a human being, the majority of the country doesn't, which is why polls consistently show a majority oppose overturning Roe v. Wade; heck, even a good chunk of your fellow Christians don't, as evidenced by

*The contentiousness of debate in this thread here

*Pew Research Center's reliable polling data showing the millions of Christians of different denominations who believe abortion should be legal in most cases

If a woman was in a car crash with her teenage son, and the only way to save him would be to perform an organ donation that, due to the complex and unique nature of the crash, would take nine months to complete, should the woman be forced to go through with the 9-month organ donation?

No, she shouldn't, she has bodily autonomy. Same as this, except with the pregnancy, most of us who are pro-choice believe she should be allowed until the third trimester, and only thereafter when the life of the mother is at stake, the doctor with the medical degrees who knows what he is doing should be doing the advising. This is a personal matter between her and God.

I'll repeat the awesome words of Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun:
"Few decisions are more personal and intimate, more properly private, or more basic to individual dignity and autonomy, than a woman's decision – with the guidance of her physician and within the limits specified in Roe – whether to end her pregnancy. A woman's right to make that choice freely is fundamental"

 

[SPF]

The fact of the matter is, we have separation of church and state in this country. You consider abortion to be a murder of a human being, the majority of the country doesn't,

That doesn’t matter. 100% of the country could thing something is moral that in the eyes of God is immoral. In that case, the action would still be immoral.

This is a personal matter between her and God.

Except it’s not. In the same way it’s not between me and God whether it’s ok for me to become drunk or commit adultery.

You seem to be confusing what it means to be an American and what it means to be a Christian. As a Christian I am a slave to Christ. As a Christian the only “rights” I have are to die to my flesh and to offer my body as a living sacrifice holy and pleasing to God. Christians are Christians first, and citizens of their respective countries second.

The morality of abortion stands or falls with how we understand the nature of the life inside the woman.

1. All beings created in the image of God possess inherent moral worth and value while living.

2. All human beings are created in the image of God.

3. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

Conclusion: Human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization.

As Christians we have something our secular society doesn’t - A relationship with the living God and an understanding of objective morality as revealed to us in Scripture.

 

[JerseyChristianSuperstar]

That doesn’t matter. 100% of the country could thing something is moral that in the eyes of God is immoral. In that case, the action would still be immoral.

Except it’s not. In the same way it’s not between me and God whether it’s ok for me to become drunk or commit adultery.

You seem to be confusing what it means to be an American and what it means to be a Christian. As a Christian I am a slave to Christ. As a Christian the only “rights” I have are to die to my flesh and to offer my body as a living sacrifice holy and pleasing to God. Christians are Christians first, and citizens of their respective countries second.

The morality of abortion stands or falls with how we understand the nature of the life inside the woman.

1. All beings created in the image of God possess inherent moral worth and value while living.

2. All human beings are created in the image of God.

3. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

Conclusion: Human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization.

As Christians we have something our secular society doesn’t - A relationship with the living God and an understanding of objective morality as revealed to us in Scripture.

I'm not arguing that abortion is moral. I already have said many times that I believe it is immoral, sinful, and should not be done, since it is snuffing out a potential life that God is in the process of creating, as per Psalm 139:13-16.

I agree that God creates all human beings in His image, and we have inherent value and dignity because of that, as we are imbued with a special relationship to our Creator, the law He has planted in our hearts (Romans 2:14-16).

I do not agree that abortion is murder; nor that a "new human being" comes into existence at fertilization, as the tiny speck of cells is nowhere close to being a human being, with no heart, no sensory neurons to feel pain, etc.

We can not control the decisions of other people, of millions of women. They have to choose for themselves. We probably wish they would choose to keep it since children as a blessing from God, but we can not make that choice for them.

The woman's bodily autonomy takes precedence here.

 

[SPF]

I do not agree that abortion is murder; nor that a "new human being" comes into existence at fertilization, as the tiny speck of cells is nowhere close to being a human being, with no heart, no sensory neurons to feel pain, etc

Human development takes roughly 25 years, with only the first part taking place in the womb. Yet, at all times during our 25 year development we are still a human being, and we look exactly like what a human being looks like at any given year.

I’ve already provided a dozen scientific and medical references which educated you to the current scientific understanding of when a new human being comes into existence. Now, if you choose to disagree with the professional scientific and medical community that’s fine, but don’t expect me or anyone else to agree with you when you bring no personal education or references to the discussion.

We can not control the decisions of other people, of millions of women. They have to choose for themselves

No, we can not control the decisions of other people, but I suspect that doesn’t stop you from being glad it’s illegal for your neighbor to walk over and kill you for no reason.

