Pro-Choice IS NOT Pro-Abortion

Status
Not open for further replies.

2Timothy2:15

Well-Known Member
Mar 28, 2016
2,226
1,227
CA
✟78,248.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My point is that I don't expect non-Christians to live up to the same standards as Christians.

Well they don't, because they do not have the Holy Spirit or Jesus. But the LORD raises up a standard, that is the one who belongs to him is suppose to do his will. How can we be salt and light if we hide our light under a lamp stand to not upset the darkness.
 
Upvote 0

tstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 28, 2017
667
592
Maryland
✟45,260.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Celibate
They all show God showing mercy to sinners. If God doesn't show mercy to sinners, which is what you are claim to not do, He would have never sent Jesus.
They also show that all of those who receive mercy repented. The prodigal son realized his error and returned to his father and repented. The woman at the well repented and said, "give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water." Hebrews 4 states that we must "draw near to the throne of grace" in order to receive mercy. The woman caught in adultery is a disputed text and it just so happens to be the odd one out that does not mention any sort of repentance necessary for mercy. Coincidence?

And I do not claim that God does not show mercy to sinners. God shows mercy to His elect, who are all sinners. Well, actually, God shows mercy to everyone in the sense that it is a mercy that anyone is alive here and not already burning in hell and receiving the wrath of God (I suggest reading some of Jonathan Edwards writings). As it pertains to salvation, God only shows mercy on His elect.

I remove the formatting of scripture because it wasn't originally written with verses and chapters. The relevancy was all passages showing that God does not show partiality towards anyone, but loves everyone regardless of who they are and what they have done. That's one of the biggest points of the bible.
I am aware. It was also originally written on papyri, but I am not expecting you to mail me fragments. When you tell someone to look up a passage, how do you do it? Do you not give them the name of the book, the chapter(s), and the verse(s)?

And I know why you cited them, but you did not bother to actually comment on them. It would be like me providing all of the passages that I did in my previous post without actually opening up a discussion on them. It would be confusing to the reader and really lazy on my end.

That's still not in full context. The full context of the passage is Nicodemus asking how someone can be born again (3:9), Jesus replies that's it's talking about spiritual and Heavenly things (10-12), and that people become born again by believing in God's incarnate Son (13-18), however people like sinning and so they'll chose to not accept it (19-21).
Right. I meant the context of John 3:16 as it pertains to this discussion.

We follow Christ by following his commandments: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:36-40/Mark 12:29-21/Luke 10:25-28/Romans 12:9-10/James 2:8 (all of those passages say the same thing: The entire law comes down to loving your neighbor as yourself), Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 10:30-37 are great examples and further explanation by Jesus for what it means to love your neighbor as yourself and how it relates to righteousness, and 1 John 4:7-21 the writer again explains that it all comes down to loving your neighbor and blatantly explains how it connects to loving God as it says that you can't love God if you don't love your neighbor since you don't know God. Love is the commandment, by which all other commandments follow.

There is a story recorded in the Talmuds about two Rabbinical schools, a Roman centurion came to the first school and demanded "Teach me your Torah (the Law) while I stand here on one foot." The rabbi in charge hew him out without saying anything. So he went across town and said the same thing to the other school. The rabbi there said to him "Love God with your whole being and Love your neighbor as yourself. The rest is commentary." THEN he threw him out. The latter is the teachings that Jesus and Paul affirmed in their teachings. When Jesus is asked "What is the greatest command?", he's essentially being asked the same question the centurion is asking those rabbis. Christ answers "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' The second is like it, 'love your neighbor as yourself'. All of the law and the prophets hang on those two commandments." Paul, after building an argument in Romans about law, grace, and sin says "Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet'; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law" is saying the same thing, if not kind of explaining it as a Jew to his partially Gentile audience.
Yup, hammer on head! :oldthumbsup:

Everyone agreed the greatest commandment was Love the Lord your God, and how you loved God (besides the laws directly against God: idolatry, blasphemy, and apostasy) was by keeping his commandments, and what Jesus and Paul are saying is that you love God by loving your neighbor as yourself. ALL of the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments. That "all" is where it seems like many people get caught up, it seems like we've interpreted this, not as "You love God by loving your neighbor", but "Love God" and "Be kind to people, and also don't do this, this, that, and all of those other things." What Jesus, Paul, and James are saying about loving your neighbor is that if you focus on that, it will all fall into place and you can't go wrong.
Yes, but that does not exclude the fact that we are to rebuke sinners. We can follow the commandments by loving the Lord our God and loving our neighbor as ourself. That does not mean we cannot fall into the traps of other sins or that we should ignore all sins.

