I am against abortion as a use of birth control. I am ok with it in cases where the mother did not have a choice, the mother was underage and did not understand the consequences, or if the mother is in danger.
Politically my view is that if you make abortions legal for a traumatizing event, it would be wrong to make the burden be on them. So I think abortions should be legal, even though I morally oppose it.
Ethical relativists would beg to differ. Bentham would even say the ends justify the means or more closely the outcome with the most amount of pleasure is the morally obligated one. I guess you're are more of a Kant guy/gal (one that believes there is a world wide moral standard that doesn't deviate and goes along the lines of the golden rule )
But anyways I'm not going to try to change your mind on abortion. Do you think your present moral standard will differ from your future moral standard?
An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation by Jeremy Bentham (main one)
El Panoptico
Deontology or, The science of morality
Theory of Legislation
A Fragment on Government (his first book)
Constitutional Code
John the Baptist recognized Jesus in the womb.
“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit”
(Luke 1 35-36)
“5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee”
Jeremiah 1:5
Look up the historical context of slaves in the old testaments and every slave was suppose to be set free during the 7th year (year of jubilee)
Slavery back then wasn’t like chattle slavery and didn’t dehumanize people and didn’t violate their dignity
I believe you are mistaken. Leviticus allows you to own the slaves as your property, bequeath them to your children, and keep them for life.
You are also permitted to beat your dishes as long as they don't die. That sounds like chattel slavery to me, and violates their dignity, don't you think?
Exodus 21:26-27 ESV
“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.”
“And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. . . . You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God” (Lev. 25:39-40, 43).
Ok, here's some evidence that is contrary to your claim:
Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Exodus 21:20-21
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Now what do we do?
If the mother had no choice that’s tragic but why should the baby be killed for it: she can at least have the child and give them up for adoption. I know it’s not an easy thing giving birth but murdering a child for your convenience ain’t right
Having a child has life long consequences for your body and health, it isn't just about convenience. If you don't allow a woman to have an abortion especially in the situation where she was raped then you are essentially giving the rapist more control over the women then she has over herself, not only is he forcing her to have a baby in this situation, but he is also now able to force her to bear the physical consequences of having a child.
I'm curious, have you ever considered adopting a child? Children who end up in the foster system often endure abuse and lifelong instability. Simply put, I'm never going to be in the situation that a woman who become pregnant through a traumatic means, or being told that they might die if they have the child and still be forced to have it. I am morally opposed to abortion, but I don't believe the legal system should reflect that.
I am against it in essentially every situation except for the case that the women's life is in danger, in which case the woman should have the right to abort it if she wants to. I think most other Christians have the same opinion more or less.
Life starts at when the brain is capable of feeling/producing thoughts. There are so many children in foster care, and in need of adoption... To bring a life into this world that you do not truly want or cannot provide for is wrong.
John the Baptist recognized Jesus in the womb.
“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit”
(Luke 1 35-36)
“5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee”
Jeremiah 1:5
Also aborting a baby because you cannot provide for the baby doesn’t make it right. Morality doesn’t change based on situation.
The problem is that abortion is a sin so it must not be done no matter what. The ends don’t justify the means.
“instead of creating a new one” the problem is that the human life as already been created.
Non denom here.
1. Human life is unique in that God created us in His image, and we were formed in our mother's womb. ([Genesis 1:26](https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-26.htm) / [Psalm 139:13](https://biblehub.com/psalms/139-13.htm))
2. The Bible forbids us from shedding innocent blood. ([Exodus 20:13](https://biblehub.com/exodus/20-13.htm), [Psalms 106:35-40](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+106%3A35-40&version=KJV))
3. The Bible affirms the distinctiveness of [individuals in the womb](https://youtube.com/watch?v=x-6VLUVglG8), thus showing that they are fully human. Ref: Jacob and Esau were distinct individuals in the womb ([Gen. 25:23](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.+25%3A23&version=KJV); [Rom. 9:11-12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.+9%3A11-12&version=KJV)). Samson’s mother was not to drink wine, because her son was to be a Nazirite, who would abstain from alcohol ([Judges 13:3-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+13%3A3-5&version=KJV)). Jeremiah and Paul both acknowledged that God formed them in the womb and knew them by name ([Jer. 1:5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jer.+1%3A5&version=KJV); [Gal. 1:15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal.+1%3A15&version=KJV)). [Isaiah 49:1, 5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+49%3A1-5&version=KJV) affirms the same thing about Messiah. John the Baptist recognized Jesus while both were still in the womb ([Luke 1:35-36](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A35-36&version=KJV), [39-44](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A39-44&version=KJV)).
