What is a pro-choice Christian?

[fat wee robin]

In a sense we are all "pro-choice" Christians in that all men have a choice between obedience to God or not obeying God.
What we are not is "consequence free" because there is always a consequence for our actions and the consequence of sin is death.
So in respect of abortion of course we are pro-choice, everybody has a choice every day. But in a civilization that agrees with the Creator the consequence for abortion will be the same as for any taking of a human life that is murder.

I love this!

You seem to think that by trying to yank on my heart strings you will change my mind.

fact: Abortion is murder.

Fact: Murder is against the 10 commandments

Facts dont care about feelings.



I can indeed love my neighbor without having to care about their backstory. However, once you try and use a backstory as evidence for the need for abortion, you not only lose all ground in the argument, but also my attention.

Lets use facts to talk about abortion shall we? Instead of the feelings of others which hold zero ground in the debate.

A human being is murdered. That is a fact.



So because A has F, if B supports A, therefore B also supports F.

Sorry, no. Supporting the Holy Land and the birthplace of Christianity is not the same as supporting abortion.

If a Christian supports Canada, which has laws that will get you thrown in jail for "sexists, homophobic, or transphobic remarks" means that therefore they must support the suppression of free speech. By your logic that is.

See how that makes no sense?

So where are your tears for those dead women and their children ?

Laws are always about limiting choices. "Pro choice" people are seeking to limit your choice to stop abortions.

There is difference between limiting, and banning altogether . A member of my family died, because in Ireland it was BANNED . She left behind a young family . In fact, she died slowly over months , as they refused to remove a dying baby . You don't need German nazis, when you have them in the Church .

 

[RaymondG]

So where are your tears for those dead women and their children ?

There is difference between limiting, and banning altogether . A member of my family died, because in Ireland it was BANNED . She left behind a young family . In fact, she died slowly over months , as they refused to remove a dying baby . You don't need German nazis, when you have them in the Church .

Interesting. I know a girl in her early twenties who this happened to. Baby had to be removed at 7months....but she still barely made it.....all her organs started shutting down and we started preparing for the funeral. She was a newlywed and this was the second child.

But you wont find sympathy here. We only know how to set laws and enforce them on others. We dont care about their situation, circumstances or feelings. And to think.....Im giving up my life to spend eternity with people like this? Makes fire and brimstone sound good......At least MJ and prince will be there? good ol entertainment by the fires?

 

[PeaceB]

Yes, it is inconsistent thinking for one to claim to be both 'pro-choice' and 'Christian'. One needs to 'choose' one or the other.

Plenty of posters on this site believe that contraception is licit, even though we hold it to be intrinsically evil. By the same logic, would it not also be inconsistent for a person to claim to be both "pro-contraception" and "Christian"?

I am not sure how you would distinguish between abortion and other intrinsically evil acts.

 

[fat wee robin]

Interesting. I know a girl in her early twenties who this happened to. Bady had to be remove at 7months....but she still barely made it.....all her organs started shutting down and we started preparing for the funeral. She was a newlywed and this was the second child.

But you wont find sympathy here. We only know how to set laws and enforce them on others. We dont care about their situation, circumstances or feelings. And to think.....Im giving up my life to spend eternity with people like this? Makes fire and brimstone sound good......At least MJ and prince will be there? good ol entertainment by the fires?

Yes ,for the family in general it still hurts ,and it destroyed the lives of her children . And, they lied about the cause of her death to them , but I and others , know the truth ?

 

[SPF]

Bodily autonomy and individual rights matter a great deal to me, and individual rights and autonomy are part of my church denomintion's (ELCA) moral discourse. This is why the issue of abortion is not so clear-cut in my mind, or the mind of many other Christians.

The problem with this is that you are not consistent in this belief. Essentially what you are saying is that when someone else's right to life interferes with your right to "autonomy", that your right to "autonomy" trumps their right to life.

Can you define what you mean by "autonomy" ? Given that over 97% of abortions are done for convenience sake and not a medical emergency, it seems "autonomy" might be defined as personal preference, and nothing more. Yet, why should that trump another person's right to life?

Surely you believe that if your "right to life" came up against another persons "right to autonomy", you would argue that your right to life would trump their right to autonomy. How is the right to life not the most basic and fundamental of all "rights" ?

And I wonder if you could even make the case for even having personal "rights" in the first place from Scripture. Because what I see when I read Scripture are verses saying things like you were bought with a price, therefore honor Christ with your bodies, and that Biblical worship is offering our bodies as a living sacrifice. I don't even know how you could put forth an argument for "personal rights" from Scripture.

