regarding abortion

[kidsagainstkows]

Are the readers of this forum for or against (or somewhere in between as i am) the practice of abortion?

does religion play a major role in the this decision?

if yes, what support (biblical, palpal (sp), ect) do you give for your reasoning?

if no, do you ever get flack from religious friends for your position?

thank you and I look forward to your responses

 

[salida]

I'm prolife and proud of it. No, I have not ever gotten any flack-except once from a nonbeliever-and we had an intense debate. He said I got him thinking. My faith is my value system.

Psalms 139:13-16

 

[_JJM]

I have people in my family who are not religious, yet believe abortion to be of the chief injustices of our time.

I don't believe one needs to have "religious" guidance to understand that the burning, impaling, and general dismemberment of infants is wrong.

That anyone is confused on this issue is baffling. It really is a testament to the fallen nature of humanity.

 

[ebia]

Are the readers of this forum for or against (or somewhere in between as i am) the practice of abortion?

Human life is always valuable. There may be extreme circumstances where abortion represents the lesser of two wrong choices, but its never a good thing.

does religion play a major role in the this decision?

One's world view is bound to inform one's ethical and moral thinking.

if yes, what support (biblical, palpal (sp), ect) do you give for your reasoning?

Genesis 1

if no, do you ever get flack from religious friends for your position?

Not that I can recall.

 

[Lithp]

Joshua: Abortion is not "burning, impaling, & dismembering" infants. It is indeed confusing that you appear to be baffled on this issue. Abortion involves removing a fetus which, at the end of the 1st trimester, does not even have any fully developed organ systems, & thus can hardly be called an "infant." People are pro-choice because they believe women should have the right to choose whether or not they should have to carry a child to term. It's not my business to tell you what is right or wrong, but do try to get your facts right.

Ebia: Genesis 1? "In the beginning, God created the heavens & the earth"? That doesn't even comment on abortion.

Salida: I feel intrigued at your comment & wish to see what you told him.

 

[brinny]

Are the readers of this forum for or against (or somewhere in between as i am) the practice of abortion?

does religion play a major role in the this decision?

if yes, what support (biblical, palpal (sp), ect) do you give for your reasoning?

if no, do you ever get flack from religious friends for your position?

thank you and I look forward to your responses

I was against abortion before I was a child of God.

 

[brinny]

I have people in my family who are not religious, yet believe abortion to be of the chief injustices of our time.

I don't believe one needs to have "religious" guidance to understand that the burning, impaling, and general dismemberment of infants is wrong.

That anyone is confused on this issue is baffling. It really is a testament to the fallen nature of humanity.

You must've read my mind. My thoughts exactly.

 

[ebia]

Ebia: Genesis 1? "In the beginning, God created the heavens & the earth"? That doesn't even comment on abortion.

Nowhere in the bible does it comment on abortion directly (though the 1st century Christian text Didache does).

But Christian attitudes on abortion have always stemmed from the biblical assertion that all human life is of value - and Genesis 1 is the foundational text for that.

 

[Lithp]

No, it says, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens & the Earth." If the implication is meant to be that everything that stemmed as a result of Genesis 1 is good, then one may as well be using it to argue that Satan is good. I'm not certain if that is the point, but that is the only way I can conceive that possibly links that verse to abortion.

 

[brinny]

No, it says, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens & the Earth." If the implication is meant to be that everything that stemmed as a result of Genesis 1 is good, then one may as well be using it to argue that Satan is good. I'm not certain if that is the point, but that is the only way I can conceive that possibly links that verse to abortion.

What is your understanding of the Bible? Have you read the entire Bible?

 

[Lithp]

I got bored & didn't finish Genesis. I did read one of the Gospels, but I forget which one. However, this falls squarely into the category of basic logic. If the supporting passage doesn't actually mention or even allude to the subject--well, it's not very good support, now is it?

 

[brinny]

I got bored & didn't finish Genesis. I did read one of the Gospels, but I forget which one. However, this falls squarely into the category of basic logic. If the supporting passage doesn't actually mention or even allude to the subject--well, it's not very good support, now is it?

You've missed the point of it all. God created. All was good on earth. Adam and Eve sinned. It broke off fellowship with God, because of course He's holy. THAT (the sin) is not good.

Perhaps you should go back and read it. Especially when and how sin enters the picture.

 

[ebia]

No, it says, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens & the Earth." If the implication is meant to be that everything that stemmed as a result of Genesis 1 is good, then one may as well be using it to argue that Satan is good. I'm not certain if that is the point, but that is the only way I can conceive that possibly links that verse to abortion.

I referenced the chapter, not just the first verse of the chapter. Read a bit further on in the chapter and you will find that men and women are the pinacle of God's creation, made to be the image of God in and for that creation.

 

[Lithp]

Brinny: This is a problem I face a lot when discussing the Bible: You can't conclude that a person is ignorant of something before you actually ask them about it.

I didn't say anything about Adam & Eve or sin entering the world. You merely assumed I didn't know the story. In fact, if you go to the page, "Jesus is God?" you'll find out that I've already reiterated the story days before you made that post.

This is often done, as you did, when it is completely irrelevent. I am quoting the verse & noting that it makes no reference or allusion to abortion. There is no reason for me to go into detail about the Garden of Eden story in this context.

