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

[chad kincham]

Christians are not citing the Hippocratic oath in their reasoning, nor does the Hippocratic oath even matter in the Christian mission in the world.

It is not the mission of the Body of Christ to make non-Christians act like Christians. It is the mission of the Body of Christ to make disciples. Period. There is no other mission given to the Body of Christ. Everything else Christians do "in Jesus' name" outside of making disciples will result in Him saying, "I don't know you."

Jesus says I never knew you, to those who did not feed, clothe, and shelter the poor, not to those who failed to only make disciples of men.

So much for your fallacious claim.

And James says religion that God approves of is to take care of widows and orphans. Protecting unborn children from murder qualifies as religion God approves of.

 

[RDKirk]

And James says religion that God approves of is to take care of widows and orphans. Protecting unborn children from murder qualifies as religion God approves of.

The correct translation would be "widows and fatherless children." That is, single mothers. That says nothing about the unborn.

I have actually attended a church in which the pastor kept a "widows and single mothers" list, and it was a function of the men in the congregation to make sure they were all doing okay. That didn't usually involve monetary handouts (although the church was fine with those), but it involved the men acting as loyal sons and brothers, making sure those vulnerable women were doing okay.

I've never seen another congregation that actually kept a widows list (much less a single mothers list), despite the fact that God was consistent in demanding that His people be sure those women were taken care of.

How about your church? Does your congregation maintain a widow's list to ensure they're taken care of?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

What do you call paying money for the pre-meditated killing of a human being, because they are an inconvenience and in the way of the mother?

Murder.

 

[pescador]

Very poor reasoning.

Abortion on demand is not only the taking of an innocent life , it is completely unconstitutional.

Our forefathers outlined rights that we have, that come from God, not from the state, thus the RIGHT TO LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are inalienable rights that cannot be taken away.

James Wilson, a signer of the constitution, who also attended the constitutional conventions, stated that the founding fathers included unborn humans among those with the god-given inalienable right to life.

Thus abortion on demand denies the right to life, a right given by God to them, to unborn humans - and it is completely unconstitutional.



What do you call paying money for the pre-meditated killing of a human being, because they are an inconvenience and in the way of the mother?

What do you call a valid medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy when the fetus has NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OUTSIDE THE WOMB??

BTW, since I consider the Supreme Court of the United States more authoritative than you about the US Constitution, I will abide by their (correct) decision to allow FREE PEOPLE to make their own decisions under the law.

Finally, stop believing propaganda about an issue that you don't understand.

 

[pescador]

repeat post

 

[Albion]

What do you call a valid medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy when the fetus has NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OUTSIDE THE WOMB??

Frankly, I don't see that there's a worthwhile discussion to be had when you simultaneously insist that abortion is morally acceptable but then qualify that by talking as though only certain abortions -- the ones most easily rationalized -- are what we should discuss.

 

[chad kincham]

Well the verse in Jeremiah only goes to show that it is not the fertilized egg, embryo, or unviable fetus that is the person, and that we are not our physical bodies. We *have* them, but we are not them. So of course God would know each person before they were ever breathed into a physical body because they already exist with God, or at least in his mind, and that would be true regardless.

And as for the Psalms, every part of our physical world is corrupted by sin. It's saturated into our very cells, and so the cells being conceived would be affected and so would a child at birth in spite of never having the opportunity to sin. It's the human condition and has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.

There is nothing anywhere in the bible that discusses abortion, mentions abortion, or gives us any indication of God's opinion of it. Everything we think on the topic comes from us and our own personal or cultural biases, and deciding that it comes from God is an attempt to create him in our own image. We can't use "God's will" to enforce our opinion of it either way.

I brought up the topic of blowing up a city with an atomic bomb because when we've done it, it murdered many and did not distinguish between adults, children, or even unborn. Anyone in it's path was destroyed and we consider it within our rightful authority to do whenever we believe it is justified, and yet, we go on getting outraged and demanding the death penalty for a woman who chooses to take a morning after pill.

Which indicates that this argument has very little or nothing to do with the unborn or saving lives and everything to do with exerting control over other people (in this case, women.) If we truly cared about children, we would be spending all of the energy we spend in attempts to criminalize women on actually creating safe and healthy environments for women to raise children and for children to thrive and making it economically feasible for even the poorest of women and children to prosper. But instead, we take the easy way out, talking about how much we appreciate life when we really don't.

Your logic leaves much to be desired.

You cannot equate God choosing to destroy an evil, and demonic city, that sacrificed their children by burning them in a fire (after warning them over and over to repent), and choosing in His omniscience to destroy everyone in that city, so their evil could not have a resurgence in the future - with the deliberate slaughter of a completely innocent child in the womb.
Scripture says God hates the taking of an innocent life.
Period.

