Why are Christians generally opposed to abortion?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

We can allow schools to teach.....

....to teach abominations and totally defiled sin is okay !?

Why have the schools teach such evil, that serves to destroy the children's faith, spirit, mind, soul, and body !?

 

[redleghunter]

far more youth are engaging in sexual activity than are getting their hands on guns. Great point though

Come on down to Texas sometime, ya hear!

 

[redleghunter]

....to teach abominations and totally defiled sin is okay !?

Why have the schools teach such evil, that serves to destroy the children's faith, spirit, mind, soul, and body !?

I was making a comparison. Parents need to be teaching their kids about sex and morals. As Christians we need to be teaching our youn'ins about God's design for sexual relations---Marriage, one man, one woman. They won't learn that in school or hear that is 'an option.' Not according to God there is only one option.

 

[RogerRoger]

Come on down to Texas sometime, ya hear!

Somehow I just knew that was coming!

 

[Cearbhall]

Simply put, Christians value human life to a great extreme.

This is true in theory, sure. Unfortunately, those who are against abortion in the United States don't tend to be consistent on that. I find it hard to accept that this is the reason for their opposition to the procedure.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Therefore, regardless of religious or philosophical persuasions, you see the abysmal practice of elective abortion as a personal responsibility issue. As a 'we need to be true to ourselves and others' approach? If so, I agree.

Yes.

I will go even further and say that despite philosophical and religious opposition to the practice, the choice to abort a child (and, it is a choice) is at the foundation an issue between the individual and his/her Master/Creator.

If you are your own master/god/ego, then you only have to answer to yourself for your actions.

If you follow Baal, them you have to anewer to him.

If the Most High God is your God/Master, you have to answer to Him.

This is a very important distinction for me (in terms of capping my judgment,) because I often forget not everybody believes they answer to the Most High God. So, even if one is a Christian, and chooses to abort a child, her decision is still at the end of the day between her and God.

Just like what I do, did, or will do is between me and my Father. My "judgment" goes only as far as the Word of God lets me - which is superficial at best (I have no idea of the circumstances that leads to what we may think of as sin, and therefore I would make a poor judge exploiting insufficient evidence.)

I say this with the special case in mind of a woman who is raped - for which I will not, and feel terribly inadequate to judge that situation for which she may choose abortion.

My main critique is its sinfulness especially connected to the rituals of sacrifice to/for gods of antiquity.

 

[redleghunter]

This is true in theory, sure. Unfortunately, those who are against abortion in the United States don't tend to be consistent on that. I find it hard to accept that this is the reason for their opposition to the procedure.

Please explain.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

This is true in theory, sure. Unfortunately, those who are against abortion in the United States don't tend to be consistent on that. I find it hard to accept that this is the reason for their opposition to the procedure.

Are you talking about bigotry, and hypocrisy in practice (i.e. Christian women getting abortions in enough frequency to be spiritually indistinguishable from "secular" persons?)

 

[essentialsaltes]

A good chop job on Waltke. Here's the context of Waltke's remarks:

It doesn't change the fact that Waltke says fetuses don't have souls. In this, he is in good standing with theologians from Augustine to Aquinas who held the same. In English law and early America, the same view generally held, and abortion was not illegal until 'the quickening'.

Sure, the Didache opposed abortion. And today, most conservative American Christians believe in personhood at conception. But to characterize the history of Christian views of abortion as one inflexible position from the Didache to now is not accurate.

 

[St_Worm2]

Would you oppose killing in defense of yourself, or another person being criminalized?

Hi Jayem, I believe people have the right to defend themselves if their lives are truly in jeopardy, and if the death of their attacker occurs as a result, I believe it should normally be considered justifiable. On the other hand however, if I am simply "inconvenienced" by someone else, then killing them in that case would always be murder.

Of course, in the case of abortion, the unborn child may be an inconvenience to his/her mother, but the unborn child can hardly be considered the cause of the inconvenience. Abortion is the murder of a person who is completely innocent of any personal wrongdoing.

Yours and His,
David

 

[redleghunter]

It doesn't change the fact that Waltke says fetuses don't have souls. In this, he is in good standing with theologians from Augustine to Aquinas who held the same. In English law and early America, the same view generally held, and abortion was not illegal until 'the quickening'.

Sure, the Didache opposed abortion. And today, most conservative American Christians believe in personhood at conception. But to characterize the history of Christian views of abortion as one inflexible position from the Didache to now is not accurate.

Don't shift the goal posts. You were quoting two evangelical positions as if they were widely adhered to. And the article I quote below from 1973 shows the fake history the left is making about Evangelicals and their views on abortion prior to Roe v. Wade.

