The Great Evil of Abortion

[Dan1988]

If find it's better to not interfere with the mothers decisions than
have a world where we do just that.

I believe it's better to interfere with the mothers decision and plead with her to obey God rater than obey sin. If she still refuses to obey God, them at least her blood and the blood of the baby won't be on your hands.

Abortion amounts to child sacrifice, the child is sacrificed on the altar of the god of mammon. They sacrifice the child so they can give themselves to serve the flesh. The child would interfere with their ability to serve their god of sin, so it is sacrificed.

We need to identify the sin of child sacrifice for what it is and stop trying to justify evil.

 

[Dan1988]

Only one of four zygotes naturally make it to birth.
And the mothers health is an issue if she can bare children.
Some pregnancies are not in healthy women.
And she has to stop abusing drugs.
And she needs financial support.
And she can avoid an abortion, if you offer to adopt.
Or is it not that important for you?

There are very long cues of people waiting to adopt children, folks have to wait a long time for children to become available. So that's not a legitimate excuse and neither is the health of the mother. Every pregnancy has risks ascociated, it's just a part of life.

 

[Phil 1:21]

No, you must offer adoption to save the child, else be guilty for the murder yourself.
Don't let the pro-life preachers off the hook.

No, I'm saying that in order to claim I was Pro-Life, I'd have to stand behind my claim and offer to adopt any and every baby, becasue that would save a baby from murder. Otherwise, I'm claiming it's Murder, but too requires too much commitment from me to justify it being avoided. It's just too expensive for me to save a babies life.

So then are we to assume you've converted your home into a shelter capable of hosting any and every battered woman and sexually molested child? Otherwise can we conclude, following your reasoning, that you are really in favor of, and guilty of, domestic violence and child molestation?

I guess that you have gone down to the abortion clinic and offered to adopt all the babies scheduled for abortion. That is a very worthy action and you should be honoured for doing that.

I've been to the clinics and not done so, and so no longer can claim to be Pro-Life.
Instead I just held up signs. That was the depth of my commitment.
To lift up a poster from ground level to about 3 feet high. And shake it some.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:3-6

 

[SkyWriting]

There are very long cues of people waiting to adopt children, folks have to wait a long time for children to become available. So that's not a legitimate excuse and neither is the health of the mother. Every pregnancy has risks ascociated, it's just a part of life.

Now your just making up excuses to avoid the trouble of saving a life.
No Pro-Life website mentions their adoption services.

 

[SkyWriting]

So then are we to assume you've converted your home into a shelter capable of hosting any and every battered woman and sexually molested child? Otherwise can we conclude, following your reasoning, that you are really in favor of, and guilty of, domestic violence and child molestation?



“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:3-6

I no longer claim to be Pro-Life. And that is why.
Becasue I realised I cannot judge sin.
What Does the Bible Say About Judging Others? - OpenBible.info

 

[Phil 1:21]

So then are we to assume you've converted your home into a shelter capable of hosting any and every battered woman and sexually molested child? Otherwise can we conclude, following your reasoning, that you are really in favor of, and guilty of, domestic violence and child molestation?

I no longer claim to be Pro-Life. And that is why.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Jon Osterman]

Those are not in the direct control of anyone, therefore there is no responsibility attached.

That isn't true. Unless there was some external influence (like being assaulted) the mother who is carrying the child is directly responsible for the deaths of any child being carried in their womb. It is her own womb after all.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That isn't true. Unless there was some external influence (like being assaulted) the mother who is carrying the child is directly responsible for the deaths of any child being carried in their womb. It is her own womb after all.

Taking a snippet of what I said out of context and commenting on it as if I was saying the mother herself is not responsible, is misleading, don't you think?

 

[Jon Osterman]

Taking a snippet of what I said out of context and commenting on it as if I was saying the mother herself is not responsible, is misleading, don't you think?

No. I quoted your entire post (#176). This was not a "snippet".

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No. I quoted your entire post (#176). This was not a "snippet".

