Why are Christians generally opposed to abortion?

[St_Worm2]

How would a law even define an abortion "for the sake of convenience?"

Abortions are always done (more than 99% of the time) for the sake of the mother's convenience, except in cases where a doctor determines that continuing a pregnancy would pose a grave risk to the life of the mother and/or her unborn child. The latter, an abortion of necessity, constitutes far less than 1% of all abortions.

Considering the percentages, if the "law" wished to define what "abortion for the sake of convenience" is, that's simple, they'd simply define it as "abortion", because that's what nearly every single abortion that's ever been performed is

 

[Dave RP]

Abortions are always done (more than 99% of the time) for the sake of the mother's convenience, except in cases where a doctor determines that continuing a pregnancy would pose a grave risk to the life of the mother and/or her unborn child. The latter, an abortion of necessity, constitutes far less than 1% of all abortions.

Considering the percentages, if the "law" wished to define what "abortion for the sake of convenience" is, that's simple, they'd simply define it as "abortion", because that's what nearly every single abortion that's ever been performed is

Abortion is a terrible choice for anyone to make, but surely it is a personal choice. If the fetus is not capable of independent life how can it be considered as a "murder" as some have stated, an abortion at (for example) 10 weeks is a very hard thing for any mother to do but there may be strong extenuating circumstances that mean it is the best decision for the mother to make, and it must be her choice. If you disagree with that choice, fair enough but in a free society you cannot prevent someone from exercising their choice, and I speak from personal experience having been involved with two people who have chosen abortion.

Your definition of "convenience" maybe a lot more than that to a potential mother, unless you know their circumstances you can't judge. Thereafter it's up to god, if he exists to judge the woman and presumably to protect the soul of the unborn child if it has one, so in the case of a religious adherent the woman choosing abortion will be "punished" and the unborn child protected so what is the religious argument against abortion in that case?

 

[Nithavela]

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'.

 

[KWCrazy]

Your definition of "convenience" maybe a lot more than that to a potential mother, unless you know their circumstances you can't judge. Thereafter it's up to god, if he exists to judge the woman and presumably to protect the soul of the unborn child if it has one, so in the case of a religious adherent the woman choosing abortion will be "punished" and the unborn child protected so what is the religious argument against abortion in that case?

Do you think that people who are morally opposed to abortions should have to fund them?
When you say, "I'm killing a baby and you're paying for it," you include me in what I feel is a moral evil. Then, yes, I have a say.

Abortion should be funded 100% by abortion advocates; and better yet by the two people involved. Make it like a student loan. It may take a decade to pay for it, but you pay for every penny. How many lives could be saved simply by making infanticide NOT a free and easy procedure? Adult activities cost money. If you want to pretend you're an adult, you need to bear the same responsibilities.

>Staff edited<

 

[Dave RP]

Do you think that people who are morally opposed to abortions should have to fund them?
When you say, "I'm killing a baby and you're paying for it," you include me in what I feel is a moral evil. Then, yes, I have a say.

Abortion should be funded 100% by abortion advocates; and better yet by the two people involved. Make it like a student loan. It may take a decade to pay for it, but you pay for every penny. How many lives could be saved simply by making infanticide NOT a free and easy procedure? Adult activities cost money. If you want to pretend you're an adult, you need to bear the same responsibilities.

As for the atheists who try to judge the morality of a God in which they do not believe, It was man's sin that brought death into the world, not God's. The children who were removed were as yet unstained by the sins of their parents but they would become godless sinners in due time. The loss of the children resulted from the sins of the parents. Those who are evil cannot accept the judgement upon evil people. Atheist, because they reject God, are evil by definition. All people are sinners, but those who reject Christ have no means of forgiveness.

That's just like saying that smokers should pay for their own treatment, or drinkers, or drug addicts or anyone who makes a lifestyle choice which results in harm. Adult activities of all kinds result in costs, and adults (or most do) pay tax to fund that.

In abortion you are not killing a baby, you are preventing a baby being born, it's a totally different thing.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Before Roe v. Wade most states had laws prohibiting abortion. However, all of the 50 states and territories had provisions for the pregnant woman's life. Some had provisions for overall 'health of the woman.' Roe opened the door for elective abortions of convenience outside of health concerns and life of the woman and imposed such on all states in our republic.

