Is "Pro-Choice" the right "choice" for a Christian to make? Why or why not?

[SPF]

SkyWriting, you state that you believe the child inside a mother's womb is equally created in the image of God as the mother that is carrying the child in her womb. If they are equally created in the image of God, and if they each possess in equal measure the same moral worth - then how do you suggest we apply the Golden Rule in our behavior towards the unborn child?

When it pertains specifically to our actions towards the unborn child, how can we best love the child according to Scripture? Or put more specifically - how are you living up to the Golden Rule when you are killing a child when they have done no wrong?

Morality is by definition subjective. So I don't need to defend that point.
The stand on morality from scripture is 100% subjective.

What's interesting about the 10 commandments is that we can boil them down to either a failure to love God or love others. Sin, at its root can always be deduced to a person either failing to love God or love others. I think you and I are in agreement on this idea.

But that being said, it still doesn't lead to morality being subjective. There are still moral commands given to us in Scripture that you cannot deny. For instance, cold blooded murder is wrong. Objectively so. There's nothing subjective about it. Idolatry is wrong. Objectively so. In what instance do you believe a person can practice idolatry and not sin?

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes it does.
I've felt the aborted baby's death as deeply
as the stillborn one and any miscarriage
and the pregnant 9 year old's rape by her father.
Why the obsession to control the lives of other
people? Something in your past?

You're comparing the death of an aborted baby (a death caused willingly by someone other than the baby) with a death that was not preventable, and a rape.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Nothing in the real world is too simple or too complex. They just are.

Am not sure what that comment has to do with comparing alternative opposing views of the afterlife. I agree things just are. But we can make observations about relative complexity. The afterlife is part of our reality, or at least most of us, including most pagans of the past, think so...

Another poster was suggesting my posted view of the afterlife was complex compared to timewarping people back and forth from Final Judgement or God making as many copies of us as He likes with the last copy being Judged for the life of the first copy. I disagreed.

The only contribution your post seem to have made is a disagreement with the other poster's use of a Occam's Razor, which I parroted back to them. And now are rather less than profound statement of reality that am unclear how to apply to topic unless it reflects a belief there is no real afterlife.
So is it timewarping or God making copies you prefer over a real afterlife?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Morality is by definition subjective. So I don't need to defend that point.
The stand on morality from scripture is 100% subjective.
I discovered that, then put in in my signature file to back up my discovery:
---> Mathew 7: 12 (Love Wins)

I'd be happy to elaborate, again.

From the perspective of the fetus I doubt the killers or assistants view of morality is shared. Given it is a fetus, yet to be corrupted in moral thought, would think children demonstrating common morals demonstration enough that morals must be external to us.
For a Christian the thought God is Good also rather puts a kabash on the idea morals can change.

 

[SkyWriting]

From the perspective of the fetus I doubt the killers or assistants view of morality is shared. Given it is a fetus, yet to be corrupted in moral thought, would think children demonstrating common morals demonstration enough that morals must be external to us.For a Christian the thought God is Good also rather puts a kabash on the idea morals can change.

Morality is defined as what you personally believe is right is wrong.
Changing the definition is not in your power.

This passage explains that people define law and morality:
Romans 13:1-7
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

So does this:
Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them,
for this is the Law and the Prophets.

 

[SkyWriting]

Or put more specifically - how are you living up to the Golden Rule when you are killing a child when they have done no wrong?

They are no less sinners than Charles Manson or myself. It's only by your imagination and impaired view of sin that they have halos. God is not concerned about what you do. God only cares that you trust in Him or not.

 

[SkyWriting]

You're comparing the death of an aborted baby (a death caused willingly by someone other than the baby) with a death that was not preventable, and a rape.

Very good. You're reading well.

 

[Armoured]

Idolatry is wrong. Objectively so. In what instance do you believe a person can practice idolatry and not sin?

Ask a Hindu.

 

[redleghunter]

Morality is defined as what you personally believe is right is wrong.
Changing the definition is not in your power.

Frankly this is puzzling. If what I personally believe something that means it is in my power to personally change my mind. This is a contradiction.

This passage explains that people define law and morality:
Romans 13:1-7
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Within context Paul is showing us what is considered as government as a force of good not evil. For example, Christians not going out and destroying public and private property while protesting.

This also does not mean following a nations law to eradicate an ethnic group. Meaning, following your logic someone in Nazi Germany would be compelled to turn in Ann Frank instead of doing the Christian duty of hiding her. See how that works? Daniel 3 is a very good example of how the anointed of God are to resist government when they are a force of evil.

So does this:
Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them,
for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Yes, this is why abortion should be illegal. I don't think anyone wants to be chopped up or burned to death. I know I don't want that to happen to me.

By your logic someone who procures an abortion should have measured out to them what they measured out to the human being in the womb.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Morality is defined as what you personally believe is right is wrong.
Changing the definition is not in your power.

Am unclear on the idea an unchanging God Who is Good would be OK with me deciding what is right or wrong. Didn't work for Satan or Adam. Figure probably won't work for me either.