 

[JerseyChristianSuperstar]

I’ve already provided a dozen scientific and medical references which educated you to the current scientific understanding of when a new human being comes into existence. Now, if you choose to disagree with the professional scientific and medical community that’s fine, but don’t expect me or anyone else to agree with you when you bring no personal education or references to the discussion.

If the scientific community is so absolutely sure that a new human comes into existence, that life begins at conception, then why aren't there representatives, faculty and scientists from every prominent scientific institution marching in the streets demanding with righteous indignation that abortion is murder and pleading with Senators and Representatives that it be banned in virtually all cases?

Because the scientists recognize that although life - if, by life, you mean the essential starting place of a potential human being - may begin at conception, personhood does not, and is not the same thing as life.

Is a fertilized egg, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus a person with rights that trump those of the woman upon whose body it depends?

No, it is not, and that is what the courts have consistently held, and even a deep red Bible-Belt state like Mississippi agreed, which is why a personhood amendment was defeated in 2011. (Mississippi's "Personhood Amendment" fails at polls)

We cannot allow ultra-right-wing religious fundamentalist zealots have control of our political system with their extremist theology that would take away any choice a woman can have.

 

[SPF]

If the scientific community is so absolutely sure that a new human comes into existence, that life begins at conception, then why aren't there representatives, faculty and scientist from every prominent scientific institution marching in the streets demanding with righteous indignation that abortion is murder and pleading with Senators and Representatives that it be banned in virtually all cases?

Because the scientists recognize that although life - if, by life, you mean the essential starting place of a potential human being - may begin at conception, personhood does not, and is not the same thing as life.

Is a fertilized egg, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus a person with rights that trump those of the woman upon whose body it depends?

No, it is not, and that is what the courts have consistently held, and even a deep red Bible-Belt state like Mississippi agreed, which is why a personhood amendment was defeated in 2011. (Mississippi's "Personhood Amendment" fails at polls)

We cannot allow ultra-right-wing religious fundamentalist zealots have control of our political system with their extremist theology that would take away any choice a woman can have.

You just said a lot of words without any support behind them.

Let me help you out. When I say that the scientific and medical community rightly recognizes that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, it's true. I've provided you with numerous cited material that demonstrate this. From what I can tell, you haven't attempted to do any sort of research on this at all, and you just like to pontificate your opinion. This is a serious issue, and you would do well to understand it before formulating your opinion.

The science is sound and accepted - a new human being comes into existence at fertilization and begins a 25 year developmental period.

The abortion debate is actually not over when a new human being comes into existence. The debate instead focuses on a made up, subjective, and arbitrary distinction between a human being and a human person. The debate has shifted now that science has developed enough to literally demonstrate that a new human being does exist at fertilization.

So now what happens is that people try to fabricate and make up a distinction between a human being and a human person. They'll say that only human person's have moral worth and value. They'll then say that while a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, they are not a human person until they reach X level of development. X level of development is going to be subjectively and arbitrarily determined by whoever is making the argument.

The goal for pro-abortion arguments is to establish this distinction as somehow true and real, so that they can then argue that actions committed against the non-human person are morally neutral because they don't possess the same moral worth and value as human persons.

This is where Christianity enters the picture. As Christians, we actually recognize that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value. There is no sort of distinction to be found in Scripture between a human being and a human person.

Science has actually helped make my position on abortion easier. If I wasn't a Christian, I honestly would not have a problem with abortion. But I am a Christian, and I do recognize that all human beings are created in the image of God and posses inherent moral worth and value. Therefore, because of that, how can I be pro-choice? How can I buy into the subjective and made up distinction between a human being and a human person?

To accept that there is a distinction between a human being and a human person is to deny that human beings are created in the image of God. I'm not prepared to do that. Why are you?

 

[JerseyChristianSuperstar]

You just said a lot of words without any support behind them.

Let me help you out. When I say that the scientific and medical community rightly recognizes that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, it's true. I've provided you with numerous cited material that demonstrate this. From what I can tell, you haven't attempted to do any sort of research on this at all, and you just like to pontificate your opinion. This is a serious issue, and you would do well to understand it before formulating your opinion.

I have done research, as I have ably demonstrated from the plethora of links that I have posted. Here's another one. From this article, Scott Gilbert, a developmental biologist, says pointedly that "I couldn’t say when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty scientists don’t have a consensus."

[QUOTE="SPF, post: 73879458, member: 395145"] This is where Christianity enters the picture. As Christians, we actually recognize that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value. There is no sort of distinction to be found in Scripture between a human being and a human person.[/QUOTE]

Oh, please. These Religious Right anti-abortion hardliners are some of the most hypocritical, Pharisaical, arrogant people around. They go around quoting the Bible, acting like they're good Christians on the one hand, while at the same time on the other hand they have no problem turning a blind eye to racist vitriol from President Trump and other right-wing Republicans, and have no problem with cutting medical benefits and government assistance to the poor and the unemployed, slashing Social Security and Medicare and throwing hundreds of thousands of people off of healthcare across the nation so they can fund their tax cuts for people which will overwhelmingly go to the rich, while the underclass are left in the lurch from the eviscerated social programs.

