that is up to the law. a person killing a pregnant woman is a much different thing than that woman making a choice on how she will act.
Can You Be a Christian - and be Pro-Abortion?
- Thread starter CajunCrimson
- Start date
Forgetting the aspect of abortion. Just focusing on the baby and what is defined as life.
I actually thought this thread was pretty amicable so far, but I understand not wanting to have this discussion.
My point wasn't to argue, it was just to indicate that any definition of when life begins--yours, mine, anyone else's--is arbitrary and uncertain. From my vantage, the only part of this debate that has any concrete fact is whether you think a woman deserves autonomy over her own body or if she doesn't. And since any argument in favor of removing a woman's freedom and independence is based entirely on supposition, I tend to favor preserving individual rights.
Last edited:
No worries. I was just asking as a follow up to your post. Like you said, it's a rabbit hole discussion.
Actually the abortion argument today has very little to do with the question of when life begins (almost all parties who look into it agree it is conception). There is some disagreement about the end of conception, whether it is fertilization or implantation or the point after which twinning is impossible. That is a narrow range and has little impact on the abortion debate except the morning after pill.
As 92 noted, some argue being a human is not the same as being a person. A person is defined as a being capable of some higher mental function like self consciousness or the ability to reason. They argue abortion is killing but not killing a person. more like killing a fish. The problem with these arguments is that it also allows infanticide, since infants do not function higher than a pig, and we kill pigs.
The other main argumen, the one that is literally "prochoice" ( and directly influenced the primary opinion in Roe v Wade,) is the so called libertarian argument that the woman is simply not obligated to the fetal person any more than she would be to any other separate person, for example a beggar. it would be awfully nice of her to assist, but it is charity not obligation. The fetal person has rights but only the same rights as anyone else. As I do not have the right to demand that you feed me, neither does the fetus. It is a mere accident that it dies. The argument suggests there is a right not to help, but not a right to kill. Therefore after viability, aka the second trimester, abortion is direct killing and no longer a neutral act. Hence the Roe v. Wade second trimester restriction.
When people say life begins at conception and therefore abortion is wrong, they are usually taking it for granted that every human is by nature a person (a rational and self conscious being, or the bearer of moral capacities) but in an unexpressed or incipient state. They are also usually assuming the woman is for one reason or another responsible for the welfare of the fetal stage human. If these two points were established instead of assumed, the pro-life argument would be extremely strong.
As 92 noted, some argue being a human is not the same as being a person. A person is defined as a being capable of some higher mental function like self consciousness or the ability to reason. They argue abortion is killing but not killing a person. more like killing a fish. The problem with these arguments is that it also allows infanticide, since infants do not function higher than a pig, and we kill pigs.
The other main argumen, the one that is literally "prochoice" ( and directly influenced the primary opinion in Roe v Wade,) is the so called libertarian argument that the woman is simply not obligated to the fetal person any more than she would be to any other separate person, for example a beggar. it would be awfully nice of her to assist, but it is charity not obligation. The fetal person has rights but only the same rights as anyone else. As I do not have the right to demand that you feed me, neither does the fetus. It is a mere accident that it dies. The argument suggests there is a right not to help, but not a right to kill. Therefore after viability, aka the second trimester, abortion is direct killing and no longer a neutral act. Hence the Roe v. Wade second trimester restriction.
When people say life begins at conception and therefore abortion is wrong, they are usually taking it for granted that every human is by nature a person (a rational and self conscious being, or the bearer of moral capacities) but in an unexpressed or incipient state. They are also usually assuming the woman is for one reason or another responsible for the welfare of the fetal stage human. If these two points were established instead of assumed, the pro-life argument would be extremely strong.
From the perspective of a mother of two children that I gave birth to at 41 weeks and 39 weeks....I know that I would never make that choice to end the life of my baby.
I feel life starts at conception...
I saw and heard the heartbeat of both of my children at 6 weeks at the doctor. I could find the heartbeat at home with a Doppler at 9-10 weeks. Finding out the sex of the baby at 16 weeks, and feeling the movement at 12-15 weeks...etc. Then imagining that people have abortions even after this far into a pregnancy is sickening to me. JMHO.
I feel life starts at conception...
I saw and heard the heartbeat of both of my children at 6 weeks at the doctor. I could find the heartbeat at home with a Doppler at 9-10 weeks. Finding out the sex of the baby at 16 weeks, and feeling the movement at 12-15 weeks...etc. Then imagining that people have abortions even after this far into a pregnancy is sickening to me. JMHO.
