This argument would only apply in the rare case in which abortion would be necessary to save the mother’s life.Wrong. The life of the already living, breathing woman takes precedence over the potential life in her womb, at least before it is viable and can survive outside the womb.
I do not see this in God's word. When women of God in the Bible knew they had become pregnant, women of God already knew the LORD had given them children.Wrong. The life of the already living, breathing woman takes precedence over the potential life in her womb, at least before it is viable and can survive outside the womb.
But, also, our Father knows a human, before that person is conceived in a woman. So, even though the person is not Jesus, this person is known to God.Wrong. Jesus was Jesus in Mary's womb because, as the eternal Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity, He is eternal, with no beginning or end. As He said to the Father in John 17:4-5, "I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
But if Satan's spirit in her has her disobeying God, this spirit is also effecting her personality and how she is able to relate with other people. And how she is, spiritually, can spread to effect others.As to the rest, the reason why a woman gets an abortion on her fetus before viability is irrelevant, as she is not committing murder at that point, although is probably sinning, but it is between her and God, not us.
And contrary to what many people say, the Bible does not say that life begins at conception, but at ensoulment.
Genesis 2:7 - And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Adam didn't become a living being until he was fully formed, until God created and infused a soul in him, not when he was still a collection of dust that God placed in the garden.
I'm an evangelical Christian who believes that although abortion is sinful, it isn't murder, at least in the early trimesters before fetal viability, and that it should be permitted until the unborn child can survive on its own, as the mother is a living human being with her own rights and autonomy over her body.
I consider it to be murder post-viability in the third trimester, and would oppose it except for the life health of the mother.
Murder can best be defined as the unjustified killing of a living human being.
And contrary to what many people say, the Bible does not say that life begins at conception, but at ensoulment.
Genesis 2:7 - And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Adam didn't become a living being until he was fully formed, until God created and infused a soul in him, not when he was still a collection of dust that God placed in the garden.
Obviously, this was a special case though, every human being alive now spent nine months as a fetus in their mother's womb, but the question is when was the fetus ensouled?
Indeed. Just like it is absurd to call a planted acorn a tree.
You see, while Augustine felt abortion at any stage was sinful, he did not believe that early abortion —the first three months—was murder because the fetus had not been animated by a God-given soul yet. ...
The same logic applies with abortion, women are allowed to get abortions before viability because she has bodily autonomy, and she can't be forced to live as a human incubator.
The mother has the right to make sure she does not do what can get her pregnant. But her unborn has rights. If she chooses to take action which results in conception, the child then has rights.
Also, it is God's choice if He wants to have the child. This goes beyond her so-called rights. We all need to submit to God's will, and not be autonomous and independent.
Who decides when an unborn baby is viable? You? A doctor? Only God knows this for sure!!! So, one moment it's okay to cut the unborn to shreds because he/she can't live outside the womb, but the next moment it's not okay?I'm an evangelical Christian who believes that although abortion is sinful, it isn't murder, at least in the early trimesters before fetal viability, and that it should be permitted until the unborn child can survive on its own, as the mother is a living human being with her own rights and autonomy over her body.
I consider it to be murder post-viability in the third trimester, and would oppose it except for the life health of the mother.
Murder can best be defined as the unjustified killing of a living human being.
And contrary to what many people say, the Bible does not say that life begins at conception, but at ensoulment.
Genesis 2:7 - And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Adam didn't become a living being until he was fully formed, until God created and infused a soul in him, not when he was still a collection of dust that God placed in the garden.
Obviously, this was a special case though, every human being alive now spent nine months as a fetus in their mother's womb, but the question is when was the fetus ensouled?
St. Augustine said that "
The law does not provide that the act abortion pertains to homicide,
for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation."
Thomas Aquinas said that "the intellective soul [true person] is created by God
at the completion of man's coming into being."
Jacques Martin said that to "admit that the human fetus receives the intellectual soul from the moment of its conception,when matter is in no way ready for it, sounds to me like a philosophical absurdity. It is as absurd as to call a fertilized ovum a baby."
Indeed. Just like it is absurd to call a planted acorn a tree.
