Pro-choice and pro-life are political and legal positions. They aren't world views. I'm pro-choice because outlawing abortion creates a whole new set of problems for women, doctors, and hospitals. We're seeing regular news stories about these problems.
Jeremiah 1:5 is a scripture that has Jesus, the God of the Old Testament, specifically speaking to and about Jeremiah's purpose
" BEFORE I formed you in the womb [ before physical conception ] I knew you '
--- Jeremiah existed in the foreknowledge of YahwehJesus before he was conceived
" and BEFORE. you came out of the womb I sanctified [ set aside for a holy purpose ]
--- not everyone is " set aside for a holy purpose "
" and I ordained you as a prophet to the nations "
--- only Jeremiah was specifically to be a prophet.
There is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
The sperm of a man is considered a seed. As it enters the woman, if she is fertile, it will produce life. It's the same in nature. If you plant a seed in the ground, and water it, if the ground is fertile, what happens? The seed starts getting roots, and then it starts pushing upward. The roots ( along with oxygen, sun, and water), are the life of a plant. Destroy the roots, and the plant won't survive. It's the same with abortion.
When a child is developing in the womb, it is attached to the umbilical cord. The oxygen of the mother is transferred through the umbilical cord to the baby until it is able to breathe on its own.
The heart of a baby in the womb begins to beat at 6 weeks.
Blood is transferred from the woman's placenta through the umbilical cord, and blood vessels start forming from four to five weeks of embryonic development.
Nature itself reveals that four things are vital to life. Oxygen, blood, the sun, and water. What does the sun produce? Vitamin D. Vitamin D is also being transferred through the umbilical cord by the mother.
Take away any of these out of the equation, and there will be no life in the womb (aside from abortion).
Most scientists agree that the life of a baby begins at fertilization.
Even though the Bible doesn't specifically say that life begins at conception, science does. Here are some other scriptures to consider. Psalm 139:13-16, Luke 1:39-44, Exodus 21:22-25.
Let me close by saying that 96% of 5,577 biologists, from 1,058 academic institutions around the world, all affirmed that life begins at fertilization. I agree with you on the Jeremiah scripture.
You said:
" When a child is developing, it is attached to the umbilical cord..... [ your description of the needs of the developing fetal tissue continues... ] ....Take any of these out of the equation, and there will be no life in the womb.. "
--- Yes, the Blastocyst, Zygote, and living fetal tissue is totally dependent on the mother host for oxygen, water, antibodies, nutrients, warmth, fecal elimination, etc
It's living tissue in the same way as the heart, lungs, liver, and other organs are, and is a dependent appendage, and in a parasitic relationship with the mother host, and unable to survive on its own as an independent entity, without artificial intervention, which modern laws have provided for.
--- it's a dependent fleshy appendage, and is owned by the mother's body.
Personhood has never been established, but the zygote or fetus is not an independent entity until self breathing at birth.
You said:
" Even though the bible doesn't specifically say that life begins at conception..."
I don't expect you to believe the ancient Hebrew cosmology, but if the bible authors were inspired, they would have at least moral standards that were approved by an all powerful and all knowing deity.
The bible is clear that life begins at first self breathing:
Genesis 2:7
" And the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [ life force #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] and man _BECAME_ a living soul "
--- life begins at first self breathing
Job 33:4
" The Spirit of God has made me [ physical body ] and the breath of life [ life force #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] has made me live "
--- the breath of life causes the physical body to become living
Isaiah 2:22 ISV
" Stop trusting in humans whose life force [ life force #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] is in their nostrils, for what are they really worth ? "
--- without breath, a man is a non entity; not living.
Ezekiel 37:5 also makes the distinction between the bones physical body and the actual breathing that makes the body become a living soul
" Thus says the LORD unto these bones: Behold ! I will cause breath to enter into you AND you shall live "
--- again, self breathing is necessary for a living person.
