• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Would you support a Constitutional ammendment making abortion illegal?

Discussion in 'Debates on Abortion' started by (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ), May 26, 2019.

  1. (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

    (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,757
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    This thread is a carry over from my previous thread "How can abortion be biblically defended." In that thread, I noticed that their was perhaps one verse that was ever used to biblically defend abortion (Numbers 5). Many Christians stated that they believed that abortion is biblically wrong and sinful however they supported the "Constitutional Rights" of others to make that decision. So the question is very simple so I would expect a very simple answer. If, as a Christian, you had the opportunity to vote to amend the Constitution so that only abortions that could be performed legally in the United States are those in which is medically necessary for the survival of the mother or if the unborn could never live outside the womb (ect. no brain development), would you be in favor of it?
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +907
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Absolutely not Look at what happened to Amendment 18. People were totally confused and found ways to get around it, smuggling alcoholic drinks from Canada to the United States. It did not take long for people to realize adding alcohol to the U.S. Constitution was a big mistake. If abortion is banned that way, we're going to see 18/21 all over again.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  3. thecolorsblend

    thecolorsblend If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

    +5,619
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    The "medical exception" bit is utter nonsense. In theory, every pregnancy is or can be a threat to the mother's life. It's patently absurd to allow abortion on those grounds since they can be extended to every pregnancy.

    If a woman's life truly is in jeopardy, an actual doctor in an actual hospital can make that determination rather than some quack at an abortion butcher shop.
     
  4. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +3,591
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi,

    I don't understand why we have to have a constitutional amendment for a law. If we want to make abortions illegal in the U.S., then let's just make abortions illegal in the U.S.

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
     
  5. thecolorsblend

    thecolorsblend If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

    +5,619
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    I assume you've heard of the Supreme Court, whose job it is to determine the constitutionality of a given law in our country. Laws, we should understand, which were essentially struck down when the Court imposed Roe v Wade onto the rest of the country.

    Truly banning abortions would require either overturning RVW or else amending the Constitution.
     
  6. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +3,591
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi TCB,

    Yes, I understand all of that. I'm still not understanding why a constitutional amendment should be used to make a law. Will the next constitutional amendment be that is it illegal to murder anyone? How about we invoke a constitutional amendment to make it illegal to exceed the speed limit on any federal highway? Further, what would be the penalty for someone who got an abortion? Would we give them the electric chair twice because they broke a constitutional amendment instead of just a regular law.

    Constitutional amendments are not handled the same as laws in their enforcement. Constitutional amendments are used to provide freedoms that the government cannot take away. Like the right/freedom to vote or the right/freedom to bear arms. The right/freedom to speak one's mind. They are not used to make every day behavior illegal.

    When someone tries to restrict someone else from speaking freely, the constitution allows us to tell the person who is restricting the free speech that they can't do that. So, if a woman gets an abortion do we just tell her, after the fact, that they can't do that? This is why we have so few constitutional amendments and tombs as thick as cinder blocks with laws.

    No! I would not support a constitutional amendment to regulate abortions. I actually think you're playing with a subject that is out of your depth.

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
     
  7. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +4,699
    Presbyterian
    Single
    A constitutional amendment can be used if you don't like a Supreme Court judgement. However in a situation where the country is as divided as a it is, this is no more a real possibility than getting 2/3 of the Senate to convict Trump.
     
  8. (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

    (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,757
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    You said previously:
    Yet when presented with the opportunity to support what is "approved by the Lord" you reject it? You argue that you believe "life begins at fertilization and abortion is not approved by the Lord" and that your only justification for supporting a woman's choice to abort is because of "constitutional rights". However, when that option is taken off the table you still support abortion even though you claimed it to be "morally wrong". This leads me to conclude that "what is approved by the Lord" is not a concern for you. You are saying that you will support the murder of innocent babies ( said murder because you said that life begins at fertilization) because people are going to do it anyway? So lets be honest. What is the real reason, as a Christian, do you support abortion? Because it sure isn't because you think it is approved by the Lord and constitutionality is not your real reason.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  9. (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

    (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,757
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I totally agree. There are an extremely few cases where the life of the mother would be at risk that could not be avoided by C-section.
     
  10. (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

    (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,757
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Because some people have this strange notion that there is a "Constitutional right" for abortion. It is ironic because no such right exists in the Constitution and it is the same people who don't even know what rights are actually included in the Constitution.
     
  11. (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

    (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,757
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    A constitutional amendment would be necessary so people couldn't declare laws against abortion to be "unconstitutional". It is really strange that there are so many Christians who support abortion solely based on constitutionality yet if presented with an opportunity to make an abortion ban "Constitutional" they reject it. The question then becomes...why?
     
  12. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +907
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    You have to compare several different posts, not one post to itself. I have also previously stated abortion, despite being murder, should be permitted for medical reasons, especially cases where the mom needs to choose between her own life and the baby's life. Abortion on demand ("I don't want to have a baby now") is morally wrong, but so is forcing a high school girl who was raped to carry a baby she will give up at his or her birth anyway. An outright abortion ban is too strict. No matter how rare, medical and ciminal cases must be treated with respect for the mother. She does not need to hear, "Sorry, because you didn't have birth control that day you will have to carry a son or daughter for nine months." A moral balance needs to be found and that would slowly chip away at parts of Jane Roe.
     