 

[Semper-Fi]

President Trump Announces Critical Executive Order Demanding Protection and Care for Babies Born Alive After Botched Abortions | American Center for Law and Justice

 

[chad kincham]

Frankly, I don't see that there's a worthwhile discussion to be had when you simultaneously insist that abortion is morally acceptable but then qualify that by talking as though only certain abortions -- the ones most easily rationalized -- are what we should discuss.

What do you call a valid medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy when the fetus has NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OUTSIDE THE WOMB??

BTW, since I consider the Supreme Court of the United States more authoritative than you about the US Constitution, I will abide by their (correct) decision to allow FREE PEOPLE to make their own decisions under the law.

Finally, stop believing propaganda about an issue that you don't understand.

Maybe you should take your own advice.
I trust the founders and what they put in the constitution, which says our creator gave all of us humans - born and unborn humans - the RIGHT TO LIFE, over the so called Supreme Court that determined in the Dred Scott decision, that black slaves had no constitutional right that men have to freedom, because they were considered not fully human.
Roe v wade is exactly the same type of heinous decision- they state in that ruling that they don’t care when life begins, because regardless of when life begins, they were withholding the constitutional right to life from the fetus, until the third trimester.
In both Dred Scott and Roe v wade, they withheld the constitutional rights of personhood from a group of people- black slaves, and unborn humans.

I tell you flat out, and plainly, that abortion on demand is the epitome of selfish evil.

99.5% of abortions have nothing to do with medical necessity at all. They are done out of evil selfishness to remove an inconvenient pregnancy.

 

[Cis.jd]

That’s absolutely not true in the least.

Over and over Jesus cited Moses, and the law and the prophets, as absolute literal truth and as an authoritative source to be studied, and that spoke of Himself, as well.

He not only affirms Jonah in the fish belly for three days and nights, as true - He made it the SIGN of His own death, burial, and resurrection from the dead after three days and nights in the heart of the earth.

And after His resurrection, He opened the truth of everything that had been written of Him, in the law (of Moses) and the prophets, to His disciples.

It’s clear you’ve done very little reading in the New Testament, or you’d know that.

What you wrote here is missing the point I made so the one who is doing "little reading" is you.

Jesus did not reference these specific stories about Moses as talked about here - of getting commandments by God to forms of killing/murder. So your point about Jesus citing Moses does not confirm that everything written about Moses life is historically accurate as narrated.

2nd. You did not understand what you read when you referenced Jonah, Jesus is using it as an analogy, not affirming it.

 

[Albion]

Maybe you should take your own advice.
I trust the founders and what they put in the constitution, which says our creator gave all of us humans - born and unborn humans - the RIGHT TO LIFE, over the so called Supreme Court that determined in the Dred Scott decision, that black slaves had no constitutional right that men have to freedom, because they were considered not fully human.
Roe v wade is exactly the same type of heinous decision- they state in that ruling that they don’t care when life begins, because regardless of when life begins, they were withholding the constitutional right to life from the fetus, until the third trimester.
In both Dred Scott and Roe v wade, they withheld the constitutional rights of personhood from a group of people- black slaves, and unborn humans.

I tell you flat out, and plainly, that abortion on demand is the epitome of selfish evil.

99.5% of abortions have nothing to do with medical necessity at all. They are done out of evil selfishness to remove an inconvenient pregnancy.

What's that got to do with anyone taking his own advice??

 

[Pavel Mosko]

...but then I read Deuteronomy 2:33-34 and see that He sanctioned infanticide without any problem.

How do people reconcile those two stances?

Would it been better of God to not kick the Canaanites out of the Land, and having them continue to live their in spite of their sins, and have them get in the way of His Keeping his promise to Abraham, and His eventually bringing about the Messiah who would be the Savior of the entire World?

Isn't their a saying that in order to make an omelet you need to break some eggs? I think their is another saying of Pablo Picasso "that every creative act is an act of destruction".

Speaking of killing children the Canaanites actually practiced child sacrifice (burning babies alive) as part of their worship of Molech... So leaving the Canaanites in the land in the long run would not have been very kind or good for anybody.

 

[Daniel9v9]

I'm quite late to the party, but for anyone who is interested, I've written about the sin of abortion in some detail here: Abortion | THE REJECTED STONE

Even if you're not Lutheran, I think all orthodox bodies are in alignment on the subject. Abortion is a very difficult, complex, and sensitive issue, but we need to be clear on that it is murder. The Church is called to stand with the weak, poor, and needy, and to uphold the sanctity of life, so we have a duty to fight for the right and life of the unborn.