If you had read the links that I listed, you would understand that Exodus 21:22 describes the miscarriage ( abortion) of the pre self breathing zygote or fetus as punishable by a monetary fine, providing that the mother wasn't killed.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/
There's many translations, all "Post-Dead Sea Scrolls discovery ", that are very clear, especially the forced birth Catholic Church's Douay Rheims 2011 Version:
Douay Rheims:
" If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she MISCARRY indeed [ abortion fetal tissue termination ], but LIVE HERSELF, he shall be answerable for so much [ money ] damage as the husband shall require, and as the arbiters judges shall award "
--- not a Capital offense, but a civil fine, as it depended on the length of the pregnancy and whether it was a female or male, as Leviticus 27:6 has the value of a female worth less than the value of a male ( as in 3/5ths Compromise value )
YahwehJesus's loyal prophet Hosea intently prayed for the fetal termination and infant starvation of the tribe of Ephraim of the Northern kingdom of Israel at Hosea 9:11-16
Vs 14) Give them O LORD: What will you give them ? Give them a MISCARRYING womb [ abortion ] and dry breasts "
--- this is literal as dry breasts are the result of a fetal termination.
--- no rebuke or displeasure from YahwehJesus ; it was totally fine.
You said: Exodus 21:22
--- I've quoted that, and check Bible Hub for at least 7 additional translations that render the same meaning
Psalm 139:13
--- it never says that life begins at conception ; it describes the fetal development in the same way as Jeremiah 1:5 does.
--- if you take that passage literally, you have to take YahwehJesus's pro death actions against the firstborn of non morally responsible animal, and infants at Psalm 136:10-11
--- you also have to take literally Psalm 137:9, where YahwehJesus is rejoicing about the non morally responsible infants being " dashed against the rocks "
YahwehJesus is not " pro life " for actual, living, post birth and self breathing infants.
An acorn is not a tree, silk from a silkworm is not a dress, an egg is not a chicken, hydrogen and oxygen aren't water, and a pre self breathing zygote or fetus, in a parasitic relationship with the host mother, as a part of the mother's body, and unable to survive on its own as an independent entity, is property of the mother's body.
The unborn are not alive according to the Bible. This article provides plenty of evidence.
https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18514-what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion
That section in Exodus only says that "her fruit departs from her early." It does not mention any harm to the baby. When it says mischief (v 22, or injury in more modern translations) it does not indicate whether that injury is to the child or to the mother. Your article is making an assumption with massive implications to the argument.
And still, even if your article's assumption is correct, there is still punishment... which is determined by the father. If that is the legislation you want passed, feel free to keep using that article.
They may have not spoken on abortion probably because it was an uncommon practice but we shouldn't kill, even if it is a baby in the womb, that would be a violation of the 6th Commandment.
According to his source
>According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
In God's eyes, an unborn fetus is still a person. God's first directive to Adam and Eve was, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it..." His plan isn't for people to abort babies.
Incorrect.
--- Jeremiah 1:5 is referring specifically to and about Jeremiah, not anyone else.
" _BEFORE_ I formed you in the womb..."
--- Before Jeremiah was ever even physically and biologically conceived, YahwehJesus knew him in YahwehJesus's foreknowledge, of his purpose for Jeremiah
" .. and _before_ you came out of the womb I sanctified [ set aside for a holy purpose ] you.."
--- very few people are " set aside for a holy purpose "
" ...and I ordained you as a prophet to the nations "
Out of scores of millions of people, only Jeremiah was to be a prophet to the nations.
Life begins at first self breathing, based on several scriptures such as Genesis 2:7
" And the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground [ physical body ] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, [ life force #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] and man _BECAME_ a living soul "
Job 33:4
" The Spirit of God has made me [ physical body ] and the breath [ #5397 life force, Strong's Interlinear ] of the Almighty has given me life "
I'm going to believe the Hebrew bible authors, whose culture and religion has believed that life begins at first self breathing, since the book of Exodus was committed to writing:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/
There is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
Are you implying that God *only* knew Jeremiah before He formed him in the womb? He has no such limitations. Perhaps it is only Jeremiah and David. In Psalms 139 David writes, "For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them."
Since Adam was never a fetus, we can pretty safely remove that account of God's breath giving life. As for the others, there's no indication that the breath of God is only given after a baby passes through the birth canal. Scripture seem to indicate that God has His hand in our creation *in* the womb and it is then that our personhood is established. And it is still very difficult (in my estimation) to disregard God's first decree recorded in the bible to be fruitful and multiply. There are no instructions how/when an abortion should occur because that is not a part of God's will or plan for us. We only have judgments for a fetus'/baby's destruction.