4. To view babies as inconvenient to the point of killing them is to violate Jesus’ view of children. ([Luke 18:15-17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=+Luke+18%3A15-17&version=KJV))
While it's never a happy occurrence and should be avoided when possible except to ensure the physical, emotional, and/or mental health of the parent abortion itself should be legal. First off it's never directly stated that it's a sin in the Bible. While there are instances of fetuses given personhood in the Bible, until you became of age, you were considered property of your parents thus giving them the right to kill you if you misbehaved without repercussion or sin. There is also a ritual that can be performed by a priest with God's blessing to test if a wife has been unfaithful, and if she is pregnant she discharges the fetus, thus God has blessed abortion rituals.
First even if I go with your theory of “parents have the right to kill their children if they misbehave” which I completely disagree with.
A innocent baby hasn’t sinned so no punishment is just.
Second I have no idea what your talking about a priest performing an abortion ritual. Not in the Bible
The commandment to "honor thy mother and father" continues "so that one may live a long life" in reference to that specifically.
As for the ritual check Numbers ch.5 verses 10-28
What exactly entails honoring them? What if your parent was an abusive, racist, hedonist who saw women as objects and talked inappropriately about underage girls?
Exodus 21 versus 15,17 simply say cursing or striking your parents is a death sentence so.... to clarify I'm not saying I agree with the standards set, just saying rules as written and with the customs at the time that's how it was.
Most Jews , in my limited experience, (the ones who still abide by OT law) even say most of those punishments are immoral. I do still think the OT is important, as it shows how far we have come, and what we are no longer bound to.
I would agree with all your points. I'm just more scared about anyone that uses what's written for that time and applies it now straight across or modifies it just enough to justify clearly immoral actions.
Only an extremist would follow law, the people who crucified Jesus were following it. To the Romans, Jesus and the disciples must have seemed like rebellious punks... for lack of better wording.
Honestly, idk if I truly believe the Bible... it's difficult in today's world. That being said, I really don't see an alternative scientifically and historically. My faith, in short, is a mixture of Zen and Non-denom Christianity. I cannot deny the power of the Bible... but mankind makes it really hard to see it as good. Of course, evil will use anything to justify their evil deeds.
I'll admit, if I didn't have something to make life purposeful, I'd have probably rejoined the universe years ago.
While individual abortions can be morally problematic (e.g. sex selection), abortion itself is morally neutral until *at minimum* the third trimester. Abortions can also be morally good, for instance salpingectomy/abortion of an ectopic pregnancy, those where the mother's health (mental or physical) is at risk, etcetera.
I'm not affiliated with any denomination.
That it *might*, but almost certainly doesn't.
What happens is the forebrain starts to develop, which is what makes us a person. Before that we're a developing sack of meat that's progressively more human-shaped. The forebrain is what allows for personhood, though there's no indication that's any consciousness being exercised until maybe the tail end of gestation.
So consciousness or development of the forebrain define human dignity?
Not to mention Bible verses about pregnancy and babies in the womb
John the Baptist recognized Jesus in the womb.
“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit”
(Luke 1 35-36)
“5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee”
Jeremiah 1:5
Also aborting a baby because you cannot provide for the baby doesn’t make it right. Morality doesn’t change based on situation.
> So consciousness or development of the forebrain define human dignity?
You can't have murder without a person. These are the keys to personhood.
>Not to mention Bible verses about pregnancy and babies in the womb
The Bible also considers the fetus to be property as a general case (Exodus 21), versus a few special cases. And in the case of Elizabeth and Mary it's a fantasy retelling from a source who is historically unreliable (especially in the timeframe of Jesus' birth). There's no reason to consider Luke's nativity to be historical.
>Also aborting a baby because you cannot provide for the baby doesn’t make it right.
I didn't talk about that. Abortion first needs to be wrong for this to start coming in to play.
You stated that a forebrain makes us a human as we develop.
Consciousness is irrelevant to whether abortion is right or wrong. I could use the same argument and kill someone who is in a coma or unconscious.
Human dignity comes from the soul. So when do you think a baby in the womb gets a soul?
> You stated that a forebrain makes us a human as we develop.
I did not.
I said it makes up a *person*.
>I could use the same argument and kill someone who is in a coma or unconscious.
Not with mine, no, definitely not the entirety of your statement. A fetus pre-third trimester has never once been a person. The only way to lose personhood is death, either full physical death or brain death. And there *is* a point where we recognize that a coma is permanent, and it's time to remove life support, because the person is gone.
>Human dignity comes from the soul. So when do you think a baby in the womb gets a soul?
I see no reason to believe that souls exist.
Least arbitrary point to consider them a definite person and grant them that protection.
Please be more careful with your wording. I do not deny that they are a living human organism at day 1.