Many ethicists I've read simply ignore the term "life" and prefer to debate when "personhood" begins, as this sidesteps the issue that CA, Jon, and 92 touched upon, which is that many things in nature are alive yet not granted the innate rights of a person.
Precisely, and this isn't a question on which you can appeal to science. It is one of philosophy.
Don't like abortion, but it should remain legal. Criminalizing it will not stop it. It will simply force it back into the back-alleys, often being performed by unlicensed butchers. Unless you're rich, in which case it's simply a matter of going somewhere it remains legal.
To address the original question, "Can you be a Christian and be pro-abortion ?" You cannot be a Bible believing and understanding Christian and be pro-abortion. The Bible makes it clear that there is sentient life in the womb. But anyone can use the name "Christian" or even be a genuine believer who does not understand what the Bible says about the subject, and be pro-abortion.
On a related subject. As a born/again believer in Jesus Christ and believer in the Bible, I desire that there be no abortion and that there be laws that prohibit it, but would not engage in political or social activism to address the issue. The Bible would condemn any violence, harassment and IMO, demonstration, etc. to gain one's way on this issue or any other. The only real issue involved in the believer's interface with the lost is their salvation. What good is it for them if they repent of abortion but suffer eternal ruin, eternal separation from God ? As for the child, it goes directly to be with the Lord.
According to the Bible abortion is murder, but it's not to be individually avenged by the believer. Hopefully the state will, but in the U.S. that's not the case at this point. God will address it in due time.
On a related subject. As a born/again believer in Jesus Christ and believer in the Bible, I desire that there be no abortion and that there be laws that prohibit it, but would not engage in political or social activism to address the issue. The Bible would condemn any violence, harassment and IMO, demonstration, etc. to gain one's way on this issue or any other. The only real issue involved in the believer's interface with the lost is their salvation. What good is it for them if they repent of abortion but suffer eternal ruin, eternal separation from God ? As for the child, it goes directly to be with the Lord.
According to the Bible abortion is murder, but it's not to be individually avenged by the believer. Hopefully the state will, but in the U.S. that's not the case at this point. God will address it in due time.
Again, I'm not going to wade into this, but the same can be said of murder, rape - almost anything. At some point, we must stop suggesting that just because people will do it anyway that it's okay. That sort of justification is weak.
Yep. Mainly they ignore it because there's not much to argue about. The main argument has shifted to the question what, if anything, gives life value (or if you prefer, rights). What makes it wrong to kill anything, human or not? The answer has been suggested, "personhood." Naturally the question has circled back around, so when does that begin? This however has only raised a hornets nest of other problems, mainly definingbtge notion of personhood in a non-question begging way.
We do not have universally recognized judgments about some actions, and until some agreement is reached, moral decisions on those actions should be left to the individual. Murder and rape are not such actions, abortions are.
My views on this have shifted somewhat over the years. I still find flippant decisions objectionable and believe there should be limitations, but after careful consideration have come to the conclusion that the government should have little overall role in the grey areas. The U.S. is actually quite liberal compared to many other western states.
So, while I find abortions done solely for convenience objectionable, I would not have the government interfere past a reasonable point. (That point would be debated endlessly, so no point in arguing specifics)
I do wish that some of the more devoted abortion rights advocates believed in individual rights enough that they would also not have the government interfere with any person acting on their own conscience by not participating in abortions or what they believe to be tantamount to the same. I have a problem with someone shouting about individual rights while also advocating that government punish those who conscientiously object and abstain. I also don't like when people give the fetus less legal weight than the very ruling that made abortion legal did.
Overall, this is an issue that is far from being black and white. My moral beliefs don't necessarily align with my thoughts regarding policy. I still struggle with that conflict. I now tend to err on the side of less government interference both for women making the decision and professionals making their own decisions and wish more on both sides would do the same.
I know people who supposedly believe that aborting even an ectopic pregnancy is murder, but if their daughter was going to die from one they'd be the first to pull the trigger on termination of the pregnancy. The hypocrisy is sickening. And they would be the first to say that anything beyond a physical threat to life or health is no reason and yet if it was their daughter going literally insane without their medications would again want their child well at the expense of the fetus. Trying to have a reasonable discussion with them is impossible.