You see, while Augustine felt abortion at any stage was sinful, he did not believe that early abortion —the first three months—was murder because the fetus had not been animated by a God-given soul yet. Likewise, Thomas Aquinas, and Popes Innocent III and Gregory XIV also believed that early abortion was not murder, while later ones were, after quickening, when the fetus starts moving and kicking.
As such, terminating a fetus in the early trimesters does not kill a living human being. Therefore, it is not murder. I agree with that principle.
Imagine if a woman, in a fit of jealously, rammed her car into her cheating boyfriend, grievously injuring him and irreparably damaging one of his vital organs. As a result, if he doesn't get an organ transplant he will likely die or be dead in two yearsfrom complications.
His girlfriend happens to be a perfect match; can the state force her to donate her organ to save her? No, they can't, and neither should they be able to, for she has bodily autonomy over her person, and no state can take that away from her.
The state can and should charge her with aggravated assault and, if he dies, vehicular manslaughter. But they should not be able to forcibly strap her to a medical exam room and extract a kidney from her, relegating her from womanhood to being a simple incubator.
The same logic applies with abortion, women are allowed to get abortions before viability because she has bodily autonomy, and she can't be forced to live as a human incubator.
It is a difficult issue; one of the most difficult of our time. If not for technology, we would not even be struggling with it. But it also seems to me, there have always been ways for a woman to bring on her period within the first three months, using certain herbs for instance, that thin the blood, and this knowledge was hidden from us when men took over birthing, as doctors, and got away with burning many mid-wives at the stake by calling them witches.I'm an evangelical Christian who believes that although abortion is sinful, it isn't murder, at least in the early trimesters before fetal viability, and that it should be permitted until the unborn child can survive on its own, as the mother is a living human being with her own rights and autonomy over her body.
I consider it to be murder post-viability in the third trimester, and would oppose it except for the life health of the mother.
Murder can best be defined as the unjustified killing of a living human being.
And contrary to what many people say, the Bible does not say that life begins at conception, but at ensoulment.
Genesis 2:7 - And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Adam didn't become a living being until he was fully formed, until God created and infused a soul in him, not when he was still a collection of dust that God placed in the garden.
Obviously, this was a special case though, every human being alive now spent nine months as a fetus in their mother's womb, but the question is when was the fetus ensouled?
St. Augustine said that "
The law does not provide that the act abortion pertains to homicide,
for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation."
Thomas Aquinas said that "the intellective soul [true person] is created by God
at the completion of man's coming into being."
Jacques Martin said that to "admit that the human fetus receives the intellectual soul from the moment of its conception,when matter is in no way ready for it, sounds to me like a philosophical absurdity. It is as absurd as to call a fertilized ovum a baby."
Indeed. Just like it is absurd to call a planted acorn a tree.
You see, while Augustine felt abortion at any stage was sinful, he did not believe that early abortion —the first three months—was murder because the fetus had not been animated by a God-given soul yet. Likewise, Thomas Aquinas, and Popes Innocent III and Gregory XIV also believed that early abortion was not murder, while later ones were, after quickening, when the fetus starts moving and kicking.
As such, terminating a fetus in the early trimesters does not kill a living human being. Therefore, it is not murder. I agree with that principle.
Imagine if a woman, in a fit of jealously, rammed her car into her cheating boyfriend, grievously injuring him and irreparably damaging one of his vital organs. As a result, if he doesn't get an organ transplant he will likely die or be dead in two yearsfrom complications.
His girlfriend happens to be a perfect match; can the state force her to donate her organ to save her? No, they can't, and neither should they be able to, for she has bodily autonomy over her person, and no state can take that away from her.
The state can and should charge her with aggravated assault and, if he dies, vehicular manslaughter. But they should not be able to forcibly strap her to a medical exam room and extract a kidney from her, relegating her from womanhood to being a simple incubator.
The same logic applies with abortion, women are allowed to get abortions before viability because she has bodily autonomy, and she can't be forced to live as a human incubator.
How do evangelical Christians come up with polar opposite beliefs on things like abortion?