"Christianity Today" is an Evangelical publication dating back to 1954. This is what they published when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973:

In a sweeping decision January 22, the United States Supreme Court overthrew the abortion statutes of Texas, indeed, of all the states that protect the right of an unborn infant to life before, at the earliest, the seventh month of pregnancy. The Court explicitly allows states to create some safeguards for unborn infants regarded as "viable," but in view of the present decision, it appears doubtful that unborn infants now enjoy any protection prior to the instant of birth anywhere in the United States. Until new state laws acceptable to .the Court are passed—at best a long-drawn-out process—it would appear impossible to punish abortions performed at any stage.

This decision runs counter not merely to the moral teachings of Christianity through the ages but also to the moral sense of the American people, as expressed in the now vacated abortion laws of almost all states, including 1972 laws in Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania, and recently clearly reaffirmed by statewide referendums in two states (Michigan and North Dakota).

We would not normally expect the Court to consider the teachings of Christianity and paganism before rendering a decision on the constitutionality of a law, but in this case it has chosen to do so, and the results are enlightening: it has clearly decided for paganism, and against Christianity, and this in disregard even of democratic sentiment, which in this case appears to follow Christian tradition and to reject permissive abortion legislation.

The Court notes that "ancient religion" did not bar abortion (Roe et al. v. Wade, No. 70-18 [1973], VI, 1); by "ancient religion," it clearly means paganism, since Judaism and Christianity did bar abortion. It rejects the "apparent rigidity" of the Hippocratic Oath ("I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion") on the grounds. that it did not really represent the consensus of pagan thinking, though pagan in origin, but owed its universal acceptance to popularity resulting from "the emerging teachings of Christianity" (ibid., VI, 2).

To these, the High Court unambiguously prefers "ancient religion," that is, the common paganism of the pre-Christian Roman Empire. Against the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that the "life begins at conception" (curious language on the part of the Court, for no one denies that the fetus is human, or that it is alive: the Court apparently means personal life), the Court presents "new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a `process' over time, rather than an event, and … new medical techniques such as menstrual extractions, the 'morning-after' pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs" (ibid., IX, B). It is hard to understand how the contention that conception is a "process" of at most a few days' duration is relevant to the possible rights of the fetus at three or six months, and even harder to comprehend the logic that holds that "new medical techniques" for destroying or preserving the embryo "pose problems" for the view that it was alive before being subjected to those techniques.

That was February 1973. Don't think Jerry Fallwell conjured that article up (sarcasm); it was the editor in chief for the widest Evangelical publication in the U.S. Unless one sees an immediate political shift 'overnight', the author (editor in chief) of the publication was expounding on the Evangelical Christian held view as quoted above "This decision runs counter not merely to the moral teachings of Christianity through the ages but also to the moral sense of the American people..."

It continues:

The Court based its abortion decision on the right of privacy, and that without empirical or logical justification. "This right of privacy … is broad enough .to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy," Justice Blackmun wrote in delivering the opinion of the Court. But the right of privacy is not absolute, and, much more important, no abortion decision can ever be by any stretch of the imagination a purely private matter. The fetus, if not a full-fledged human being, is at least a being owing his existence as much to father as to mother, and is therefore an individual distinct from both. Curiously, fathers are scarcely mentioned in the fifty-one-page majority opinion! The decision would appear to contradict itself when it insists that the "private" abortion decision must be made in conjunction with a physician and/or in line with some kind of medical judgment.

Still not seeing this pro-choice Evangelical view.

Continues:

In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Burger fatuously comments, "I do not read the Court's holding today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to it by the dissenting justices [White and Rehnquist]." The New York state tally stood in 1971 at a ratio of 927 abortions for 1,000 live births; now that abortion has become allowable nationwide, the ratio will presumably change, but the experience of nations with easy abortion suggests that it may very well remain as high as one abortion for every two live births, or even higher. What would the Chief Justice consider sweeping? Mandatory abortion for all those falling into a certain class? Infanticide? Mass extermination of undesirables? Make no mistake: the logic of the high court could be used with like—in some cases with greater—force to justify infanticide for unwanted or undesirable infants; the expression, "capability of meaningful life" could cover a multitude of evils and will, unless this development is stopped now.

Wow, sounds like prior to Roe v. Wade decision Evangelicals at large equate abortion to infanticide.