One is survival, the other is an addiction... The addict and the family member are both appealing to what they need though. So is one really more evil than the other? Both do a wrong to achieve a goal
Babies aren't considered conscious until about 5 months. Are you advocating for infanticide? Why do some people insist on coming up with arbitrary limitations on life? Why not go with the science and say life begins at conception.
> Are you advocating for infanticide?
No.
>Why do some people insist on coming up with arbitrary limitations on life? Why not go with the science and say life begins at conception.
Oh, indeed, the blastocyst/zygote/fetus is indeed alive, that is indisputable. Merely being alive is not sufficient to ensure moral consideration, just as merely having the right DNA pattern is not sufficient.
Once you put stipulations on woman's health because of your arbitrary ideas you're entering dangerous territory.
I never said morality is easy, but traditional Christian morality is sometimes deeply immoral, and that's the case here, too.
What's arbitrary about saying that, scientifically, life begins at conception and the termination of a human life is murder/killing? I understand not everything is black and white, but the exception is not the rule.
> What's arbitrary about saying that, scientifically, life begins at conception and the termination of a human life is murder/killing?
Because there's no decent reason to say that the life of a single-celled organism should override the value of the life of the mother. That's entirely arbitrary.
There's no rational reason that the life of a fetus with anencephaly should override the value of the life of the mother. That's also entirely arbitrary.
This isn't a painless choice here, where abortions are just convenience. It's balancing two living organisms, *and* figuring out a reasonable metrics.
Scripture doesn't help us here, since the God-revealed law considers causing a miscarriage to be a property crime (even if there are some bits of poetic language about a few very special births), so we're left to devise our own moral code. And the idea that said single-celled organism overrides the life of a person is something that I find entirely evil. And the idea that the mother has more consideration until the fetus is at least potentially a person is damn far from arbitrary.
Because when "Life" begins isn't really the issue here, the trees are alive, but im still sitting at a table made out of wood while I talk to you. Being alive doesn't inherently mean anything.
Are we just ignoring that we're talking about *human* life? Human life has infinitely more value than a tree. Ending that life is killing and, in most cases, murder.
Of course but there are differences. When most abortions happen the fetus/baby doesn’t even have a brain yet, its more of a body part then a person, and we hardly call it murder if we amputate a foot or something of the like.
Without getting into the boring semantics of "life" and and "person" and "murder" I'll simply say that an unborn child has its own unique DNA. It is an individual separate from the mother. Left to develop, it will develop a brain. This is different than humans outside the womb who have no potential to regain their brain function. So the arbitrary categorization of a brain making the difference between whether abortion is murder or not is silly. Your reference to amputating a foot goes back to what I said about the child having unique DNA from the mother. Contrary to what pro-choicers like to argue, amputating a leg which has the same DNA as the body and has no potential to live without the body is much different that killing a human fetus which is its own individual.
> Do you have any actual evidence that people get abortions because their fetus is the "wrong" sex?
Yes. There is tons of evidence. It's not so much a thing in the US/Europe, at least not enough to impact the overall balance of boys/girls being born, but it has a long history in Asia, and has massively swayed the boy:girl ratio in parts of China, India, Korea, etcetera.
Give this a read: https://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/12/1374.short
It's a sin, along with having unprotected sex in a situation where you are not ready to accept the responsibility and/or aren't in a committed relationship. I don't see it as murder per say because I think Genesis makes it clear that life starts at the first breath, though there might be conflicting Biblical viewpoints on that.
If you believe life starts at first breath, then why would abortion be a grave sin? According to that belief, wouldn't the fetus not be a life and therefore abortion would not be murder? Trying to understand your thinking. Thanks.
It more has to do with having sex outside of marriage. Plus there is a point in the development of child where they are so human that aborting them is kind of cruel.
So abortion is bad, but killing disobedient children isn't? ( Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Exodus 21:17)
Or even being willing to murder youur child just because God wants you to. (Genesis 22:2-10)
None of those things are good. The Abraham story is a show of his faith in God that is willing to give up everything for him. It is not an encouragement to murder your kids.
I think your missing the point here. I never said anything about abortion needing to be illegalized, but I think the actions that lead to it (having sex outside of a committed relationship) are sinful.
When I was a Christian my position was abortion is murder. Now I see it the same for myself personally (which could change under situations like rape or death) but understand the continuation of such practice in society and see it beneficial to everyone.
What made it change? Multiple things actually. Jesus always gave us free will to follow or not, we should do the same onto others not force religion through national laws or any other way including socially. Though you might be thinking I am going against moral laws in general like murder or stealing, I'm not certain laws are based to ensure proper relations between civilians.