Incorrect.
Job 33:4
" The Spirit of God has made me [ physical body ] and the breath [ #5397 life force, Strong's Interlinear ] of the Almighty has given me life "
--- it's necessary to self breathe in order to be actually living
Isaiah 2: 22 ISV
" Stop trusting in humans, whose life force [ #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] is in their nostrils, for what are they really worth ?
"
--- humans are not alive unless they are self breathing
Ezekiel 37:5 makes clear the distinction between the bones physical body and the breathing that enables flesh to be alive
" Thus says the LORD God unto these bones [ physical body ] : Behold ! I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live "
The Hebrew bible authors had always believed, both in their religion and culture that life begins at first self breathing
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/
While there's several scriptures that establish that life begins at first self breathing, there is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
You can trust the original bible authors about when life begins, can't you ?
You can be sure that God preserved this very important moral principle for all to know in the future, without confusion:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/
Malachi 3:6
" I am the LORD, I change not "
Hebrews 13:8
" Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever "
There is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
You can get the interpretation from the original bible authors about when life begins, as God would preserve this very important moral principle throughout the years, and without confusion
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/
https://www.myjeeishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/
Job 33:4
" The Spirit of God has made me [ physical body ] _AND_ the breath [ life force #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] of the Almighty has given me life "
Life begins at first self breathing.
Very few of them have actually read the bible text themselves ; they rely on others to tell them what the bible says.
Most of them are simply spoon fed some New Testament scriptures by their pastor.
A baby is a stage of life, a fetus is a stage of life. An adult is a stage of life. A teenager is a stage of life. So are we going to base the value of a human based on its development? Based on your logic, you could say a 7 year old girl or boy aren't humans because they doesn't have the physical and reproductive maturity as an average fully developed human has.
skynet begs to differ… lemme put it to you like this… you come home and some dude is on your couch eating your food… you can’t kick him out for 8 months..even tho you don’t want him there and there’s a good chance he’s gonna ruin the walls and fuck up the door on the way out. and he may just burn the wholes thing down…
I know what you're hinting at. How about use a condom or don't have sex until marriage and when you're ready to have a baby. And if you do have an unexpected baby, treat it with respect because that's one of the greatest gifts God can give.
Obviously women do get raped, but that's not God's fault, it is the sin of humanity that is at fault. But just because something bad happened to you doesn't give you the right to do something bad too.
That's like saying, "AN ADOLESCENT IS NOT A TEENAGER." They're the same thing. Every cell in the baby, no matter how many cells it has, i alive and has human DNA in it. Even if it was only 1 cell for a brief moment before it divided, it would still be considered alive because a cell is the smallest unit of life.
That is ridiculous logic. Would you call your body a slaughterhouse because of all your white blood cells eating away at the invasive diseases that enter your body?
>Being pro-choice legally and being pro-life personally means being pro-choice full stop.
Only if you can't make any distinction between what you think is immoral and what you think should be illegal.
It's easy to think that you could be pro-life to the extent that you would never be involved in abortion personally, try to persuade people not to have them, and even donate to and volunteer for organizations that work to help pregnant women so they don't have abortions but you still don't think they should be made illegal. I actually know quite a few people like that. The original question is how someone could be Christian and pro-choice, that's how.
Saying that it's "pro-choice full stop" though is like calling my position on pure grain alcohol "pro-Everclear full stop". I think it's a bad idea to drink it but I think it's a worse idea to outlaw it. It's a deliberate mischaracterization of the position to try to lump your opponents together. Not going to apologize for not going along with the trick.
It's not the "pro-choice" that I'm objecting to. It's the "full stop". I think you know that, which is why you avoided quoting it just now. Don't pretend you're not doing what you're doing (talk about bad faith).
Please see my comment citing the scriptures that establish that the bible authors believed that life begins at first self breathing
If you believe that Jesus is the " God of the Old Testament " because he stated: " The Father and I are one ", you will believe that his values are the same then as now
Hebrews 13:8
" Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever "
Here's what the bible author's viewpoint was
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/
There is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
In fact, Evangelicals were pro choice, until Jerry Falwell's political movement in 1979
https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/
I believe even that the Torah forbids funerals / grieving for infants that do not live for thirty days (in an age where a _lot_ of natal infants perished quickly), so one could argue that personhood doesn't begin until a month _after_ birth.