 

[Fantine]

The big question I always hear from pro-choicers is this: "If evangelical Christians and Catholics want to end abortion, WHY are they against birth control? Why are they against the Affordable Care Act? Why are they against insurers covering birth control?"

The answer pro-lifers always seem to give is this: "Birth control CAUSES abortions. If everyone who didn't want to get pregnant just abstained instead of thinking birth control would protect them, we wouldn't have any abortions." (And to tell the truth, I have to bite into my cheeks to keep from laughing when I hear this...it just seems ridiculous to me). Then they follow it up with "the pill causes abortions."
In any case, if a longitudinal study was done of two groups of women wanting not to get pregnant, one practicing birth control and one not, I feel pretty sure that a much, much higher percentage of the second group would be showing up at Planned Parenthood...

 

[Fantine]

SPF, pro-lifers call everything "convenience" except bleeding out on the carpet minutes from death...

If you---or any other pro-lifer---were faced in real life with some of the situations you so cavalierly call "convenience," you would be lying in your bed in a puddle of tears in severe clinical depression.

Let's say, "lost home in Houston flood..." You say "convenience!" But how would YOU cope carrying a baby to term if you'd lost your home in the Houston flood?? Telling them, "oh that's just an "inconvenience" is so offensive it makes me want to spit nails.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is an undisputable fact that less than one percent of abortions are done to save the life of the mother. I know someone who had two tubal pregnancies what fortunately self aborted, or she would have had to have them removed. Anecdotal evidence is meaningless. The numbers are not in dispute by the abortion industry.

Do you really want to be consulted on each case?
It was my understanding that there were no viable reasons.
I have no doubt that most abortions are becasue the baby
is not wanted. That would change if Pro-Life groups
wanted all babies. But they lack the conviction and
give excuses why it's not that important. I know becasue
I used to give those excuses.

"I don't' want their baby either becasue It's not my place."
" We don't pay for murderers deeds."
"We are not supposed to cover the cost for irresponsible people."

All excuses
why we don't want the baby either.

 

[Vicomte13]

Pro-choice is a deceptive term used by abortion supporters to reframe the killing of unborn babies as an individual right.

People who identify as pro-choice typically vote for left-leaning political parties that want to implement high taxes on people who make good money. To force a successful person to hand over 50% or 60% of his salary to the government is very anti-choice. People should have the right to choose what they do with their own money without the government confiscating most of it.

Why do pro-choice believers say that women have a right to choose an abortion, but think that rich people should not have the right to choose what to do with most of their money? If the pro-choice crowd were honest, their views on choice would be consistent. But they are far from consistent.

Do you really want an answer to your question, or was the purpose of the question just to make a declaratory statement of what you think about pro-choice people?

 

[SPF]

SPF, pro-lifers call everything "convenience" except bleeding out on the carpet minutes from death...

Interesting assumption you've made. But this actually isn't true. Perhaps you just aren't aware of the reasons that women have abortions.

Florida is one of the few states that actually tracks and records a reason for every abortion. In 2015, 98.6 of abortions were done out of convenience. 0.085% of abortions were done because of rape, and 0.5% of abortions were done because the mother was in some form of danger, be it life threatening, or just physical or even psychological in nature.

The bottom line Fantine is that the overwhelming majority of abortions are not done for medical reasons.

Your example of the woman getting an abortion because her home in Houston flooded is rather sad. It's sad that you think that an appropriate response to losing one's home in a flood is to kill an unborn child. That's what tragic, and that's what should make you want to spit nails. The problem is clearly that you don't view the unborn child as a human being possessing the same intrinsic moral worth and value that you have. To me, that's what's sad.

 

[SkyWriting]

I remember a Ken Follett book which began when a woman died in childbirth. Her husband buried the living baby with her because he had no way to feed him. A monk was watching and rescued the baby as soon as the man left, feeding him in the monastery...but I still wonder whether people really did that in Christian Europe in the 12th century???

There are still no people like that monk who will raise the baby
regardless of it's situation. Things are much worse now.

 

[SkyWriting]

Your example of the woman getting an abortion because her home in Houston flooded is rather sad. It's sad that you think that an appropriate response to losing one's home in a flood is to kill an unborn child. That's what tragic, and that's what should make you want to spit nails. The problem is clearly that you don't view the unborn child as a human being possessing the same intrinsic moral worth and value that you have. To me, that's what's sad.

I've not yet heard any offers from you reaching out to pregnant flood victims.
I get to call that, sad. If you'd like to reference any group doing so, that would help.