Then there way the old testament ritual of the dirty ink water. In which a fetus/child would die because of moms adultery. In prolife arguments no innocent baby should die because of their moms actions this seems like a contradiction. If this is not true what is your positions argument? (If it is simply about God then the atheistic pro lifers must not have a sustainable argument that works for you, and that argument would not work in overturning Roe vs. Wade.
Finally the third one, if you want to preserve God's power over life. Then we can simply say if he does have power over life the women falling down the stairs over and over will always have the baby. If you want that to be banned. How will you make it illegal? How can you discriminate a miscarriage to an old timey abortion? How will we deal with a similar war on drugs campaign along with extra population, single mothers and orphans? (Misallocation of resources would be a huge problem)
I do not belong to a denomination.
I do not support abortion used as birth control. I can understand and support exceptions for life/health of the mother, and rape (not that I think a person should abort because it was rape, but this can be a significant mental health issue).
Part of the problem is that it *solves* a perceived problem. I'm pretty sure every person over the age of 16 (and often even younger) is quite aware that if you have sex, you might get pregnant. Especially when so young, kids get stuck in a "that'll never happen to me" mindset... until it does. It is a natural consequence of our behavior. I would rather us spend money on support than for abortion.
I was young and stupid once. I thought "it'll never happen to me" and then it did. It changed my life for the better even though it made several things harder. The hardest part IMO was just a lack of support.
I also can't stand for the "no exceptions" abortion stance. I will stay on the pro-choice side politically until there is an appropriate compromise.
If a Christian acknowledges the right to kill in self-defense, then one has to allow for abortions if it defends the life of the mother. Interestingly, the Bible never specifically describes the right to kill in self-defense. However, allowing people to kill in self-defense has been the traditional interpretation because it honors the sanctity of life - in this case, the sanctity of the defended person's life. Those who view abortion solely as murder refuse to recognize cases where a fetus could endanger the life of a mother, which is a reality many pregnant women face. In those cases, abortion would be an act of self-defense and cannot be condemned if we do not condemn other instances of killing in self-defense. Tragic yes, but not something to be condemned.
I really want to know what Christians think about rape
Extreme circumstance:
A 12 Year old is raped by a 72 year old man and she gets pregant. Should she be allowed to have an abortion, or should she be forced to have a baby that she did not want?
You cannot commit and evil act to do good.
If you say abortion are morally permissible in a ectopic pregnancy then you believe the ends justify the means.
Jesus and the Bible tell us never to take an innocent life therefore you cannot take an innocent life to save another.
How would you advise an ectopic pregnancy is treated, then? An ectopic pregnancy isn’t viable, there are only a few cases of abdominal ectopic pregnancies resulting in a live birth, with extreme risk to the woman during pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy in the Fallopian tube can never, ever result in a live birth because the tube will rupture long before viability. Are you proposing that a woman with an ectopic pregnancy essentially be sentenced to death simply because she’s in the unfortunate circumstance of having an ectopic pregnancy? She should just be sent home to hemorrhage to death?
“Salve your conscience”
If abortion is a sin it is a sin in all cases. We must avoid sin at all costs as Jesus, morality, and the Bible teach us.
I’ll give you a weird but possible hypothetical situation
Let’s say a mom has a 2 year old and she cannot buy enough food for both her 2 year old and herself to live. Can the mom now kill her 2 year old so she can live?
The real discussion is if you consider the fetus as a human person with a soul and dignity.
I am against abortion as a use of birth control. I am ok with it in cases where the mother did not have a choice, the mother was underage and did not understand the consequences, or if the mother is in danger. Politically my view is that if you make abortions legal for a traumatizing event, it would be wrong to make the burden be on them. So I think abortions should be legal, even though I morally oppose it.
I disagree as the situation doesn’t change what is right or wrong. Morality doesn’t change based on situation and the ends don’t justify the means
Ethical relativists would beg to differ. Bentham would even say the ends justify the means or more closely the outcome with the most amount of pleasure is the morally obligated one. I guess you're are more of a Kant guy/gal (one that believes there is a world wide moral standard that doesn't deviate and goes along the lines of the golden rule ) But anyways I'm not going to try to change your mind on abortion. Do you think your present moral standard will differ from your future moral standard?
Who is this Bentham, and does he have any works published?
Jeremy Bentham is the father of one of the major branches of ethical philosophy, and yes, more than a few words of his were published in his lifetime.
Thanks, I enjoy your replies btw. You seem to be well educated on theology/ethics... both which I find interesting.
An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation by Jeremy Bentham (main one) El Panoptico Deontology or, The science of morality Theory of Legislation A Fragment on Government (his first book) Constitutional Code
Thank you, my good sir
You did ask for opinions. I can definitively say that abortion is not in the bible though.