To answer your question...If Roe were to be struck down, that would mean the states would decide the matter again. I say that again...it would be like before Roe v. Wade where most of your concerns of the health of the pregnant woman were addressed in law.

In Roe v. Wade, the advocates for on demand abortion for any cause chose Texas for a reason. Texas had the most restrictive abortion laws. Yet Texas had in statute the protection of the pregnant mother's life. Roe v. Wade made abortion a privacy issue and thus opened the door for abortions up to the birth of the child.

 

[redleghunter]

Abortion is a terrible choice for anyone to make, but surely it is a personal choice. If the fetus is not capable of independent life how can it be considered as a "murder" as some have stated, an abortion at (for example) 10 weeks is a very hard thing for any mother to do but there may be strong extenuating circumstances that mean it is the best decision for the mother to make, and it must be her choice. If you disagree with that choice, fair enough but in a free society you cannot prevent someone from exercising their choice, and I speak from personal experience having been involved with two people who have chosen abortion.

Your definition of "convenience" maybe a lot more than that to a potential mother, unless you know their circumstances you can't judge. Thereafter it's up to god, if he exists to judge the woman and presumably to protect the soul of the unborn child if it has one, so in the case of a religious adherent the woman choosing abortion will be "punished" and the unborn child protected so what is the religious argument against abortion in that case?

It all depends right? So I ask...when do we become humans in your estimation?

 

[Adstar]

I've never fully understood why many Christians are opposed to abortion and why it seems to be a very controversial subject, particularly in the US. What is the "religious" reasoning behind the Christian stance on abortion, and are there any circumstances where Christians would support abortion?

I read somewhere that god had allowed the death of thousands or possibly millions of unborn babies, for example in Noahs flood and at Sodom/ Gomorrah (if you believe the bible) as there must have been many pregnant women killed in those incidents, does this affect the thinking of Christians in the modern world when abortion is discussed?

Because abortion is the murder of a new human being.. Even worse it is the murder of a completely innocent human being.. Murder is sin for a Christian..

 

[redleghunter]

In abortion you are not killing a baby, you are preventing a baby being born, it's a totally different thing.

When a fetus is aborted, is it human life?

 

[redleghunter]

That's just like saying that smokers should pay for their own treatment, or drinkers, or drug addicts or anyone who makes a lifestyle choice which results in harm. Adult activities of all kinds result in costs, and adults (or most do) pay tax to fund that.

We all have personal defects which eventually turn into illness. Some self inflicted and some not. However, with abortion another human life is at stake and that is the point.

 

[Dave RP]

When a fetus is aborted, is it human life?

No. To be human life it has to be self sufficient, can breathe and can feed. A fetus cannot, it is not human life. In the UK murder is defined "For a killing to amount to murder by a defendant, the defendant must have caused the death of "a reasonable creature in rerum natura". The phrase as a whole is usually translated as "a life in being", i.e. where the umbilical cord has been severed and the baby has a life independently of the mother."

So in my opinion the mothers choice and wishes are paramount until birth.

 

[Dave RP]

We all have personal defects which eventually turn into illness. Some self inflicted and some not. However, with abortion another human life is at stake and that is the point.

The life of the mother and how she lives and what her circumstances also come into the decision process as well. Of course I understand from a faith point of view you believe every life is sacred, but from a point of view I have where I do not believe the fetus is a life until it is outside the womb, I would take a different viewpoint, and one that could never be reconciled with yours. I do understand, and am not trying to be offensive to you or anyone of similar beliefs.

 

[Dave RP]

It all depends right? So I ask...when do we become humans in your estimation?

Sorry, we are doubling up responses her I think, but in my opinion we become human when we are capable of self sustained life outside of the mothers womb, hence I would not support late abortion except in extreme medical need for the fetus or mother - if the fetus was found to be severely handicapped or the mothers life was threatened for example, but then again I do not think that any woman would want a late abortion in any but the most extreme circumstances.

 

[redleghunter]

No. To be human life it has to be self sufficient, can breathe and can feed.

New born infants don't meet self sufficiency and need are fed by the mother or parents. Based on your criteria a child 3 years and younger are not human life. I ask: who are YOU to decide this? Given it is biological fact we become human beings at conception, you reject modern science and possibly a science denier. If you actually read the link and the associated quotes (which you have not responded to) you would know this.