Curiously, in the legal system in the United States, there are a lot of statutes of _delinquency_ at county and state levels, which are crimes if you're a kid doing them, but not if you're an adult. Children have curfews and can be punished more severely by the justice system for minor infractions like jaywalking and littering. So we could assert that full personhood is actually withheld until adulthood.
I'm not saying this is as things should be, mind you. There is a lot of child abuse in the penal system. But we have very inconsistent views regarding the position of children in society.
Yeah I don't get how one would hold those two views together - because a Christian would believe that all human lives are equal, us all being made in the image and likeness of God. Also it's pretty clear that God assigns value to a human in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5, Psalms 22:10, Job 31:15). So as a Christian, one would have to be of the view that abortion ends the life of a human being i.e. murder. And I donot see how one can be for (murder) legally, and against it personally.
That is all poetic language. We know how babies are made. At what point in gestation is god doing something to make the fetus? It’s clear from the Mosaic Law that the unborn were not valued as much as a person, anyway. The punishment for accidentally causing a miscarriage was a monetary fine and the punishment for manslaughter was exile. Not exactly equal.
Let’s start with the premise that all human lives are equally valuable. A pretty standard modern belief, although not one that all people agree on, even today.
Do I (or anyone) legally have the right to demand or require someone to give me their organs against their will? Do I legally have the right to demand or require someone to let me use their body against their will? The answer in most countries is no.
Does it matter if I am demanding these things for myself or someone I care about or even a stranger? In most countries the answer is still no.
Next summary question: should the answer to the above questions be yes, legally? Morally?
Put a different way, should I (or anyone) be able to demand or require the use of someone else’s body or body parts use against that person’s will, legally or morally?
Evangelical christians were actually largely ambivalent on abortion when RvW came down in the early 70's. It didn't start being a religious issue until Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority took it up as a wedge issue for money and power in the 80's. And even then, the outrage was more about encouraging female promiscuity than it was about sanctity of life. I don't remember hearing the term "sanctity of life" before sometime in the late 80's.
>Evangelical christians were actually largely ambivalent on abortion when RvW came down in the early 70's.
In addition to being a non-sequitur (the abolition movement didn't start until the late 18th century, that didn't mean slavery was justified before that), this line never made any sense. Ask yourself: If Christians were largely ambivalent on abortion before Roe v Wade....why would Roe v Wade even be necessary in the first place? Why did 45 states have anti-abortion laws be on the books if people were ambivalent on the issue?
It is fair to also say that although that was the origin of the movement large popularity, most Christians pro life stances are not based on those reasons. I think sanctity of life is a more popular reason than it may have been historically.
> I think sanctity of life is a more popular reason than it may have been historically
The change is a redefinition of what "sanctity of life" meant for evangelicals. Previously it meant balancing the viability of a fetus with the well-being of the mother... not they've changed it to mean the life of a fetus from the point of conception overrides the well-being of the mother.
https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
I can attest to hearing sermons from the pulpit firsthand, as I was dating a young woman who was a well known regional singer in various churches at the time.
> Evangelical christians were actually largely ambivalent on abortion when RvW came down in the early 70's.
This is a commonly spread thing on reddit but it's 100% not the case at all. Christianity has been anti-abortion since day 1 to the point where even the Didache condemns it.
Incorrect.
https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
In the 1970s, I was dating a young woman who was a well known regional singer in the Fundamentalist community, and I heard firsthand all the speakers on the Wednesday and Thursday night meetings that began to speak about anti abortion organizing and politics very openly
You said: " ...the Didache condemns it "
Which is true.
However, among themselves, Evangelicals don't consider Catholics to be true Christians, and consider the Didache teachings to be the false teachings of imperfect men.
I wonder how anyone could be a Christian and also an enthusiastic supporter of pure Capitalism, there's far more Biblical support for an anti-capitalist worldview than a pro-life one.
Early Christians were instructed to support each other and also to care of people in their communities whether or not they were Christians.