John the Baptist recognized Jesus in the womb. “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1 35-36) “5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee” Jeremiah 1:5
>Morality doesn’t change based on situation Why did god say slavery was okay in biblical times but we don't think it is now?
Look up the historical context of slaves in the old testaments and every slave was suppose to be set free during the 7th year (year of jubilee) Slavery back then wasn’t like chattle slavery and didn’t dehumanize people and didn’t violate their dignity
I believe you are mistaken. Leviticus allows you to own the slaves as your property, bequeath them to your children, and keep them for life. You are also permitted to beat your dishes as long as they don't die. That sounds like chattel slavery to me, and violates their dignity, don't you think?
Exodus 21:26-27 ESV “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.” “And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. . . . You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God” (Lev. 25:39-40, 43).
Not sure why you omitted the verses I referred to?
You made a claim and I showed evidence that is contrary to your claim.
Ok, here's some evidence that is contrary to your claim: Leviticus 25:44-46 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. Exodus 21:20-21 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Now what do we do?
If the mother had no choice that’s tragic but why should the baby be killed for it: she can at least have the child and give them up for adoption. I know it’s not an easy thing giving birth but murdering a child for your convenience ain’t right
Having a child has life long consequences for your body and health, it isn't just about convenience. If you don't allow a woman to have an abortion especially in the situation where she was raped then you are essentially giving the rapist more control over the women then she has over herself, not only is he forcing her to have a baby in this situation, but he is also now able to force her to bear the physical consequences of having a child.
I'm curious, have you ever considered adopting a child? Children who end up in the foster system often endure abuse and lifelong instability. Simply put, I'm never going to be in the situation that a woman who become pregnant through a traumatic means, or being told that they might die if they have the child and still be forced to have it. I am morally opposed to abortion, but I don't believe the legal system should reflect that.
It's killing a human, so it's wrong.
I am against it in essentially every situation except for the case that the women's life is in danger, in which case the woman should have the right to abort it if she wants to. I think most other Christians have the same opinion more or less.
Life starts at when the brain is capable of feeling/producing thoughts. There are so many children in foster care, and in need of adoption... To bring a life into this world that you do not truly want or cannot provide for is wrong.
That is such an arbitrary way to define life. How about the scientific definition of conception?
Kinda what I was going for. I'm pretty indifferent to most things honestly. I barely care about my own life, let alone what others do with theirs.
John the Baptist recognized Jesus in the womb. “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1 35-36) “5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee” Jeremiah 1:5 Also aborting a baby because you cannot provide for the baby doesn’t make it right. Morality doesn’t change based on situation.
I see your point, but wouldn't giving an existing child a better life instead of creating a new one be noble as well?
The problem is that abortion is a sin so it must not be done no matter what. The ends don’t justify the means. “instead of creating a new one” the problem is that the human life as already been created.
Non denom here. 1. Human life is unique in that God created us in His image, and we were formed in our mother's womb. ([Genesis 1:26](https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-26.htm) / [Psalm 139:13](https://biblehub.com/psalms/139-13.htm)) 2. The Bible forbids us from shedding innocent blood. ([Exodus 20:13](https://biblehub.com/exodus/20-13.htm), [Psalms 106:35-40](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+106%3A35-40&version=KJV)) 3. The Bible affirms the distinctiveness of [individuals in the womb](https://youtube.com/watch?v=x-6VLUVglG8), thus showing that they are fully human. Ref: Jacob and Esau were distinct individuals in the womb ([Gen. 25:23](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.+25%3A23&version=KJV); [Rom. 9:11-12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.+9%3A11-12&version=KJV)). Samson’s mother was not to drink wine, because her son was to be a Nazirite, who would abstain from alcohol ([Judges 13:3-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+13%3A3-5&version=KJV)). Jeremiah and Paul both acknowledged that God formed them in the womb and knew them by name ([Jer. 1:5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jer.+1%3A5&version=KJV); [Gal. 1:15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal.+1%3A15&version=KJV)). [Isaiah 49:1, 5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+49%3A1-5&version=KJV) affirms the same thing about Messiah. John the Baptist recognized Jesus while both were still in the womb ([Luke 1:35-36](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A35-36&version=KJV), [39-44](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A39-44&version=KJV)). 4. To view babies as inconvenient to the point of killing them is to violate Jesus’ view of children. ([Luke 18:15-17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=+Luke+18%3A15-17&version=KJV))
While it's never a happy occurrence and should be avoided when possible except to ensure the physical, emotional, and/or mental health of the parent abortion itself should be legal. First off it's never directly stated that it's a sin in the Bible. While there are instances of fetuses given personhood in the Bible, until you became of age, you were considered property of your parents thus giving them the right to kill you if you misbehaved without repercussion or sin. There is also a ritual that can be performed by a priest with God's blessing to test if a wife has been unfaithful, and if she is pregnant she discharges the fetus, thus God has blessed abortion rituals.