A fetus cannot, it is not human life.

So says YOU. Show me the scientific evidence. Science says we are human beings at conception. I guess you are leaning on your personal philosophical beliefs and all human life in the womb are now subject to your personal 'bench decision.'

In the UK murder is defined "For a killing to amount to murder by a defendant, the defendant must have caused the death of "a reasonable creature in rerum natura". The phrase as a whole is usually translated as "a life in being", i.e. where the umbilical cord has been severed and the baby has a life independently of the mother."

And if the mother decides to not feed, clean, care for the child after the umbilical cord is cut, can the baby independently request legal counsel to force her to do so? Of course not. The child would not be independent in such matters. There are some young men who don't meet the criteria in your law above as they are still dependent on their mother's support.

However, I am glad you appealed to 'law' to defend your position. If we allow 'law' to determine our human 'worth' then watch out, laws change, they have in the past and some people were enslaved, murdered and deemed 'sub human.'

So if a pre-born baby is not a human being, then what is 'it?'

So in my opinion the mothers choice and wishes are paramount until birth.

So mothers get to decide who is and who is not human?

 

[redleghunter]

The life of the mother and how she lives and what her circumstances also come into the decision process as well. Of course I understand from a faith point of view you believe every life is sacred, but from a point of view I have where I do not believe the fetus is a life until it is outside the womb, I would take a different viewpoint, and one that could never be reconciled with yours. I do understand, and am not trying to be offensive to you or anyone of similar beliefs.

The problem with your view is you cannot point to an objective standard to define what you think is human. Even though medical science defines us as human beings at conception.

Hint...This is where you introduce the term 'personhood' to determine which human life has more value over the other.

Just trying to help out.

 

[redleghunter]

but in my opinion we become human when we are capable of self sustained life outside of the mothers womb

For my friend's son aged 24, still living with him, I'm sure this will be comforting.

 

[Strathos]

I'm pretty sure that our way tax money all goes to at least some things that we are morally opposed to, such as war. However tax money doesn't directly fund abortion.

 

[super animator]

Abortions are always done (more than 99% of the time) for the sake of the mother's convenience, except in cases where a doctor determines that continuing a pregnancy would pose a grave risk to the life of the mother and/or her unborn child. The latter, an abortion of necessity, constitutes far less than 1% of all abortions.

Considering the percentages, if the "law" wished to define what "abortion for the sake of convenience" is, that's simple, they'd simply define it as "abortion", because that's what nearly every single abortion that's ever been performed is

Then the exception you mention will be illegal as well.

 

[Dave RP]

New born infants don't meet self sufficiency and need are fed by the mother or parents. Based on your criteria a child 3 years and younger are not human life. I ask: who are YOU to decide this? Given it is biological fact we become human beings at conception, you reject modern science and possibly a science denier. If you actually read the link and the associated quotes (which you have not responded to) you would know this.

So says YOU. Show me the scientific evidence. Science says we are human beings at conception. I guess you are leaning on your personal philosophical beliefs and all human life in the womb are now subject to your personal 'bench decision.'



And if the mother decides to not feed, clean, care for the child after the umbilical cord is cut, can the baby independently request legal counsel to force her to do so? Of course not. The child would not be independent in such matters. There are some young men who don't meet the criteria in your law above as they are still dependent on their mother's support.

However, I am glad you appealed to 'law' to defend your position. If we allow 'law' to determine our human 'worth' then watch out, laws change, they have in the past and some people were enslaved, murdered and deemed 'sub human.'

So if a pre-born baby is not a human being, then what is 'it?'


So mothers get to decide who is and who is not human?

Well let's just say that for whatever reason I consider it acceptable and in fact frequently beneficial for a pregnancy to be terminated, and no I don't consider that to be murder. If the baby was capable of living with normal parental assistance as every other child does, then I personally consider that child to be a human life. If it not fully developed then personally I do not believe that it can be considered an independent life.

I'm sorry to disagree and I'm sorry you feel so strongly against my views in this subject.

 

[Dave RP]

I'm pretty sure that our way tax money all goes to at least some things that we are morally opposed to, such as war. However tax money doesn't directly fund abortion.

On a slightly different note, in the U.K. Where abortion is available on the NHS taxpayers do fund it.