In fact, the ultraconservative white evangelicals who dominate the anti-abortion movement were the same folks who argued in the 1960s that God had ordained that the races be separate, fought against interracial marriage and school desegregation, taught that blacks were cursed by God with the Mark of Ham and deserving of white dominance, oppression and subjugation.

They also have no problem pandering to xenophobic, anti-immigrant nativist sentiments, pandering to anti-black racists, and voted against minimum wage increases for working stiffs.

The anti-abortion movement - 98% Caucasian, according to a 2002 study by Carol J.C. Maxwell - has been a hotspot for right-wing extremists. The first known murder of an abortion provider as committed by a Klasnman, Michael Frederick Griffin.

Science has actually helped make my position on abortion easier. If I wasn't a Christian, I honestly would not have a problem with abortion. But I am a Christian, and I do recognize that all human beings are created in the image of God and posses inherent moral worth and value. Therefore, because of that, how can I be pro-choice? How can I buy into the subjective and made up distinction between a human being and a human person?

Maybe by accepting that God values the dignity and autonomy of women and that they should be allowed to make their own choices, however much we might disagree with them?

 

[SPF]

I have done research, as I have ably demonstrated from the plethora of links that I have posted. Here's another one. From this article, Scott Gilbert, a developmental biologist, says pointedly that "I couldn’t say when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty scientists don’t have a consensus."

It would seem that either you didn't read my previous post, or you haven't comprehended it. If you look at the quote you provided, the person mentioned "personhood", not when a new human being comes into existence. This is important to recognize and understand. Science acknowledges when a new human being comes into existence. What pro-abortion proponents have attempted to do is fabricate a made up distinction between a human being and a human person. As Christians, we recognize that Scripture makes no such distinction.

Oh, please. These Religious Right anti-abortion hardliners are some of the most hypocritical, Pharisaical, arrogant people around. They go around quoting the Bible, acting like they're good Christians on the one hand, while at the same time on the other hand they have no problem turning a blind eye to racist vitriol from President Trump and other right-wing Republicans, and have no problem with cutting medical benefits and government assistance to the poor and the unemployed, slashing Social Security and Medicare and throwing hundreds of thousands of people off of healthcare across the nation so they can fund their tax cuts for people which will overwhelmingly go to the rich, while the underclass are left in the lurch from the eviscerated social programs.

In fact, the ultraconservative white evangelicals who dominate the movement who the same folks who argued in the 1960s that God had ordained that the races be separate, fought against interracial marriage and school desegregation, taught that blacks who cursed by God with the Mark of Ham and deserving of white dominance, oppression and subjugation.

They also have no problem pandering to xenophobic, anti-immigrant nativist sentiments, pandering to anti-black racists, and voted against minimum wage increases for working stiffs.

The anti-abortion movement - 98% Caucasian, according to a 2002 study by Carol J.C. Maxwell - has been a hotspot for right-wing extremists. The first known murder of an abortion provider as committed by a Klasnman, Michael Frederick Griffin.

I can appreciate that you are politically passionate, though I would recommend bring less slander to the forum as it just makes you look bad. But for me, I'm not very political, nor am I a Republican, nor do I understand how anything in your post is actually a relevant and on topic response to what you quoted me saying. In fact, I would suggest that for the benefit of the discussion we try to leave politics out of this and just stick to facts. Afterall, this topic is about if abortion can be Biblically defended, not let's attack people who disagree with us politically.

The morality of abortion is a discussion that is not influenced by political views or opinions, or even laws.

Maybe by accepting that God values the dignity and autonomy of women and that they should be allowed to make their own choices, however much we might disagree with them?

Again, you're apparently not familiar with Scripture and are confusing your American "rights" with what Scripture teaches about you and your relationship with God. As Christians, we have the "right" to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. As Christians, we have the "right" to die for those as an act of live, and to live as selflessly as possible, and to glorify and honor God with every word and action.

 

[JerseyChristianSuperstar]

I can appreciate that you are politically passionate, though I would recommend bring less slander to the forum as it just makes you look bad. But for me, I'm not very political, nor am I a Republican, nor do I understand how anything in your post is actually a relevant and on topic response to what you quoted me saying. In fact, I would suggest that for the benefit of the discussion we try to leave politics out of this and just stick to facts. Afterall, this topic is about if abortion can be Biblically defended, not let's attack people who disagree with us politically.