Oh. I see. I assumed that you were commenting on natural miscarriages and not deliberate abortions. If you were including abortions, then the mother is primarily responsible because she signed the consent form. But there will be those who will have to take secondary responsibility, including the doctor and nurses who assisted (as accessories), and modernist philosophers and theologians who teach that man is just a product of time and chance (as accessories before the fact), making people believe that an unborn baby is just a bag of chemicals and not a real person.

 

[SkyWriting]

You didn't answer the question.

I have not offered assistance to any abused people.
Though to homeless on occasion. Perhaps they
are abused.

 

[Phil 1:21]

No, you must offer adoption to save the child, else be guilty for the murder yourself.
Don't let the pro-life preachers off the hook.

No, I'm saying that in order to claim I was Pro-Life, I'd have to stand behind my claim and offer to adopt any and every baby, becasue that would save a baby from murder. Otherwise, I'm claiming it's Murder, but too requires too much commitment from me to justify it being avoided. It's just too expensive for me to save a babies life.

So then are we to assume you've converted your home into a shelter capable of hosting any and every battered woman and sexually molested child? Otherwise can we conclude, following your reasoning, that you are really in favor of, and guilty of, domestic violence and child molestation?

I have not offered assistance to any abused people.
Though to homeless on occasion. Perhaps they
are abused.

Thank you for your honesty. If you don't mind, could you please now answer the second question. Thanks.

 

[SkyWriting]

Thank you for your honesty. If you don't mind, could you please now answer the second question. Thanks.

Oh...I don't draw conclusions for other people or approve them.
That's ridiculous.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Oh...I don't draw conclusions for other people or approve them.
That's ridiculous.

You still didn't answer the question.

 

[SkyWriting]

You still didn't answer the question.

So it goes.

 

[redleghunter]

Your post contains a number of fallacies. The first is that you conflate the term "a human" with the term "a human life"

There’s no difference.

 

[Zoii]

Unfortunately, as Christians, we like to talk in terms of black and white. Life is seldom like that. I think Christians seem to handle the grey when it comes to killing people. We acknowledge that there is a commandment Not to Kill. But Christians also acknowledge that God commanded the killing of whole villages and we used that to justify killing in wars, self-defence and murders where 'just cause' is asserted.

No so though when it comes to abortion. We Christians tend to be black and white even though, once again, the issues are grey. God commanded the destruction of whole towns knowing full well that included the killing of unborn children in the wombs of women slaughtered. God destroyed an entire planet of people including the unborn during Noah's flood. So we have God's precedence that sometimes, depending on the circumstance, abortion is justified. Those circumstances in my mind are where the life of the mother is an issue, either mentally or physically. I've seen uninformed views here that such circumstances are rare - that only serves to highlight that many Christians prefer to shove their head in the sand. Pregnancy through rape and exacerbation of extreme psychosis are amongst the mental issues. Carcinoma, TTP, Intrauterine infection, placental disruption, non-viable pregnancy being amongst the medical conditions.

It is about time Christians stopped being hypocritical and acknowledge that some women have just cause for their choices.

 

[Zoii]

If the life of the mother is threatened abortion is justified even on a religious basis. Rape is another story. If a zygote has a soul - the means of creation does not change this. There is no justification then on this basis.

Either the zygote is a person or it is not.

What is interesting is that the odds of a zygote actually ending up creating a baby are rather low. Clearly God does not care about this "zygote person" that much - otherwise he would have made the process more certain.

People will often refer to the zygote with much mystique. While perhaps some of this is deserved - the scientific fact of the matter is that the main difference between this cell - and other human cells has nothing to do with the zygote cell itself and everything to do with the DNA inside of that zygote.

This DNA is no different from the DNA in any other cells that will follow - heart cells for example will have the same DNA.

The difference is that the codes "create a human" are turned on. The instruction set for the creation of a human have been activated. Now this is cool but, does this turn the zygote into a living human. Obviously the potential for the creation of a human exists but, not one single cell in the blueprint of that human has yet been created. In fact we do not yet know if there will be more than one human created.