This passage explains that people define law and morality:
Romans 13:1-7
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Am not sure how I could claim that God is the Authority if I am to imagine I am the authority for defining what is Good. I would agree with the idea we are to submit to being governed, but I don't see that as meaning morals are up to me to decide. And again, it seems to me that was the lie Satan told Eve, that I should be able to decide/define what is "good" for me - subjective morality.

So does this:
Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them,
for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Unless I change my definition since it is claimed that what I should wish (what is good) can change with how i define it (subjective morals), then this idea presented by Matthew becomes whatever I define as a good and so wish others would do to me. Rather a different concept.

 

[SPF]

They are no less sinners than Charles Manson or myself. It's only by your imagination and impaired view of sin that they have halos. God is not concerned about what you do. God only cares that you trust in Him or not.

This is interesting. I never said that children in the womb possessed less of an inherited sinful nature than anyone located outside the womb. In fact, the very thrust of my argument is that children inside the womb are morally in the exact same state as those outside the womb. My position is that children inside the womb are just as much human, possess just as much a soul, and are just as much created in the image of God as children outside the womb. You have suggested that you agree with this.

So with that as our foundation, how do you then move onto practicing the Golden Rule within the specific context of behavior towards children inside the womb. If you are OK with killing children inside the womb who have no say, who have done no wrong, and who have no means of defending themselves, would you then be OK with someone killing you when you had done no wrong, gave you no say, and no means by which to defend yourself?

I think you're displaying the epitome of hypocritical thought and belief in your position. You are utterly inconsistent with your insistence that we should operate based upon the Golden Rule. If you actually believed that, then you would move to protect the child inside the womb.

As for your views on morality, you're again completely inconsistent. Consider Romans 13 that you quoted in light of how Daniel behaved. Did Daniel obey the governing authority? If he had, would that have been right? No, it would have been wrong. Obedience to God trumps obedience to government. If the government passed a law today saying that once a day you had tear out 10 pages of your Bible, burn them, curse God, and deny your faith - would you do it? According to what you've suggested, it would be perfectly moral to do so. Yet anyone with an elementary understanding of Scripture or even the tiniest relationship with Christ would recognize that as absurd. Why don't you?

Morality is not subjective because man is not the measure of morality. Right and wrong stem from the immutable character of God.

 

[SkyWriting]

In fact, the very thrust of my argument is that children inside the womb are morally in the exact same state as those outside the womb.

I stated that as well, early on.

 

[SPF]

lol SkyWriting, continuing to elegantly avoid actually discussing content as usual. You're right, you did state that as well (after my asking you over 7 pages of discourse and continual repetition), hence my saying - "You have suggested that you agree with this."

And that's great that you do agree with that. It means we share the same foundation! Now the discussion moves on from the foundation into the application of principles. Hence the entirety of the rest of my post. Can you look back above and then actually respond to the content of what I wrote?

Actually here, I'll help:

So with that as our foundation, how do you then move onto practicing the Golden Rule within the specific context of behavior towards children inside the womb. If you are OK with killing children inside the womb who have no say, who have done no wrong, and who have no means of defending themselves, would you then be OK with someone killing you when you had done no wrong, gave you no say, and no means by which to defend yourself?

I think you're displaying the epitome of hypocritical thought and belief in your position. You are utterly inconsistent with your insistence that we should operate based upon the Golden Rule. If you actually believed that, then you would move to protect the child inside the womb.

 

[Aldebaran]

They are no less sinners than Charles Manson or myself. It's only by your imagination and impaired view of sin that they have halos. God is not concerned about what you do. God only cares that you trust in Him or not.

Would God care if I drove up next to someone and shot them in the head? I do trust in God, so would I be ok then in your view?

 

[Aldebaran]

Very good. You're reading well.

Good! Then I'm accurate when I notice that you're comparing things that don't even relate to each other and therefore not making any sense.

 

[Aldebaran]

Ask a Hindu.

Wouldn't a Catholic know the answer to his question? It was a very basic question.

 

[SkyWriting]

Good! Then I'm accurate when I notice that you're comparing things that don't even relate to each other and therefore not making any sense.

If the think the unborn wear halo's, then you be wrong.
They stand along with Charles Manson headed for Hell
but they are forgiven in their ignorance and lack of
awareness of the law.

 

[SkyWriting]

Would God care if I drove up next to someone and shot them in the head? I do trust in God, so would I be ok then in your view?

Moses buried his victims in the sand. Trusting God is your only way out
of this or any mess you can create. Including reproductive shenanigans.

 

[Aldebaran]

If the think the unborn wear halo's, then you be wrong.
They stand along with Charles Manson headed for Hell
but they are forgiven in their ignorance and lack of
awareness of the law.

And this is justification for killing them? If that's not your point, then what is?

 

[Aldebaran]

Moses buried his victims in the sand. Trusting God is your only way out
of this or any mess you can create. Including reproductive shenanigans.

Okie dokie! Good for Moses! Now, let me ask again: Would God care if I drove up next to someone and shot them in the head as long as I trust in God? I'm asking you this again because you had said God doesn't care what we do.

BTW, the only "reproductive shenanigans" we're talking about is the fact that a mother cares so little for a new life entering the world that she's willing to kill it because her own convenience is worth more to her than the life she was entrusted by God with.