No, Christ died for everyone. I'll touch on this later.

[...]

While it's true that belief, salvation, true reptence, and all of that is ultimately a gift from God, as everything good in life is, that gift is given and open for everyone to accept if they choose.
"and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2
No, not everyone can accept. It is not a free choice. Consider the following passages:

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Romans 3:9-12; ESV)​

Tell me, how can a person "accept if they choose" when "no one seeks for God?" How can someone come to God, which is by all stretches of the imagination a good thing, when "no one does good?"

For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:20-23; ESV)​

As is clearly shown in this passage, man is a slave to sin. It is only by Christ that we have been set free from slavery to sin and become slaves of God. So, unless someone is a slave to God they are a slave to sin. If someone is a slave to sin then they cannot break away from it to become a slave to God.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:14-15; ESV)​

How can a person "accept if they choose" if "the natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God?" How can a person "accept if they choose" if "he is not able to understand them [the things of the Spirit of God] because they are spiritually discerned?"

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7-8; ESV)​

How can a person "accept if they choose" if they are "hostile to God" and "does not submit to God's law." In fact, "it [the mind that is set on the flesh] cannot." How can a person "accept if they choose" if they "cannot please God?"

The answers to all of these questions are quite simple. They can't. It all is a gift from God based on His sovereign will:

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13; ESV)​

Regarding 1 John 2:2, it is not the only verse to say that Christ died for the "whole world" (John 1:29; 3:16; 6:51; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 2:9). Now we must consider what the "whole world" actually is in reference to.

The question that needs a precise answer is this: Did He or didn't He? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn't He? If He did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved. (Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 47.)
If Christ genuinely died for every single human being in the whole world then you only have two options:
  1. Everyone in the world is saved regardless of whether or not they accept Christ (as the sin of unbelief would be covered on the cross).
  2. Christ died for everyone, but it was insufficient without extra work on the part of man (synergism).
So, which is it? Or is there another option? Of course there is. It is the "L" in TULIP. That is, Limited Atonement.

Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons [...] while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across. As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist. (Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 153.)​

So which option is most accurately described in Scripture? We know that Christ came to save, not to try and save (Luke 19:10; Hebrews 9:12; 1 Timothy 1:15). So who did Christ come to save? Was it the whole world? This is clearly not the case, as is seen in Scriptures:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. [...] Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matthew 25:31-33; 41; ESV)​

Obviously the goats are not saved by Christ's work on the cross. So Christ came to save His sheep and not the goats (John 10:11-15). Consider, for example, what is written in Matthew 20:28. It is in this passage that we read that Christ came "to give his life as a ransom for many," not for all (cf. Isaiah 53:11). How can one be a sheep? In light of Romans 3:9-12; 6:20-23; 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14-15, we know that it is not by the choice of man. I already cited John 1:12-13, which teaches that it is by God. But it is explicitly stated by Jesus in John 6:37 that all "the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." The sheep are those that are of God while the goats are those who are not (John 8:47).

Just stop for a moment and actually consider the whole analogy of the sheep and the shepherd. Does a sheep choose its own shepherd or does a shepherd choose his sheep? The answer in real life observation is quite clear. It is also quite clear that it works the same way in Scriptures.

One more passage I want to point you toward is in John as well:

For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. (John 17:8-9; ESV)​

Could the Scriptures be more clear? Man cannot come to God on their own. Christ did not die for the whole world, rather, He died for His sheep. Those who are His sheep are elected by God by His own sovereign will and are given the gift of grace to have faith.

"For the love of Christ urges us on, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them." 2 Cor 5:14-15
Who are the "all?" All does not necessitate all of humanity. Christ died for all who he came to die for. No more and no less. Christ's sacrifice was perfect and complete.

"Now in subjecting all things to them, God left nothing outside their control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to them, but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." Heb 2:8-9
Yes, "taste death for everyone" who believes. He obviously did not taste death for unregenerate individuals (the goats).