How do we claim "A human exists" when not a single cell from that human exists ? The zygote will never be part of the human it is programmed to create. It is the creator of the human .. not the human itself.

Why is rape another story? if you live in Pakistan, and you fall pregnant out of wedlock - whether by rape or not - your life is in peril.
The rest of your answer, although interesting, had nothing to do with my post.

 

[straykat]

Hi. I would like to preface this by saying that I am a pro-life Catholic, and I always have been.

I want to discuss the evil of abortion. I notice that many pro-lifers get hung up arguing about the evil of murdering babies, whether or not a fetus is a human, etc., and they fail to see the greatest evil of it all: the idea that one human life has more intrinsic value than another. This idea has manifested itself through all of human history: as slavery/racism, Nazism, and today, abortion. Slavery in pre-Civil War America was rooted in the idea that a white person's life was more valuable than a black person's life. Once this idea had been accepted, whites (not all whites) could then attack and dehumanize blacks to the point where they would consider them as property, not people. And once they did this, once they reached this point, they could justify the rape, beating, and enslavement of black people "because they're only property, after all."

Similarly, as you most likely already know, Hitler had the idea that the life of an "Aryan" was naturally more valuable than the life of a Jew. (Of course, if you were to ask the Internet why Hitler hated Jews, it would tell you that he believed "Jews were a destructive influence in any society." That comes from the aforementioned idea.) When Hitler came to power, he gradually passed laws restricting the rights of Jews. He eventually began to treat them like cattle, marking them with the Star of David (and numbers at concentration camps).
Hitler felt justified in killing millions of Jews because he had dehumanized them to the point where they were barely more than cattle.

Abortion today is akin to a "sibling" of racism and Nazism. All three are manifestations of the same horrible idea. In order to justify abortion, you must first accept that the life of the mother has more intrinsic value than the life of the baby. Once you accept this, you can dehumanize the baby to the point where you can justify its murder by saying that it is "only a cluster of cells." Furthermore, you can then divert the argument away from the root of the evil and point it elsewhere, wasting time arguing about whether or not a fetus is a human.

In retrospect, we know how evil such things as slavery and the Holocaust were. We look back on these evils and we swear to never let something so horrible happen again: and yet it continues, right before our very eyes. Why do we never learn?

Yes, I've always related it to slavery and racism myself. The "Pro Choice" opposition says it argues for the side of individuals and constitutional liberties. But what they're doing is in effect just claiming those rights for themselves and taking them away for others. It's not Pro-Choice at all. It follows no kind of social contract, where "choice" is only

And they do it with a similar "loophole" as the Confederates and the early Constitution did it with slaves: By arguing that the slave was only "3/5ths" of a man, and therefore other rights weren't accorded to them as they were to other humans. Abortionists do this to children, by arguing that they're not killing humans at all. It's a twisted form of thinking, but I'm not surprised either. Abortion is even worse than their twisted rationalization - so anybody capable of that is pretty much capable of anything afterwards.

 

[SPF]

God commanded the destruction of whole towns knowing full well that included the killing of unborn children in the wombs of women slaughtered.

This was God's judgment.

God destroyed an entire planet of people including the unborn during Noah's flood.

This was God's judgment.

So we have God's precedence that sometimes, depending on the circumstance, abortion is justified

An abortion aims to terminate the life of the unborn while preserving the mother. None of your examples even include abortion.

As Christians, we should have a grasp on the fact that life is not about us. We should have a grasp that God created us, and that He is the one that has the right to pass judgment as He pleases.

We are not God, and we do not have the authority or right to pass judgment as God does.

Therefore, we cannot use examples of God passing judgment over people, nations, the world, as permission for us, on our own, to do the same.

We know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.
We know Biblically that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

Based on the above, I still haven't heard a valid argument for why killing an unborn human being when the mother's life is not in mortal danger due to a health emergency would be morally acceptable.