  13. (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

    (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,757
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    First, you obviously haven't read the OP. Second, that was one of your posts...to itself. You said all those things in one post that I referenced. And the "Constitutional Amendment" that I proposed specifically allowed for abortions that were medically necessary. The one and only reason for abortion that you claimed wasn't "immoral'. What you are saying is that as a Christian, you support and advocate for something that you consider to be immoral and not approved by the Lord because you don't think it is fair that a woman should have to have a child if she doesn't want to? How is that fair to the life of the baby that you said begins at conception? So the fact that abortion on demand is immoral and not approved by God isn't enough for you to reconsider your position, and constitutionality isn't something that you are willing to change. At what point as a Christian are you willing to stand up for what you believe to be "moral" and "approved by the Lord" by advocating for the protection of the life of the unborn?
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  14. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +907
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    The difference is a fetus does not have a mind or know anybody yet. If a fetus dies, nobody will miss it. If the mother dies, many people will miss her. Is there evidence that unborn babies think and have fefelings in hte uterus? Do you know anyone who grieves the loss of another woman's unborn baby?
     
  15. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +4,699
    Presbyterian
    Single
    There actually is some evidence, but obviously not in the first trimester, and I'm dubious about even the second: Fetal Psychology
     
  16. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +3,591
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi hedrick,

    All of this assumes that we know the heart of God in the matter. I believe that the heart of God in the matter of sexual relations altogether is that it is only for the man and woman who are in a committed life long relationship with one another. I believe that is God's heart in the matter because if people would abide by that one use of sexual relations, the occurrence of abortion would likely fall into the 100's possibly for medical reasons.

    However, WE ARE SINNERS!!!!!!! We are prone to always misuse what God has given us for our good. Sexual relations are now about as common as going out to get a cup of coffee together and when we misuse something that God has given us, then problems ensue. In the days of old in Israel, a woman had to prove that she was a virgin on her wedding night. However, they were sinners too, and I'm sure that practice created some problems for them also. But, the point is that the Jews, God's people, have always held virginity until marriage in very high regard.

    If a man had relations with a virgin, that was not his wife, then he was expected to marry her. The reason being that once the woman was defiled, it was going to be very hard for her to find a marriage partner who would be expecting a virgin as a bride. Not impossible, of course, but harder and likely not going to get a 'good' man for a husband. Look at the account of Mary and Joseph. It took an angel of God to convince Joseph that he shouldn't just kick his 'obviously non-virgin' betrothed to the curb. I say obviously non-virgin because in those days, you just couldn't get pregnant without having had sexual relations with a man. But an angel of God visited Joseph and convinced him that in this one singular case, that wasn't true and that Mary was still a virgin.

    So, I think historically, for God's people, the sanctity of the sexual union was always to have been within a marriage of a man and a woman. All other situations need not apply! So, basically what we're speaking of here is whether or not we're going to allow the lost world to go in the way that the lost world is wont to go. Making laws that are godly to address the lives of the godless, has never worked and I'm confident that it won't work here either.

    We, as born again beleivers, should leave the laws that lost man wants to make up to lost man. We, the born again believers however, should neither desire an abortion nor have put ourselves in a place where the discussion of having an abortion would even come up. But, WE'RE ALL SINNERS!!!!!! We think as believers that we're doing God's will in all of this, but there have been occasions that God hasn't been particularly caring of life in general. After all, the flood killed a lot of lost people. There's no evidence that God was particularly upset about that. The angel of death that He sent to Egypt killed a lot of lost people. Those who trusted God were supposed to have put the blood of a lamb on their doorposts and lentils and their first born were unaffected. However, for those who lost their lives, God doesn't seem to have been particularly moved by such loss. At one point in the Scriptures God brings up the issue of parents sacrificing their children to pagan gods. Did God command Israel to go out into all the nations and stop them from doing this thing? No. God told His people to stop doing such things.

    So, I think there is evidence that God may see this issue differently for His people, than He does the lost. If the lost want to do wicked things then we let them. There is no commandment to us to stop the lost from doing anything that the lost do. The commandment is merely to attempt to teach them the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that if we do that, then the problem, for the believer, takes care of itself. The lost world is already lost and the only hope any one of them has is that one of us will take the time to share the love of God, that He has shown through the sacrifice of His Son, to them.

    I'm in agreement to let the world make the laws that they desire to make and leave them alone about it. However, the believer is asked to live by a different law and, therefore, should.

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
     
  17. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +4,699
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I was making no theological or ethical point with my posting. I was answering a factual question.
     
  18. (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

    (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,757
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    So you determine the value of life based off of how many people care about the person enough to miss them if they die? That is not something I would expect a Christian to say. Remember, the Constitutional amendment that I proposed in the OP already makes exceptions when the life of the mother is at stake. Yet you would reject it anyway. Therefore, the life of the mother is not your primary reason for supporting the killing of the life that you said "begins at fertilization."
     
  19. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +907
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    No, that is not the basis for how I value human life. I just think if one of two people must die the lesser of two evils (who dies) would be the fetus because its life has not begun yet. Is it un-Christian to believe if a baby is still in the mother's body, even though it is alive, it has not starting living? I mean you do not say your life began 9 months before your birthdate.

    The problem with a Constitutional amendment was explained in my first reply. It would prevent doctors in America from researching biotechnology to move up the point of "viability" during pregnancy. There can't be a consensus among obstetricians and medical researchers on the definition of viability and that will not be the same forever.
     
  20. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +4,699
    Presbyterian
    Single
    If you're read the actual decision, you'll realize that the constitutional right isn't for abortion. It against governments making laws imposing the majority's philosophical or religious beliefs on the minority.

    In today's climate of social change, conservatives should not want this right to be weakened.
     
Loading...