 

[chad kincham]

What you wrote here is missing the point I made so the one who is doing "little reading" is you.

Jesus did not reference these specific stories about Moses as talked about here - of getting commandments by God to forms of killing/murder. So your point about Jesus citing Moses does not confirm that everything written about Moses life is historically accurate as narrated.

2nd. You did not understand what you read when you referenced Jonah, Jesus is using it as an analogy, not affirming it.

Jonah and the Great Sea Creature

Jesus believed the story of Jonah and the great sea creature literally occurred. In fact, He used it as a sign of His resurrection. We read about this in Matthew’s gospel:

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.” (Matthew 12:38-41 ESV)

If one wants to argue that the reference to Jonah was to a non-existent person, then one would have to conclude the following: Jesus illustrated His literal resurrection and literal judgment to come by using a non-existent character (Jonah) who was swallowed by a non-existent sea creature. Then this non-existent character preached an imaginary message to non-existent people (the Ninevites) who made a non-existent repentance. These non-existence people will one day judge people that actually do exist. Obviously, this scenario makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Inkfingers]

Would it been better of God to not kick the Canaanites out of the Land, and having them continue to live their in spite of their sins, and have them get in the way of His Keeping his promise to Abraham, and His eventually bringing about the Messiah who would be the Savior of the entire World?

Isn't their a saying that in order to make an omelet you need to break some eggs? I think their is another saying of Pablo Picasso "that every creative act is an act of destruction".

Speaking of killing children the Canaanites actually practiced child sacrifice (burning babies alive) as part of their worship of Molech... So leaving the Canaanites in the land in the long run would not have been very kind or good for anybody.

I'm not criticising God's order to kill the children.

I'm pointing out that if he's okay with children being killed, it means that there is no prohibition on infanticide (and thus on abortion).

 

[SPF]

If God commanded Joshua to kill children (and we all accept that He did so) then God does not have an absolute prohibition against infanticide (and all abortion is infanticide).

This does not mean that abortion is always right, but it does mean that abortion is not always wrong.

Ok sure, point taken. So we can then say that when God is dealing out justice as is His role as God that there are times in which He utilizes wars against a nation to carry out His justice. Doing so will involve the death of people of all ages.

However, within the context of an abortion, particularly in the 98.5% of abortions which are permitted by convenience reasons, which are not directed by God, but are decided upon by His creation, against His creation - those instances are immoral and wrong.

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

The distinction between a human being and a human person is a made up distinction. It is entirely arbitrary and subjective. It is fabricated by people for the sole purpose of justifying an action against a human being that would otherwise be considered immoral.

It's interesting because on the one hand fabricating this distinction acknowledges that humans do possess moral worth and value, which is good and true. But on the other hand, it's devastating because if people buy into it, then it justifies a whole slew of immoral behavior against the human that doesn't subjectively qualify as a person.

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.

Thanks to advancements in science, we now know that a new, unique human being comes into existence at fertilization. This new human being begins a roughly 25 year period of development, briefly beginning inside the mother. At no point during our development are we not a human being. At no point in our development do we not look like a human being. An adult looks different than a child, just as a child looks different than an embryo. Yet all equally human beings just at different levels of development.

We also know that according to Scripture human beings stand alone as unique creations of God, created in His Image, possessing inherent moral worth and value. We don't grow into this moral worth and value. Our moral worth and value is not based upon how we came into existence, or how old we are, or how developed we are, or anything else that people may want to discriminate against. Our moral worth and value comes to us by way of God.

Therefore, it should be rather obvious to Christians at the very least, that the intentional and purposeful killing of another human being (particularly one who is utterly innocent) is immoral and wrong. This constitutes 98.5% of abortions.

There is nothing anywhere in the bible that discusses abortion, mentions abortion, or gives us any indication of God's opinion of it. Everything we think on the topic comes from us and our own personal or cultural biases, and deciding that it comes from God is an attempt to create him in our own image.

There are a number of things that Scripture doesn't address head-on. However, there are principles established in Scripture that we can utilize to address the morality of practices. The practice of abortion is not a difficult one to address.

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. The intentional killing of an innocent human being who has done nothing wrong is immoral.

4. Unborn human beings have done nothing wrong.

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

Also, while Exodus 21 is not about abortion, it does address the moral worth and value of the unborn. And what it says is that if the unborn were to die as the result of a scuffle, then life for life is owed. That is a powerful testimony to the moral worth and value of the unborn in the eyes of God.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I'm not criticising God's order to kill the children.

I'm pointing out that if he's okay with children being killed, it means that there is no prohibition on infanticide (and thus on abortion).