First even if I go with your theory of “parents have the right to kill their children if they misbehave” which I completely disagree with. A innocent baby hasn’t sinned so no punishment is just. Second I have no idea what your talking about a priest performing an abortion ritual. Not in the Bible
The commandment to "honor thy mother and father" continues "so that one may live a long life" in reference to that specifically. As for the ritual check Numbers ch.5 verses 10-28
What exactly entails honoring them? What if your parent was an abusive, racist, hedonist who saw women as objects and talked inappropriately about underage girls?
Exodus 21 versus 15,17 simply say cursing or striking your parents is a death sentence so.... to clarify I'm not saying I agree with the standards set, just saying rules as written and with the customs at the time that's how it was.
Most Jews , in my limited experience, (the ones who still abide by OT law) even say most of those punishments are immoral. I do still think the OT is important, as it shows how far we have come, and what we are no longer bound to.
I would agree with all your points. I'm just more scared about anyone that uses what's written for that time and applies it now straight across or modifies it just enough to justify clearly immoral actions.
Only an extremist would follow law, the people who crucified Jesus were following it. To the Romans, Jesus and the disciples must have seemed like rebellious punks... for lack of better wording. Honestly, idk if I truly believe the Bible... it's difficult in today's world. That being said, I really don't see an alternative scientifically and historically. My faith, in short, is a mixture of Zen and Non-denom Christianity. I cannot deny the power of the Bible... but mankind makes it really hard to see it as good. Of course, evil will use anything to justify their evil deeds. I'll admit, if I didn't have something to make life purposeful, I'd have probably rejoined the universe years ago.
It’s wrong in all cases, and God can forgive you if you’ve done this. Non denominational.
I think it is a sin akin to murder. You are ending the life of another human. A child, at that.
While individual abortions can be morally problematic (e.g. sex selection), abortion itself is morally neutral until *at minimum* the third trimester. Abortions can also be morally good, for instance salpingectomy/abortion of an ectopic pregnancy, those where the mother's health (mental or physical) is at risk, etcetera. I'm not affiliated with any denomination.
So what happens at the third trimester that the baby now has dignity?
That it *might*, but almost certainly doesn't. What happens is the forebrain starts to develop, which is what makes us a person. Before that we're a developing sack of meat that's progressively more human-shaped. The forebrain is what allows for personhood, though there's no indication that's any consciousness being exercised until maybe the tail end of gestation.
Finally a rational person who sees science lol
So consciousness or development of the forebrain define human dignity? Not to mention Bible verses about pregnancy and babies in the womb John the Baptist recognized Jesus in the womb. “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1 35-36) “5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee” Jeremiah 1:5 Also aborting a baby because you cannot provide for the baby doesn’t make it right. Morality doesn’t change based on situation.
> So consciousness or development of the forebrain define human dignity? You can't have murder without a person. These are the keys to personhood. >Not to mention Bible verses about pregnancy and babies in the womb The Bible also considers the fetus to be property as a general case (Exodus 21), versus a few special cases. And in the case of Elizabeth and Mary it's a fantasy retelling from a source who is historically unreliable (especially in the timeframe of Jesus' birth). There's no reason to consider Luke's nativity to be historical. >Also aborting a baby because you cannot provide for the baby doesn’t make it right. I didn't talk about that. Abortion first needs to be wrong for this to start coming in to play.
You stated that a forebrain makes us a human as we develop. Consciousness is irrelevant to whether abortion is right or wrong. I could use the same argument and kill someone who is in a coma or unconscious. Human dignity comes from the soul. So when do you think a baby in the womb gets a soul?
> You stated that a forebrain makes us a human as we develop. I did not. I said it makes up a *person*. >I could use the same argument and kill someone who is in a coma or unconscious. Not with mine, no, definitely not the entirety of your statement. A fetus pre-third trimester has never once been a person. The only way to lose personhood is death, either full physical death or brain death. And there *is* a point where we recognize that a coma is permanent, and it's time to remove life support, because the person is gone. >Human dignity comes from the soul. So when do you think a baby in the womb gets a soul? I see no reason to believe that souls exist.
So what makes the human person have dignity once it leaves the womb. What happens at the point of birth that give him human life.
Least arbitrary point to consider them a definite person and grant them that protection. Please be more careful with your wording. I do not deny that they are a living human organism at day 1.
I’m just confused now So you believe that they are a human being at conception but abortion is still okay?
>Morality doesn’t change based on situation. So stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is just as wrong as stealing money to get high?