Now, what I WAS getting at is really very simple: There is no reference or allusion to abortion in that verse. I highly doubt you could even properly link the subjects. The supporting verse does no actual supporting.

Ebia: That makes significantly more sense.

Edit: I can't strikeout. Just pretend that paragraph is struck through.

 

[brinny]

Brinny: This is a problem I face a lot when discussing the Bible: You can't conclude that a person is ignorant of something before you actually ask them about it.

I didn't say anything about Adam & Eve or sin entering the world. You merely assumed I didn't know the story. In fact, if you go to the page, "Jesus is God?" you'll find out that I've already reiterated the story days before you made that post.

This is often done, as you did, when it is completely irrelevent. I am quoting the verse & noting that it makes no reference or allusion to abortion. There is no reason for me to go into detail about the Garden of Eden story in this context.

Now, what I WAS getting at is really very simple: There is no reference or allusion to abortion in that verse. I highly doubt you could even properly link the subjects. The supporting verse does no actual supporting.

Ebia: That makes significantly more sense.

Edit: I can't strikeout. Just pretend that paragraph is struck through.

I was responding to this post of yours (post #11):

I got bored & didn't finish Genesis. I did read one of the Gospels, but I forget which one. However, this falls squarely into the category of basic logic. If the supporting passage doesn't actually mention or even allude to the subject--well, it's not very good support, now is it?

 

[Sketcher]

I'm against it, unless it's the only way to save a woman's life, such as in an eptopic pregnancy. In that case, you'll lose one life or you'll lose two, and you save the life you can. Generally speaking, you do whatever you can to save the lives of both the mother and the child.

Why am I pro-life? Primarily, it is because it is self-evident that an unborn child is in fact a person. And morally, every person has the right to life unless he or she has forfeited that right by becoming a murderer or a rapist or something else on that level.

If I were an unbeliever, none of the above beliefs would change. If I were a pro-choice unbeliever (and I'm not projecting this on anyone else, I'm just talking about how I would justify it), I would simply not care about the unborn child's rights. I would just believe that it's in the way, so too bad. And I may dabble in some of the pro-choice arguments, but that would be the soul of it, since they don't really hold water and I would still see that. Then again, I'd probably be more of an advocate for vigilante justice too, just to give you some context of the kind of person I'd be. I'd be an all-around culture of death person.

Now, Biblically, there are a couple more things:

"You shall not murder." - Exodus 20:13

"For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be. " - Psalm 139:13-16

God is working on every one of us and has a purpose for each of us, even if a person or people can't see it. He has a purpose for the kids born with physical and mental birth defects. He has a purpose for those born from less than ideal encounters. And for that reason, they have value and deserve protection. Having an abortion is interrupting God's process of forming a life. Most of us wouldn't mash a pot that a potter is throwing on a wheel, even though it is and will continue to be an inanimate object. How much more should the Christian and the Jew have respect for human life that God himself is in the process of making.

 

[kidsagainstkows]

Thanks for all of your responses, as for myself i believe that if the woman's health is in danger or if it is so early that the life could not possibly be considered living (no brainwaves).

it seems strange that most people are not for abortion considering the verse Exodus 21: 22-23 which basically states that if a man beats a woman and causes her to miscarry, then he should pay a fine. however, if a man kills a woman and a child then he is to be put to death.

this seems to me that according to god, fetus =/= child

 

[Sketcher]

Thanks for all of your responses, as for myself i believe that if the woman's health is in danger or if it is so early that the life could not possibly be considered living (no brainwaves).

it seems strange that most people are not for abortion considering the verse Exodus 21: 22-23 which basically states that if a man beats a woman and causes her to miscarry, then he should pay a fine. however, if a man kills a woman and a child then he is to be put to death.

this seems to me that according to god, fetus =/= child

Here are the verses (and the two following verses) for the benefit of discussion:

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Now, the serious injury refers to the woman, but it may also extend to the child. Furthermore, it's a bit of a jump to say that the requirement of paying a fine for an accidental forced miscarriage means that abortion is acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. Rape of a virgin required a fine too* (Deut. 22:28-29) but we wouldn't say that's OK. Also, abortion is intentional, while the Exodus verses speak of an accident.

* as well as marriage to her, unless the father had a problem with it (Ex 22:17). The father and daughter had the liberty to refuse marriage to the perpetrator, but he did not have the liberty to refuse it if they wanted it.

 

[Mad_at_God]

The Bible does not say anything specific about abortion. But St. Augustine, the prominent Berber-Roman theologian and philosopher who was extremely influential in developing Christian thought and concepts, including the notion of original sin, commented on the issue. He wrote in Enchiridian that a fetus doesn't acquire a soul until a certain point of development. He concluded that abortion at the early stages of pregnancy was therefore not homicide.

Despite my not being a Christian, my views on abortion are pretty much in-line with St. Augustine's views on abortion. I believe that a fetus isn't really human at the early stages and can be aborted. But late-term abortions border on infanticide and shouldn't be legal.

 

[ebia]

1. Only Christians may post responses to the questions posed by non Exploring Christianity.
2. FWIW Augustine is not the earliest Christian commentator on abortion - the Didache (1st century or early 2nd century) rules it
out.
3. While Augustine did conclude that very early abortion was not murder (because he concluded that a fetus that could not experience sensation was not fully human - had he had access to modern science on that question he would have, at least, drawn the line in a different place) he did not conclude that it was therefore okay.