 

[SkyWriting]

Who is "we?"
Abortion is almost never a health issue. It's the killing of a baby, generally by a young unwed mother who engages in consensual sex without using birth control. At the very least abortion should be like other optional surgeries; the person who gets the abortion should have to pay for it. Maybe if there was at least SOME foreseeable consequence at least a few more people would use birth control and lives would be saved. The father, if known, should also bear financial responsibility. If you don;t take responsibility for your actions you aren't a man, and if you aren't a man you don't get to have sex.

All excuses for you not being committed enough to want their child enough to avoid the abortion.
Lot's of blame throwing to cover-up for you not asking for their baby and saving it.

I know. When I was pro-life I did the same blame game to cover for me not wanting the baby either.
Now I admit, I don't believe it's murder, enough, to ask for the child myself.

 

[Fantine]

You know, there are SO many bases pro-lifers leave uncovered I prefer to do what's most needed.

I have made a number of donations as well as helping family members in Florida who lost fences and trees.

 

[HighwayMan]

at the OP:....right. So you are pro-life, but only when it comes to the unborn: When they are born, they are on their own, the government shouldn't be taking your money to help give them a chance at life?

To clarify, I believe on a scientific, and possibly scriptural basis that the pro-life position makes more sense, though I can understand the debate on both sides.

But sadly a lot of the "pro-life" Christians at the same time are anti-environment, anti-caring for poor people, and in many cases in America, pro-death penalty, which really can't get any more ironic than that.

Pro-life conservatives may be the right about the main issue at hand, but so often very wrong about many of the others surrounding it.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's only very recently that infant mortality has become rare. For most of human history, and still today in parts of the world, it was a quite normal thing for a child to die in the first year after birth, usually of a disease or some other natural cause.

Would we then say that child murder is justified based on this evidence? Of course not.

You are in luck. Thanks to technology, in the next generation all fetuses of any age will be viable.
Then you can incubate all fertalized eggs for yourself. You only need to be committed to them for
18 years or so after that.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why do pro-choice believers say that women have a right to choose an abortion, but think that rich people should not have the right to choose what to do with most of their money? If the pro-choice crowd were honest, their views on choice would be consistent. But they are far from consistent.

Pro-life position takers say that womans background, finances, health condition
as well as the babies DNA condition, future finances, likely health condition
are all irrelevant. That's doesn't sound like a "Pro-Life" position at all.
As a "Pro-Life" person, I'd want to be critically concerned about all of that.
And I am.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I would say what I believe, just like you are now.....but I would not Force one to never drive a car, nor force another to never drink...just because i believe there is a chance they may do it together one day. I would tell them the law and leave them to their free will and God.

Now if you are trying to make people think agreeing with me would mean watching someone go in a car drunk and yelling "free will!" then there is no need to continue the discussion. You dont give your point more validity by resorting to ridiculous claims, if one opposes; in fact, the opposite occurs.

If you do not intend to be an absolutist then do not make absolutist statements.

 

[SPF]

I've not yet heard any offers from you reaching out to pregnant flood victims.
I get to call that, sad. If you'd like to reference any group doing so, that would help.

Often people who are pro-choice make very basic categorical mistakes when discussing this topic. Firstly, it's important to recognize that the morality of abortion stands or falls on how we understand the nature of the life inside the womb. That's it, nothing more. Attempting to justify abortion because the child may have a hard life if born is a categorical mistake. Just because the child may have a hard life does not therefore mean that killing it is morally acceptable.

We as people should be doing a lot more to help those in need. My wife and I do all we can. We are foster parents. The vast vast majority of all the foster children we take have a single mother who is struggling. We go above and beyond (much to the dismay of our agency at times) and engage with the mother, and do our best to not enable her, but to help her, support her, and do what we can to help her get back on her feet so she can get her child back.

We have encouraged our friends to help in any way they can, and we will continue to do anything we can do to help support people. We just had a family leave our house this weekend who suffered the loss of their home from Irma.

But whatever we do or don't do to help people has absolutely zero, and I mean zero bearing on determining the morality of abortion! And that's what people so easily miss. It's very simple. If the human life inside the womb is a person with the same intrinsic moral value as you or I, then abortion is immoral. Period.

We as society do a terrible job at helping the less fortunate. We are selfish, and think about ourselves more than we ought. And we hold onto our possessions more tightly than we ought. But that doesn't in any way have any bearing at all on the morality of abortion.

The answer is that abortion is immoral and we should discourage it at every turn. But we should then also be doing everything we can to support the widows, orphans, and poor. It's a both and that we should be striving for.

 

[SkyWriting]

When I say that I'm pro-life, I simply mean I am interested in saving the lives of both humans involved in the birth, not just the mother's life. Obviously more than just two lives in the cases of multiple births.

So you're willing to adopt the babies under any circumstances
to save their lives? That is a great step to solving the problem!
Far fewer babies will be killed then.