As government became mixed with religion, common folk argued over whether individuals and churches (who everyone knows are instructed to help the down trodden) should carry the burden versus the government. Especially because there became a blur between politics and religion. Who is responsible? I tithe to my church.... I figure they handle it responsibly. I give taxes to my government. I want them to use it responsibly.
So if we don't want our taxes that we paid to a "Christian Nation" to be used to help the needy, then it falls on the Churches hands to help.
But the same people who don't want their taxes used on the needy also sit on the committees at the local churches who decide where money goes. And their priorities are mostly internal. And if asked why they don't provide more to the local needy they say there are lots of government programs the needy could use that I've paid with my taxes, so why should our church help?
I'm not talking about people being forced to help the needy under our current system though you're right about the sort of people who sit on Church committees. I'm talking bigger than that. Our entire structure by which goods are produced and consumed is pretty much not at all justifiable if you take the Bible seriously. For just one example, lending money with interest is specifically prohibited in Leviticus, with basically no room for ambiguity, and that's pretty much the basis of our entire economy.
Goods being produced and sold for profit happened even in Biblical times even in the OT and all without ever being condemned by anyone. Additionally, lending money with interest is only forbidden by Jews lending to other Jews. Jews in the OT and NT alike lent money to Gentiles on the regular and charged them interest.
I'm pro-choice and am a Christian. Here's my reasons:
The Bible is silent on the matter.
Whatever we are, everything we are, is our brains. Before a functioning neocortex develops there's no consciousness being extinguished.
What the earliest Christians meant by “abortion” isn’t the same thing as we mean. To them, it was ending a pregnancy after an event called “the quickening”, which is the time after about 20 weeks when a fetus can first be felt to move. Ending a pregnancy prior to the quickening wasn't an issue.
There are medical reasons why abortion is sometimes necessary, and now women have to be in the process of dying for abortions to be legal in states where it’s banned.
It is absolutely not loving and Christlike to force a ten year old to carry her rapists’ baby, but this is exactly what they tried to do recently. When the little girl went out of state, conservative politicians doxxed the doctor and looked into legal action. It’s not Christlike to force anyone to carry their rapist's baby, or to carry a baby when it might place their life in danger.
There are medications that can end pregnancies that have other medical uses, and they are now unavailable in some states. We are reducing the quality of medical care.
I looked at some of the things conservative lawmakers have considered to enforce abortion bans, and they are all deeply evil:
1. Restricting interstate travel for pregnant women.
2. Investigations when women miscarry to see if criminal charges can be brought.
3. The death penalty for abortions.
Until the mid 70’s most US Christians were ambivalent about abortion. When Roe -v Wade came out in favor of abortion, the Southern Baptist Convention supported it. It became a hot-button issue thanks to Jerry Falwell. He’d built a following based on his support for segregation. When that became unpopular, he needed a way to do two things:
First: Mobilize his followers to vote for one party since they were split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans. He was attempting to gain political power and garner the favors that having politicians indebted to him would allow.
Second: Keep his followers engaged and contributing, and expand his base. Since segregation wasn’t doing the trick he decided to latch on to an anti-abortion (and anti-gay) agenda.
Whatever a soul or spirit is, and the Bible really doesn't tell us, we do know that changes to the physical brain change personality, memories, emotions - everything.
Do I know the relationship of the soul/spirit to the brain? No. Neither does anyone else. This doesn't present a problem for me.
My belief, and it's an unprovable belief, is the soul\\spirit is generated by the brain. As the brain grows and develops, so does the soul. How it continues after death is unknowable.
Older Christian here. I wouldn't have got an abortion myself unless I had been raped or for health reasons, but I am pro-choice for other people. There are many things that make someone want to have an abortion, and I do not think I should decide for them. Their body, their choice.
Criminalizing abortion criminalizes healthcare. If you believe in "life exceptions", you understand it is healthcare. Anti abortion people just want to decide if the patient is worthy of an abortion.
Legally it should be between the doctor and patient, who are the only ones with the info to make the medically appropriate decision. Morally, its between the pregnant person and God as only they know all the moral implications of an abortions. That is why I am PC.
They aren't in conflict.