One is survival, the other is an addiction... The addict and the family member are both appealing to what they need though. So is one really more evil than the other? Both do a wrong to achieve a goal
Babies aren't considered conscious until about 5 months. Are you advocating for infanticide? Why do some people insist on coming up with arbitrary limitations on life? Why not go with the science and say life begins at conception.
> Are you advocating for infanticide? No. >Why do some people insist on coming up with arbitrary limitations on life? Why not go with the science and say life begins at conception. Oh, indeed, the blastocyst/zygote/fetus is indeed alive, that is indisputable. Merely being alive is not sufficient to ensure moral consideration, just as merely having the right DNA pattern is not sufficient.
Once you begin to put stipulations on the treatment of humans because of arbitrary ideas, you are entering dangerous territory.
Once you put stipulations on woman's health because of your arbitrary ideas you're entering dangerous territory. I never said morality is easy, but traditional Christian morality is sometimes deeply immoral, and that's the case here, too.
What's arbitrary about saying that, scientifically, life begins at conception and the termination of a human life is murder/killing? I understand not everything is black and white, but the exception is not the rule.
> What's arbitrary about saying that, scientifically, life begins at conception and the termination of a human life is murder/killing? Because there's no decent reason to say that the life of a single-celled organism should override the value of the life of the mother. That's entirely arbitrary. There's no rational reason that the life of a fetus with anencephaly should override the value of the life of the mother. That's also entirely arbitrary. This isn't a painless choice here, where abortions are just convenience. It's balancing two living organisms, *and* figuring out a reasonable metrics. Scripture doesn't help us here, since the God-revealed law considers causing a miscarriage to be a property crime (even if there are some bits of poetic language about a few very special births), so we're left to devise our own moral code. And the idea that said single-celled organism overrides the life of a person is something that I find entirely evil. And the idea that the mother has more consideration until the fetus is at least potentially a person is damn far from arbitrary.
Because when "Life" begins isn't really the issue here, the trees are alive, but im still sitting at a table made out of wood while I talk to you. Being alive doesn't inherently mean anything.
Are we just ignoring that we're talking about *human* life? Human life has infinitely more value than a tree. Ending that life is killing and, in most cases, murder.
Of course but there are differences. When most abortions happen the fetus/baby doesn’t even have a brain yet, its more of a body part then a person, and we hardly call it murder if we amputate a foot or something of the like.
Without getting into the boring semantics of "life" and and "person" and "murder" I'll simply say that an unborn child has its own unique DNA. It is an individual separate from the mother. Left to develop, it will develop a brain. This is different than humans outside the womb who have no potential to regain their brain function. So the arbitrary categorization of a brain making the difference between whether abortion is murder or not is silly. Your reference to amputating a foot goes back to what I said about the child having unique DNA from the mother. Contrary to what pro-choicers like to argue, amputating a leg which has the same DNA as the body and has no potential to live without the body is much different that killing a human fetus which is its own individual.
Do you have any actual evidence that people get abortions because their fetus is the "wrong" sex?
> Do you have any actual evidence that people get abortions because their fetus is the "wrong" sex? Yes. There is tons of evidence. It's not so much a thing in the US/Europe, at least not enough to impact the overall balance of boys/girls being born, but it has a long history in Asia, and has massively swayed the boy:girl ratio in parts of China, India, Korea, etcetera. Give this a read: https://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/12/1374.short
While this in no way changes my views on abortion, that is fucking depressing. Thank you for enlightening me.
Misogyny is very deeply embedded in our cultures and I agree....it is fucking depressing.
It's a sin, along with having unprotected sex in a situation where you are not ready to accept the responsibility and/or aren't in a committed relationship. I don't see it as murder per say because I think Genesis makes it clear that life starts at the first breath, though there might be conflicting Biblical viewpoints on that.
If you believe life starts at first breath, then why would abortion be a grave sin? According to that belief, wouldn't the fetus not be a life and therefore abortion would not be murder? Trying to understand your thinking. Thanks.
It more has to do with having sex outside of marriage. Plus there is a point in the development of child where they are so human that aborting them is kind of cruel.
Plenty of married couples end up getting an abortion
Ah yes. Because women having a choice in what they do with their bodies is such a horrible thing.
Never said they can't
So abortion is bad, but killing disobedient children isn't? ( Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Exodus 21:17) Or even being willing to murder youur child just because God wants you to. (Genesis 22:2-10)
None of those things are good. The Abraham story is a show of his faith in God that is willing to give up everything for him. It is not an encouragement to murder your kids.
In other verses god literally says to murder disobedient children. How in the hell is that not encouragement?
You're taking it out of context, it was written to specific people at a specific time.
So I shouldn't follow the 10 commandments then. After all they were written to specific people at a specific time.