In his dissent, Justice White sums up the situation and the Court's action:

The common claim before us is that for any one of such reasons [he cites convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, and others], or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical doctor willing to undertake the procedure. The Court for the most part sustains this position: during the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus. …

In arriving at this position, the majority of the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected Christian moral teaching and approved the attitude of what it calls "ancient religion" and the standards of pagan Greek and Roman law, which, as the Court notes in self-justification, afforded little protection to the unborn" (ibid., VI, 1). It is not necessary to read between the lines for the spiritual significance of this decision, for the Court has made it crystal clear.

Still seems like that "old religion" to me. Again, this is 1973.

In view of this, Justice Rehnquist's dissenting observation that the Court is engaging in "judicial legislation" may seem almost insignificant. Nevertheless, we must ask what remains of the democratic process and the principle of local initiative when not only long-standing older laws but the most recent state laws and even the will of the people expressed in statewide referendums are swept from the board in a single Court ruling, when the people and their representatives are prohibited forever—or at least until the Constitution is amended—from implementing a higher regard for the life of the unborn than that exhibited by seven supreme judges.

Uh, oh, sounds like some 'fundie' position from the "Religious Right" which I will note wasn't around for another 7 or so years later.

Having previously seen fit to ban the formal, admittedly superficial, and possibly hypocritical acknowledgment of God that used to take place in public school prayers and Bible readings, the Court has now repudiated the Old Testament's standards on capital punishment as cruel and without utility, and has rejected the almost universal consensus of Christian moral teachers through the centuries on abortion. Its latest decision reveals a callous utilitarianism about children in the womb that harmonizes little with the extreme delicacy of its conscience regarding the imposition of capital punishment.

Guess "Christianity Today", the largest Evangelical publication did not get the memo from the handful of theologians you partially cited out of context.

The rest here:

Abortion and the Court

 

[essentialsaltes]

Still not seeing this pro-choice Evangelical view.

I didn't say all evangelicals, but "many Christian denominations". Similarly, an article from the editors at CT is not really "Evangelicals at large".

 

[redleghunter]

I didn't say all evangelicals, but "many Christian denominations". Similarly, an article from the editors at CT is not really "Evangelicals at large".

That's a good point. As the one evangelical you quote is not the Evangelical "pope." Which honestly has been an issue with evangelical churches. There are no centralized governing bodies, yet unified in appealing to Holy Scriptures as the transcendent standard to test truth claims. And as noted in the quoted article the author appeals to and consistent moral Christian teachings since 1st Century AD.

However, the article confirms my rebuttal to your original post that somehow for political reasons (reasons you never state nor the purpose of such) Evangelicals did a 180 from held beliefs on abortions after Roe.

The article I posted demonstrated an already firm opposition to the changes to abortion laws previous to Roe. A view soundly shared by Roman Catholics (who do have the governing structure Evangelicals lack and which formed a firm pro life alliance prior to Roe).

Which we now come to my rebuttal. Most Evangelicals were not politically active opposing a procedure which was mainly illegal in most states except for extreme cases as the life of the woman. It was not until 1968, when Francis Schaffer an Evangelical scholar, historian and apologist appealed to Evangelical theologians, and conferences did we see a rise in awareness and appeal to Scriptures and historic teachings:

Evangelist Francis Schaeffer, who had only recently become well known, was making an impact among evangelicals with his strong warnings against abortion. Harold O. J. Brown, who would soon write strongChristianity Today editorials against abortion, felt Schaeffer's influence. So did a Bible college student named Randall Terry, who would become the leading spokesperson for Operation Rescue.

By 1971 there was no more talk in Christianity Today about therapeutic abortion. The direction reform was leading was clear. "Let it be no great surprise when America is subjected to severe judgment," an editorial read.
The Abortion Wars

Thus, the charge there was a later after Roe "Religious Right" turn in moral teachings is in error. And you have yet to show what "politics" influenced such.

 

[jayem]

Hi Jayem, I believe people have the right to defend themselves if their lives are truly in jeopardy, and if the death of their attacker occurs as a result, I believe it should normally be considered justifiable. On the other hand however, if I am simply "inconvenienced" by someone else, then killing them in that case would always be murder.

Of course, in the case of abortion, the unborn child may be an inconvenience to his/her mother, but the unborn child can hardly be considered the cause of the inconvenience. Abortion is the murder of a person who is completely innocent of any personal wrongdoing.

Yours and His,
David

But there are cases where abortion may be necessary for medical reasons. I won't say it's terribly common, but there are times when a pregnancy may pose a threat to woman's life or health. I worked in health care, and I've seen such cases with my own eyes. Even with maximal medical treatment, there can still be a significant risk if the pregnancy is allowed to continue. And in every case, the fetus is totally innocent. The mother developed a serious illness that was aggravated by the pregnancy. Would you oppose termination in situations like these?