Jeremiah 1:5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
When I was living in sin I got a girl pregnant and she didn't tell me. She got an abortion and I had no idea. Well I had a dream before I was a christian and my deceased grandmother was in it crying and talking about an abortion. I recently realized she was talking about the abortion I caused by fornication. God will hold you accountable for your sin.
I was a Democrat once, back in the day when one could be a Democrat and pro-life. Back when the Democrats were actually for the little guy. I do admire the persistence of 'Democrats for Life' but they are fighting an already lost battle.Probably the same way some Democrats are pro-lifers.
I'm an evangelical Christian who believes that although abortion is sinful, it isn't murder, at least in the early trimesters before fetal viability, and that it should be permitted until the unborn child can survive on its own, as the mother is a living human being with her own rights and autonomy over her body.
I consider it to be murder post-viability in the third trimester, and would oppose it except for the life health of the mother.
Murder can best be defined as the unjustified killing of a living human being.
And contrary to what many people say, the Bible does not say that life begins at conception, but at ensoulment.
Genesis 2:7 - And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Adam didn't become a living being until he was fully formed, until God created and infused a soul in him, not when he was still a collection of dust that God placed in the garden.
Obviously, this was a special case though, every human being alive now spent nine months as a fetus in their mother's womb, but the question is when was the fetus ensouled?
St. Augustine said that "
The law does not provide that the act abortion pertains to homicide,
for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation."
Thomas Aquinas said that "the intellective soul [true person] is created by God
at the completion of man's coming into being."
Jacques Martin said that to "admit that the human fetus receives the intellectual soul from the moment of its conception,when matter is in no way ready for it, sounds to me like a philosophical absurdity. It is as absurd as to call a fertilized ovum a baby."
Indeed. Just like it is absurd to call a planted acorn a tree.
You see, while Augustine felt abortion at any stage was sinful, he did not believe that early abortion —the first three months—was murder because the fetus had not been animated by a God-given soul yet. Likewise, Thomas Aquinas, and Popes Innocent III and Gregory XIV also believed that early abortion was not murder, while later ones were, after quickening, when the fetus starts moving and kicking.
As such, terminating a fetus in the early trimesters does not kill a living human being. Therefore, it is not murder. I agree with that principle.
Imagine if a woman, in a fit of jealously, rammed her car into her cheating boyfriend, grievously injuring him and irreparably damaging one of his vital organs. As a result, if he doesn't get an organ transplant he will likely die or be dead in two yearsfrom complications.
His girlfriend happens to be a perfect match; can the state force her to donate her organ to save her? No, they can't, and neither should they be able to, for she has bodily autonomy over her person, and no state can take that away from her.
The state can and should charge her with aggravated assault and, if he dies, vehicular manslaughter. But they should not be able to forcibly strap her to a medical exam room and extract a kidney from her, relegating her from womanhood to being a simple incubator.
The same logic applies with abortion, women are allowed to get abortions before viability because she has bodily autonomy, and she can't be forced to live as a human incubator.
Who decides when an unborn baby is viable??? You??? A doctor??? Only God knows this for sure!!! ...
I was a Democrat once, back in the day when one could be a Democrat and pro-life. Back when the Democrats were actually for the little guy. I do admire the persistence of 'Democrats for Life' but they are fighting an already lost battle.
What is the lost battle? Democrats are going to defeat every state that passed a heartbeat law.
What is the lost battle? Democrats are going to defeat every state that passed a heartbeat law.
I'm an evangelical Christian who believes that although abortion is sinful, it isn't murder, at least in the early trimesters before fetal viability, and that it should be permitted until the unborn child can survive on its own, as the mother is a living human being with her own rights and autonomy over her body.
You hope, but I do believe you are wrong. I think the tide of public opinion is finally turning (I hope).
Remember, through much of Christian history, it was regarded as a sin even though it was dubious that it was murder. Views varied, with the Didache considering it murder. But Aquinas didn't think there was a real soul present from the beginning, but still considered it wrong.It is not her body.
And, by the way, if the whole situation is as you have outlined, why would it be a sin??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?