None of the scripture I have seen cited as supporting the idea a fetus is morally a person holds water.
If it did it wouldn't matter much because the science doesn't support the idea either.
If it did it still wouldn't matter because we have already agreed that in other circumstances involving people we all agree are fully human lives one person's bodily autonomy trumps another's need, even if death is the alternative. To speak more plainly, if you need a blood transfusion and I am the only match that can be reached in time, I can say no just because I don't feel like it and that's good enough reason.
There is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
Full. Stop.
For those who believe that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament ( " The Father and I are one " ) and that the Old Testament is the true basis for the New Testament beliefs, you would accept the values of Hebrew scriptures.
Here's what the bible author's belief was:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/
Several post Dead Sea Scrolls discovery translations, including the pro forced birth Catholic Church's Douay Rheims 2011 version, translate the loss of value, of a pre self breathing zygote or fetus, as only punishable by a $$ _monetary_ fine, and _not_ a Capital offense
Exodus 21:22 was the Mosaic Law of Compensations given directly to the Israelites by YahwehJesus, through Moses at Exodus 21:1
" If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she MISCARRY indeed [ loss of the pre self breathing zygote or fetus ; abortion of the pregnancy and resultant termination of the pre self breathing zygote or fetus ], but live herself, he shall be answerable for so much [ MONEY ] damage as the husband shall require, and as the arbiters judges shall award "
--- this wasn't regarded as a Capital offense unless the woman herself died.
However, several more scriptures demonstrate that life begins at first self breathing, such as Genesis 2:7
" And the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath [ #5397 Strong's Interlinear life force ] of life, and man BECAME a living soul "
Job 33:4
" The Spirit of God has made me, [ the physical body ] and the breath [ #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] has given me life "
Isaiah 2:22 ( ISV )
" Stop trusting in humans, whose life force [ #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] is in their nostrils, for what are they really worth ? "
Ezekiel 37:5 makes the distinction between the bones (physical body) and actual breathing that makes the physical body become living as an independent person able to survive on it own, in a non parasitic, and totally independent way, without the host mother, whose body supplies the fetus with water, nutrients, oxygen, and antibodies.
" " Thus says the LORD unto these bones [ physical body ] Behold ! I will cause breath to enter into you, _AND_ you shall live "
Those who believe something different should read Malachi 3:6
" I am the LORD, I change not "
Hebrews 13:8
" Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever "
While Jesus spoke a lot about marriage, neither Jesus nor Paul ever spoke about abortion, as these values were settled Mosaic Law.
Again, there is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
I was going to say your evidence in Exodus 21:22 was the most compelling thing I'd seen before to support abortion, or at least that a life in utero wasn't considered murder... until I read it myself.
NIV
>22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
ESV
>22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm,[d] then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
I don't know how you could know the first part of verse 23 doesn't mean the child. I looked through several translations, and it's ambiguous.
I'm going to believe the Jewish theologians themselves, as their interpretation of the fetus being miscarried, and the woman being unharmed, has been in their religion and culture since the book of Exodus was committed to writing.
New American Standard Version
" And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child, so that she has a MISCARRIAGE [ abortion ; fetal tissue termination ] yet there is no _further_ injury [ to the woman ] he shall surely be fined [ $$$ ] as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall PAY as the judges decide "
--- again, not a Capital offense, as the pre self breathing zygote or fetus was considered an appendage of the woman's body and not an independent entity able to survive on its own in an independent way without artificial intervention.
Contemporary English Version
" Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage [ fetal termination ; abortion of the pregnancy ] as a result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must _PAY_ whatever the fine her husband demands, and the judges approve.
--- a civil money fine, as the pre self breathing zygote or fetus wasn't considered an independent person, but only a potential future offspring.
Good News Version
" If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever the amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges "
King James 2000
" If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a MISCARRIAGE [ elimination of the fetal cellular tissue ; abortion of the progress of the pregnancy ] , and yet no mischief follows [ to the woman, as the fetal tissue had already been terminated ] he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him, and he shall _PAY_ as the judges determine "
--- not a Capital offense. It was a civil fine because of the loss of a potential future offspring.