For the sake of intellectual honesty I will agree as far as talking about absolutes. And i think that is important, because I think that many Christians, misrepresent things because of their ideology. I say this as a conservative, because decades ago I saw some friends of mine slinging out the "abortion is murder" slogan willy-nilly. While I disagree with abortion etc. and believe the Bible is against it etc. I think this goes too far. Because if you want to talk about scripture the closest scripture that fits the circumstances of modern abortion is the passage in the Pentateuch where if a man slugs a woman in the stomach and it does not lead to her death, but does lead to a premature birth he is required to pay an amount of silver to cover the damages.
The implication of the verse is that would most likely lead to the death of the child especially in primitive times before incubators etc. I have had Christians really argue against my common sense, and straight forward reading of the text. Basically if what they are saying is true the text should mandate capital punishment for an infant death literally just as it does for all kinds of other things like inappropriate behavior with animals, homosexuality, blasphemy, showing disrespect to your parents, and on, and on and on. And furthermore, I have also talked about the text to some of the Jews of Jewish Stack Exchange etc. to see if they likewise read it, and understood it the same way and they did.....


But here is the bottom line. The early books of the Bible reflect the time and culture they were written. The Bible is not just an inspired work, but also a product of humanity, and tends to reflect the culture it was originally written for and to. Jesus even addresses that very concept, on one occasion when he speaks about Divorce and says that commandment was given "because of the hardness of their heart". Anyway if you go back to ancient times, children did not have the rights that they have today in our culture. They were basically chattel until they came of age. They were loved as part of the family, but infant mortality was high, which was one reason why people had big families. Children were also expected to pull their own weight in households as far as child labor goes. And their was obvious advantageous to why having a big family was good, they made the best employees for a farm that you could have (loyal, and cheap). The problem is people of our day forget this kind of thing, and project our more enlightened values on the ancient past... But when that happens, next time I recommend quoting the passages to the person, where the parents of a kid who talks back to them etc. can stone the child to death (rather than spank them, take away their privilege's for a week, or send them to their room)!

 

[Cis.jd]

Jonah and the Great Sea Creature

Jesus believed the story of Jonah and the great sea creature literally occurred. In fact, He used it as a sign of His resurrection. We read about this in Matthew’s gospel:

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.” (Matthew 12:38-41 ESV)

If one wants to argue that the reference to Jonah was to a non-existent person, then one would have to conclude the following: Jesus illustrated His literal resurrection and literal judgment to come by using a non-existent character (Jonah) who was swallowed by a non-existent sea creature. Then this non-existent character preached an imaginary message to non-existent people (the Ninevites) who made a non-existent repentance. These non-existence people will one day judge people that actually do exist. Obviously, this scenario makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm not going to continue to argue if Jonah was historical or not, that isn't the context or main point of my post to begin with. Please know what we are discussing first, and also know what an analogy is.

 

[SPF]

Because if you want to talk about scripture the closest scripture that fits the circumstances of modern abortion is the passage in the Pentateuch where if a man slugs a woman in the stomach and it does not lead to her death, but does lead to a premature birth he is required to pay an amount of silver to cover the damages.
The implication of the verse is that would most likely lead to the death of the child especially in primitive times before incubators etc.

What in the context itself implies the death of the child? There’s nothing that does, nothing at all. The fine does not necessarily mean the child is dead, and even if it did this wouldn’t indicate that the child wasn’t fully human (as in the case of the slave in v. 32).

Also, why presume the child is dead like some do? Though the English word “miscarriage” entails this notion, nothing in the Hebrew wording suggests it. Yasa doesn’t mean miscarriage; it means “to come forth.” The word itself never suggests death. In fact, the word generally implies the opposite: live birth. If it’s never translated elsewhere as miscarriage, why translate it that way here? And that's important to note, the word Yasa, which is used here is NEVER translated anywhere else in Scripture as miscarriage.

Third, ancient Hebrew had a specific word for miscarriage. It was used in other passages. Why not here? Because Moses didn’t mean miscarriage. When his words are simply taken at face value, there is no confusion at all. The verse is clear and straight-forward. Everything falls into place.

Regardless of the translation, it’s clear that killing the child—and the text does refer to the unborn as a child—is a criminal act. There is no justification for abortion-on-demand from the Torah. Instead, we have a reasonable—even powerful—argument that God views the unborn as valuable as any other human being.

 

[pescador]

Frankly, I don't see that there's a worthwhile discussion to be had when you simultaneously insist that abortion is morally acceptable but then qualify that by talking as though only certain abortions -- the ones most easily rationalized -- are what we should discuss.

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).