 

[Cearbhall]

Please explain.

In U.S. politics, the remaining movement to criminalize abortion is aligned with conservatism and the Republican Party. However, neither conservative ideology nor the Republican platform prioritizes supporting human beings for the entire course of the life cycle. That's not what it's about.

That's not to say that this ideology is lesser or evil. I myself have some views that align with the GOP and/or would rightfully be classified as conservative, especially on economic issues. It's just that it doesn't align with the idea of getting the government involved in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy, much less claiming that every pregnancy needs to be carried to term for the sake of human life. That's just an add-on from American evangelical movements. It's based in doctrine, not political ideology. I hope to see conservatism in the U.S. return to its roots and do some good. Currently, it's being choked by religion.

 

[redleghunter]

However, neither conservative ideology nor the Republican platform prioritizes supporting human beings for the entire course of the life cycle. That's not what it's about.

A valid concern. However, outside of the womb what is wanting in government aid now? There are food stamps, rent subsidies, income and job assistance not to mention free healthcare via Medicaid. All have been in place and continues to be funded by Republican presidents and congress sessions since Nixon.

And who says every one will stay in poverty?

 

[St_Worm2]

Would you oppose termination in situations like these?

Probably not, particularly if the risk was to the mother's "life" (as such a situation could also mean the death of both mother and child). At this point, quite frankly, I think I would approve of the mother being given the choice to abort in all of the "difficult" cases (IOW, rape, incest, & risk to life), if the right to abort one's baby for the sake of convenience was rescinded.

This is an argument/discussion of minutia, isn't it (not to infer that any individual human life is not precious and highly valuable). What I mean is that while the number of abortions (since 1980) has almost reached 1.5 Billion, the number of abortions performed to save the life of the mother amounts to only a few thousand out of the 1.5 Billion.

These discussions ALWAYS focus on the thousands (or perhaps the tens of thousands if incest, rape, and risk to the mother's "health" are included in the number of abortions that are performed to save the life of a mother), while the main reason given for more the 99% of abortions, IOW, for the more than 1.4 Billion that have already been performed, is never considered or discussed.

How about we talk about the 99+% for once? Don't worry, I know that will never happen

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

A valid concern. However, outside of the womb what is wanting in government aid now? There are food stamps, rent subsidies, income and job assistance not to mention free healthcare via Medicaid. All have been in place and continues to be funded by Republican presidents and congress sessions since Nixon.

And who says every one will stay in poverty?

Whether they do or not,
why remain in Babylon system, (any politic party),
instead of
doing what God says to do ? (starting with "come out of babylon MY people" )

i.e. do not trust the flesh, kings, powers that be (earthly, carnal, defiled, idolatrous).

 

[redleghunter]

Whether they do or not,
why remain in Babylon system, (any politic party),
instead of
doing what God says to do ? (starting with "come out of babylon MY people" )

i.e. do not trust the flesh, kings, powers that be (earthly, carnal, defiled, idolatrous).

Oh I agree with you on principle.
The idea put forth quite often is pro life just means pro birth. No matter how much I show folks how Christians have a plethora of charitable organizations supporting young and older single moms, the same meme is mentioned. Not to mention the Christian adoption services.

 

[jayem]

Probably not, particularly if the risk was to the mother's "life" (as such a situation could also mean the death of both mother and child). At this point, quite frankly, I think I would approve of the mother being given the choice to abort in all of the "difficult" cases (IOW, rape, incest, & risk to life), if the right to abort one's baby for the sake of convenience was rescinded.

Don't forget there are cases of fatal untreatable congenital anomalies (i.e., Tay-Sachs and anencephaly) and selective reduction of high multiple pregnancies. To me, as a health care provider, these aren't minor details. I don't for a minute, trust that legislators--who by and large have little or no knowledge of high risk obstetrics and neonatology--are able to write criminal laws that can account for exceptional situations. How would a law even define an abortion "for the sake of convenience?" How would such laws be enforced? Would we have prosecutors confiscating the private medical records of women who've had terminations to investigate why the procedure was done? And can a D.A. make a determination if an abortion was medically necessary? Did you ever read "The Handmaid's Tale." (Was also a movie, and now a Hulu TV series.) That's the nightmare scenario--anti-abortions laws devolving into dystopian government authoritarianism on steroids.

And BTW, who should be prosecuted for the crime of abortion for convenience? Just the doctor? Why not the doctor and the woman who sought out the procedure? And how about husbands, and boyfriends, and family members who may pressure a woman to terminate? Shouldn't they be charged as accessories?