There is no slander at all. The record stands for itself: the conservative white evangelicals who dominate the anti-abortion movement have, for many decades, been the mortal enemies of black people, including their fellow black Christians. It was conservative white evangelicals who defended segregation and Jim Crow laws, preached that interracial marriage was a sin, supported apartheid in South Africa during the 1980s and opposed sanctioning it (people like Jerry Falwell Sr. and Pat Roberts), favored the IRS giving tax-exempt status to segregated, virtually all-white fundamentalist Christian schools despite racist policies such as bans on interracial dating (luckily, the Supreme Court shot Reagan down when he and his administration defended Bob Jones University) and still oppose affirmative action policies designed to reverse centuries of racism and give black workers a level playing field in seeking professions in the business world and other industries.

The Southern Baptist Convention, which was formed in May 1845 to literally defend chattle slavery and the torture of blacks, only apologized in 1995 - 150 years later - for their shameful history of hate-mongering against blacks and other racial minorities.

This is relevant to the discussion as white, right-wing anti-abortion Christian hardliners like to think of themselves as the "new abolitionists" on a righteous cause to save the unborn — which is hypocritical given that they are the children and grandchildren of the very same people who worked endlessly to oppress blacks, some of whom are still alive today and racist as ever, particularly in the Deep South.

Again, you're apparently not familiar with Scripture and are confusing your American "rights" with what Scripture teaches about you and your relationship with God. As Christians, we have the "right" to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. As Christians, we have the "right" to die for those as an act of love, and to live as selflessly as possible, and to glorify and honor God with every word and action.

I agree with everything you said, but don't agree with what you and virtually everybody in the anti-abortion movement wants to do — to outlaw it in almost all cases throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Some women are not ready to bring a child into the world.

I think it is frankly misogynistic and anti-women for people to view pregnant women the way anti-abortion people do: as incubators first, and people second.

No. These are women who have lives of their own, who will go through nine months of pregnancy with all of its aftereffects, and must be allowed to choose for themselves whether they will carry it to term or not.

We can not force women to carry pregnancies to term as if they are just tools for what is inside them: they aren't! They have lives of their own!

 

[usexpat97]

We can not force women to carry pregnancies to term as if they are just tools for what is inside them: they aren't! They have lives of their own!

Ironic as it is, I do not see it that way. If the fetus is a separate human being--which I neither affirm nor deny--then the mothers do NOT have lives of their own. And that fetus is equally the father's, whether it is a separate human being or not.

 

[SPF]

There is no slander at all. The record stands for itself: the conservative white evangelicals who dominate the anti-abortion movement have, for many decades, been the mortal enemies of black people, including their fellow black Christians. It was conservative white evangelicals who defended segregation and Jim Crow laws, preached that interracial marriage was a sin, supported apartheid in South Africa during the 1980s and opposed sanctioning it (people like Jerry Falwell Sr. and Pat Roberts), favored the IRS giving tax-exempt status to segregated, virtually all-white fundamentalist Christian schools despite racist policies such as bans on interracial dating (luckily, the Supreme Court shot Reagan down when he and his administration defended Bob Jones University) and still oppose affirmative action policies designed to reverse centuries of racism and give black workers a level playing field in seeking professions in the business world and other industries.

The Southern Baptist Convention, which was formed in May 1845 to literally defend chattle slavery and the torture of blacks, only apologized in 1995 - 150 years later - for their shameful history of hate-mongering against blacks and other racial minorities.

This is relevant to the discussion as white, right-wing anti-abortion Christian hardliners like to think of themselves as the "new abolitionists" on a righteous cause to save the unborn — which is hypocritical given that they are the children and grandchildren of the very same people who worked endlessly to oppress blacks, some of whom are still alive today and racist as ever, particularly in the Deep South.

And none of that has even the slightest impact upon whether or not abortion is immoral or not. Absolutely nothing.

Some women are not ready to bring a child into the world.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether abortion is immoral or not.

I think it is frankly misogynistic and anti-women for people to view pregnant women the way anti-abortion people do: as incubators first, and people second.

And again, sweeping slanderous statements do not do anything but make you look bad. Those comments don’t reflect me, and I’m pro-life.

No. These are women who have lives of their own, who will go through nine months of pregnancy with all of its aftereffects, and must be allowed to choose for themselves whether they will carry it to term or not.

Unless it can be shown that abortion is immoral.

For Christians, the abortion question ought to be an easy one. Our early Church fathers understood abortion to be wrong, it’s a shame that Christians lost this understanding over time.

As Christians, we recognize that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral and value.

Thanks to the advancements in science, we now know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

Putting those two simple truths together make a compelling case that the 98% of abortions which are committed for convenience reasons are immoral.