The same goes for those who want to choose their own moral actions on any range of subjects but insist that someone trained in certain fields abandon their own right to act on their morals. These would too often be the same folks for whom "I was just following orders" is not a justifiable excuse. How can you believe that and not believe in the right of a person to act in accordance with their own sense of right and wrong while not impeding the right of the woman to seek service from a willing provider? I really don't understand that.
Nothing here is directed at any specific person or previous statement in this thread. Nothing is meant as an insult. It's simply my point of view. If it makes you think or causes you to struggle with your opinion then good. If it makes you angry then I'm sorry you feel that way. The competing rights of those involved should cause one to think and perhaps to struggle a bit with some important questions.
Simple slogans don't allow for deeper thought. They are useful for trying to rally the troops to effect a certain outcome and not much more. Some have the effect of dehumanizing others in the process. I'd prefer to leave the slogans to non-thinkers, protesters, and non-thinking protesters.
A serious discussion should, in my opinion, include validation of some opposing arguments regarding conflicting rights of the principle parties.
Again, not meant to be a response to any one person or statement.
So, while I find abortions done solely for convenience objectionable, I would not have the government interfere past a reasonable point. (That point would be debated endlessly, so no point in arguing specifics)
I do wish that some of the more devoted abortion rights advocates believed in individual rights enough that they would also not have the government interfere with any person acting on their own conscience by not participating in abortions or what they believe to be tantamount to the same. I have a problem with someone shouting about individual rights while also advocating that government punish those who conscientiously object and abstain. I also don't like when people give the fetus less legal weight than the very ruling that made abortion legal did.
Overall, this is an issue that is far from being black and white. My moral beliefs don't necessarily align with my thoughts regarding policy. I still struggle with that conflict. I now tend to err on the side of less government interference both for women making the decision and professionals making their own decisions and wish more on both sides would do the same.
I know people who supposedly believe that aborting even an ectopic pregnancy is murder, but if their daughter was going to die from one they'd be the first to pull the trigger on termination of the pregnancy. The hypocrisy is sickening. And they would be the first to say that anything beyond a physical threat to life or health is no reason and yet if it was their daughter going literally insane without their medications would again want their child well at the expense of the fetus. Trying to have a reasonable discussion with them is impossible.
The same goes for those who want to choose their own moral actions on any range of subjects but insist that someone trained in certain fields abandon their own right to act on their morals. These would too often be the same folks for whom "I was just following orders" is not a justifiable excuse. How can you believe that and not believe in the right of a person to act in accordance with their own sense of right and wrong while not impeding the right of the woman to seek service from a willing provider? I really don't understand that.
Nothing here is directed at any specific person or previous statement in this thread. Nothing is meant as an insult. It's simply my point of view. If it makes you think or causes you to struggle with your opinion then good. If it makes you angry then I'm sorry you feel that way. The competing rights of those involved should cause one to think and perhaps to struggle a bit with some important questions.
Simple slogans don't allow for deeper thought. They are useful for trying to rally the troops to effect a certain outcome and not much more. Some have the effect of dehumanizing others in the process. I'd prefer to leave the slogans to non-thinkers, protesters, and non-thinking protesters.
A serious discussion should, in my opinion, include validation of some opposing arguments regarding conflicting rights of the principle parties.
Again, not meant to be a response to any one person or statement.
Without weighing in too much into the question in the opening post, I would only note that the debate over whether one could own a slave and be a Christian followed some of the same lines, raised some of the same points ("Are Africans human?"*) and split asunder the Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterian denominations. (Catholics and Episcopalians avoided a denominational split).
Harvard zoologist Louis Agassiz argued for polygenism, the idea that Africans and Europeans came from separate origins and thus are different "races." Josiah Nott of Connecticut coined a term for the study of Africans which I cannot (and will not) retype here. Theologian James Henley Thornwell of South Carolina urged southerners not to accept this "scientific racism" specifically because scientific racism negated the atonement of Christ.
Harvard zoologist Louis Agassiz argued for polygenism, the idea that Africans and Europeans came from separate origins and thus are different "races." Josiah Nott of Connecticut coined a term for the study of Africans which I cannot (and will not) retype here. Theologian James Henley Thornwell of South Carolina urged southerners not to accept this "scientific racism" specifically because scientific racism negated the atonement of Christ.
As for the issue of the inconsistency of abortion with Christian belief, I would urge caution before casting stones.James Henley Thornwell said:
Latest threads
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-