Of course if you look at the last two in the broader context of their passages, and scripture as a whole Christ died for both everyone and only a select few (the Church, elect, whatever you want to call it), however, anyone is welcome to be apart of the select few.
because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” - Romans 10:9-13
"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30
Not everyone is "welcome to be apart of the select few." I highlighted this above.
 
Upvote 0

JESUS=G.O.A.T

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2016
2,681
659
27
Houston
✟68,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Please go back and re-read the entire post without quote mining, cherry picking, or looking for arguing points because you all missed the point

I apologize that so many people were misunderstanding what I was saying. I was not saying that abortion is morally okay or that murder is okay, I was just presenting the most basic, fundamental pro-choice argument. I do not support abortion, I think it is wrong, and wish that it would nobody would ever have an abortion. The problem is that the goal to make it completely illegal is too entirely idealistic, if we overturn Roe v Wade, it's going to become a state's issue, and even if it did become illegal, it wouldn't end abortion. It will just become this sketchy, underground, and unsafe practice. A perfect metaphor for what will happen is what happened with the war on drugs or Prohibition in the 1920s, it did nothing to combat or get rid of the problem, but ultimately backfired and made it into a bigger problem.


You should have simply just said this.

I'm pro choice when it comes to policy but just not ideoligy although even that's kind of hard to go with.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JESUS=G.O.A.T

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2016
2,681
659
27
Houston
✟68,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
As I said to the other fellow, this is a silly argument. God allows us the freedom to choose, does that mean He supports abortion?

I believe everyone should have a choice to marry who they want even if it's wrong...but that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote against gay marriage if I had the option or not vote for it if lets say in some hypothetical, there was some voting booth for it. And it wasn't just a supreme court decision. If you have a chance to oppose something that's immoral why not do it is the point i'm making. I am also making another point that you completely missed.... a preponderance of people who support pro choice are not christians and are individuals who lean towards the abortion option. That point I made wasn't to form an argument against the OP, but rather point something out to him, that maybe it's not wise to identify as pro-choice becuase of the type of people who typically are pro choice. IF you go up to a regular person and say you're pro choice...you're identified with those people rather than someone who has a pro life mindset but believes in pro choice policy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

-V-

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2016
1,229
511
USA
✟38,038.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Please go back and re-read the entire post without quote mining, cherry picking, or looking for arguing points because you all missed the point

But then you go on to present the exact same point I was arguing against - you personally feel it's wrong, yet you still claim to be pro-choice. That is EXACTLY what I responded to.
 
Upvote 0

-V-

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2016
1,229
511
USA
✟38,038.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Ummm what? lol

If she doesn't own her body, who does?
Is 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 not in your Bible? Here's what mine says:
"Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that YOU ARE NOT YOUR OWN? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body."

God's Word says it quite plainly: God owns your body.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Pilgrim
Upvote 0

-V-

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2016
1,229
511
USA
✟38,038.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Well, if pro-choicers are "pro-murder" because they allow abortions to take place without any opposition (see the quoted portion of post 21), what would that make God, according to that logic?
"Because they allow abortions to take place without any opposition"? I didn't say any such thing, you're attempting a straw man fallacy here.

Further, how can you say God "gives no opposition" to murder when He directly condemns it in the Bible and proscribes the death penalty for it? That's isn't considered opposition to you??
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
According to science and medicine, an unborn baby is still a human being. You seem to want to discuss legality. I'm talking about morality.
Yes, and the fetus is inside of a human being. We have people posting in this thread who have said that a pregnant woman shouldn't be able to abort even if she is a rape victim or her life is in danger. I'm also talking about morality.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: archer75
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So you agree the unborn baby is a human being.

Why would I disagree?

So, as they're both human beings, what makes the mother's life inherently more valuable?

Because the rights of a person in being should prevail.
 
Upvote 0

JESUS=G.O.A.T

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2016
2,681
659
27
Houston
✟68,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Why would I disagree?



Because the rights of a person in being should prevail.
a Christian would pray and hear god on the issue rather then just make such a desiscision. It's intrinsic to remember that before god formed us he knew us he has a purpose for that child and besides why forget that god is irrational and can perform miracles? He could deliver both the woman and the baby
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
a Christian would pray and hear god on the issue rather then just make such a desiscision. It's intrinsic to remember that before god formed us he knew us he has a purpose for that child and besides why forget that god is irrational and can perform miracles? He could deliver both the woman and the baby
Not sure what a "desiscision" is, but the decision must remain with the pregnant woman.
 