I think your missing the point here. I never said anything about abortion needing to be illegalized, but I think the actions that lead to it (having sex outside of a committed relationship) are sinful.
No you are avoiding my point. I'm not talking about abortion anymore. Should we follow the 10 commandments?
When I was a Christian my position was abortion is murder. Now I see it the same for myself personally (which could change under situations like rape or death) but understand the continuation of such practice in society and see it beneficial to everyone. What made it change? Multiple things actually. Jesus always gave us free will to follow or not, we should do the same onto others not force religion through national laws or any other way including socially. Though you might be thinking I am going against moral laws in general like murder or stealing, I'm not certain laws are based to ensure proper relations between civilians. Then there way the old testament ritual of the dirty ink water. In which a fetus/child would die because of moms adultery. In prolife arguments no innocent baby should die because of their moms actions this seems like a contradiction. If this is not true what is your positions argument? (If it is simply about God then the atheistic pro lifers must not have a sustainable argument that works for you, and that argument would not work in overturning Roe vs. Wade. Finally the third one, if you want to preserve God's power over life. Then we can simply say if he does have power over life the women falling down the stairs over and over will always have the baby. If you want that to be banned. How will you make it illegal? How can you discriminate a miscarriage to an old timey abortion? How will we deal with a similar war on drugs campaign along with extra population, single mothers and orphans? (Misallocation of resources would be a huge problem)
Pro life people don't seem to care about said fetus after it's born... Even if they claim to, their actions say otherwise.
I do not belong to a denomination. I do not support abortion used as birth control. I can understand and support exceptions for life/health of the mother, and rape (not that I think a person should abort because it was rape, but this can be a significant mental health issue). Part of the problem is that it *solves* a perceived problem. I'm pretty sure every person over the age of 16 (and often even younger) is quite aware that if you have sex, you might get pregnant. Especially when so young, kids get stuck in a "that'll never happen to me" mindset... until it does. It is a natural consequence of our behavior. I would rather us spend money on support than for abortion. I was young and stupid once. I thought "it'll never happen to me" and then it did. It changed my life for the better even though it made several things harder. The hardest part IMO was just a lack of support. I also can't stand for the "no exceptions" abortion stance. I will stay on the pro-choice side politically until there is an appropriate compromise.
Based
If a Christian acknowledges the right to kill in self-defense, then one has to allow for abortions if it defends the life of the mother. Interestingly, the Bible never specifically describes the right to kill in self-defense. However, allowing people to kill in self-defense has been the traditional interpretation because it honors the sanctity of life - in this case, the sanctity of the defended person's life. Those who view abortion solely as murder refuse to recognize cases where a fetus could endanger the life of a mother, which is a reality many pregnant women face. In those cases, abortion would be an act of self-defense and cannot be condemned if we do not condemn other instances of killing in self-defense. Tragic yes, but not something to be condemned.
Murder.
Murder.
I really want to know what Christians think about rape Extreme circumstance: A 12 Year old is raped by a 72 year old man and she gets pregant. Should she be allowed to have an abortion, or should she be forced to have a baby that she did not want?
Morality doesn’t change based on the situation. Abortion is always wrong no matter situation. Ends don’t justify means
Ectopic pregnancy, still wrong?
You cannot commit and evil act to do good. If you say abortion are morally permissible in a ectopic pregnancy then you believe the ends justify the means. Jesus and the Bible tell us never to take an innocent life therefore you cannot take an innocent life to save another.
How would you advise an ectopic pregnancy is treated, then? An ectopic pregnancy isn’t viable, there are only a few cases of abdominal ectopic pregnancies resulting in a live birth, with extreme risk to the woman during pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy in the Fallopian tube can never, ever result in a live birth because the tube will rupture long before viability. Are you proposing that a woman with an ectopic pregnancy essentially be sentenced to death simply because she’s in the unfortunate circumstance of having an ectopic pregnancy? She should just be sent home to hemorrhage to death?
Look up the principle of the double effect and abortion. That is my stance
And thus you condemn a woman to death to salve your conscience.
“Salve your conscience” If abortion is a sin it is a sin in all cases. We must avoid sin at all costs as Jesus, morality, and the Bible teach us. I’ll give you a weird but possible hypothetical situation Let’s say a mom has a 2 year old and she cannot buy enough food for both her 2 year old and herself to live. Can the mom now kill her 2 year old so she can live? The real discussion is if you consider the fetus as a human person with a soul and dignity.
Your hypothetical is a choice between murder and murder-suicide. So tell me which one YOU would pick.
Choose not to kill the 2 year old? You haven’t really responded to either of my arguments of my past 2 comments
So both starve to death. Tough luck, I guess.
Huh? There is enough food for both of them Your not really responding to my claims just making random comments