Upvote 0

JESUS=G.O.A.T

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2016
2,681
659
27
Houston
✟68,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Not sure what a "desiscision" is, but the decision must remain with the pregnant woman.
Not sure what "in being" is either but I used context clues to help me figure out what you were trying to say. It's a skill you learn in grade school. Also I'm on my phone as well tbh and I'm disappointed in your reply. You didn't have an answer to what I stated so you referred to an grammar based response
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Pro-choice is not in any way synonymous with pro-abortion. All the pro-choice argument is is that a woman has the right choose what to do with her body, and that right supersedes her unborn child's right to life because of the unborn child is completely dependent on her body for survival. It is not advocating for abortion over birth, if it was, it would be called pro-abortion. I'm not going to deny that there are extremist people, or that part of the more extreme side advocate for removing the stigma and shame surrounding abortion, but that is still not the same thing as believing women should have an abortion over giving birth.

A person can be pro-choice and anti-abortion, and many pro-choice people are including myself. In fact, if you personally believe that a woman should be allowed the option to have an abortion only in very specific circumstances, you are technically pro-choice. According to Gallop, while 46% of Americans would identify as pro-life, only 19% think it should be illegal in all circumstances, the majority opinion being "a few circumstances" at 35%. Unless you are in that 19%, you are pro-choice to some degree.

That's one of the many reasons why I don't like talking about this issue, but I felt the need to make this thread because I am tired of being accused of being pro-abortion because I am pro-choice. The reality is yes I'm pro-choice, but I hate abortion and want it to end, or at least become almost non-existent. Personally, I've yet to see any politician or organization come up with a solution that I can truly get behind and say "yes, that's what we need to do!". The reason why I have ended up calling myself pro-choice for now is that desperate women with no options and their backs against the wall will go to any length necessary to end her pregnancy. The way it looks to get that done right now is what pro-choice side supports and strives for: better sex education, as well as easier, better, and cheaper access to birth control and other women's healthcare services.

You seem to have high identity with your rights to your body but when we follow Jesus we should surrender these rights. This doesn't mean the answer will fit a pro-choice or pro-life checkbox but it does mean our rights always come secondary to Christ. I can appreciate there are a situations that may warrant more pro-choice values (or others that warrant more pro-life values) but "choice" is not ours to have as our bodies and their rights are surrendered to Christ.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NothingIsImpossible

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
5,615
3,254
✟274,922.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It doesn't matter what you think or how you spin it with statistics or words. It doesn't even matter what I think. It only matters what God thinks. And aborting a baby is a sin. On a side note technically you don't own your body. God does. He gave us this body and we are to take care of it. A life that grows inside of a woman is a gift and blessing. It is also Gods baby (you know what I mean). It was created in the womb. So killing the baby is essentially a slap in the face of God saying "I don't care that you created this life, its my body!".

[Staff edit].

As for abortion under certain circumstances. Well if you referring to rape for example, its still not the womans choice to abort the baby. Abortion is abortion no matter how the baby came to be. And on top of it if a woman doesn't want the baby she can always give it up for adoption. Abortion is just another word for selfishness. Also lets not forget what about the baby choice? Its helpless and is stuck with whatever the decision the mother makes. Even the bible says to not mess with kids. A baby is a kid. So caution to those who stand before God and admit they aborted the baby.

I've always taken two things to be most precious to God. The Jewish people and babies/kids. I don't care to receive Gods wrath by messing with either. Not that I would mess with them anyways of course.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Not sure what "in being" is either but I used context clues to help me figure out what you were trying to say. It's a skill you learn in grade school. Also I'm on my phone as well tbh and I'm disappointed in your reply. You didn't have an answer to what I stated so you referred to an grammar based response
Person in being us a legal term so it isn't a grammar based response as you falsely claim. A fetus is not a person in being until birth.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

381465

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
1,463
950
None
✟30,626.00
Country
Zimbabwe
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
A fetus is not a person in being unless it survives to be born. Legal term.

That's why the doctors don't deliver the fetus/baby all the way when performing partial birth abortions.
A few inches means the difference between fetus and baby.
Sad.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.