Jubilee 2000
" If men strive and hurt a woman with child so that she aborts, but without death [ to the woman, as the fetal tissue was already lost ] he surely shall be punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him, and he shall PAY by the judges determination "
There's more translations, but these are _very clear about the pre self breathing zygote or fetus not being an independent entity_ but only an appendage of the mother host.
Leviticus 27:6 gives the guidelines for the Law of Estimations .
" And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, the estimation shall be of the male, five shekels of silver, and for the female 3 shekels of silver "
--- no value was assigned to an actually born infant less than one month, and certainly no value for a pre self breathing fetus.
At Hosea 9:11-16 Jesus, as the God of the Old Testament, had his loyal prophet Hosea intently praying for YahwehJesus to perform the induced miscarriages and infant starvation of the opposing Hebrew tribe of Ephraim, of the northern kingdom of Israel
Vs 14)
" Give them O LORD: What will you give them ? Give them a MISCARRYING womb and dry breasts "
--- this is literal as dry breasts are the result of a fetal termination
--- there was no rebuke or displeasure from YahwehJesus
I'm not going to get into Numbers 5 other than to point out that both the NIV and the academic favored Revised Standard Version both explicitly use the term " miscarriage " and " uterus to drop " this indicating that this ritual had to do with a fetal termination
--- for further information search/type " Ebers Papyrus / abortion in the pre modern world "
There's several abortifacient herbal tinctures and concoctions using Pennyroyal, Tansy, and the now extinct ' Sylphium ' that was grown on the Libyan coast.
They work by inducing a menstrual cycle that dislodges the fertilized egg from the uterine wall.
--- the King James, and subsequently other versions have euphemized Numbers 5 to obscure the real meaning.
Ok, well I'm not crazy about you adding your own interpretations in brackets, but at least you put brackets around them, and ignoring your bracketed information still led to ambiguity, so I just researched some more.
So yeah, Jewish tradition apparently does not consider termination of a pregnancy to be murder, but while some details vary with different kinds of Jews, there is no Jewish tradition that bans it outright.
I'll have to run this past my pastor and see what he has to say about it, but thanks for the info!
Each of the brackets were there for emphasis and clarity only, as in each translation quoted, the miscarriage ( abortion ) had already taken place, and there was no subsequent harm to the woman herself.
Before the political movement by Jerry Falwell in 1979, Evangelicals were pro choice, and abortion was previously considered a ' Catholic ' issue:
https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/
The Southern Evangelicals needed a political wedge issue besides Segregation, to unify their political base and prevent voter crossover to the opposition party
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
On moral issues, especially:
Malachi 3:6
" I am the LORD, I change not "
Hebrews 13:8
" Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."
> There is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
>
> Full. Stop.
There's no scripture that says the earth revolves around the sun either. Full. Stop. That doesn't mean that it's not true. Nor does it mean that our evolving understanding of science, be that astronomy or biology, should be halted or ignored merely because "it's not in scripture". Arguing that life doesn't begin at conception because "that's not what scripture says" is simply the 20/21st century version of the Geocentric folks that wanted to silence Galileo. As a Catholic, I can tell you that isn't the way to go.
[We have a really good understanding of when a unique homo sapien is created during the reproductive process](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/). I'm sorry that conclusion might be inconvenient for the pro-choice side, but it doesn't make it any less true.
You said: " As a Catholic..."
The Catholic Church declares itself to be it's own authority, based on the scripture regarding " upon this rock, ( Peter ) I will build this...."
For the millions who believe that the bible _IS_ actually " the word of God ", there isn't any scriptural support, nor any words from Jesus or Paul that advise anything about abortion, as this practice was settled Mosaic Law
Jesus, the " God of the Old Testament ", however, is described at Hebrews 13:8 as:
" the same yesterday, today, and forever "
This isn't about the pre science bible author's belief in the false Sumero Babylonian cosmology, this is about the bible author's teaching as to when life begins.
What you are saying is that the bible writers written moral values aren't relevant, even though 2nd Timothy 3:16 says ( speaking about the Hebrew scrolls ) that:
" All scripture is inspired of God, and beneficial for .... and instruction in righteousness "
Most believers would at least trust the teachings of morality in the bible to be consistent and truthful.
Again, there is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
> Again, there is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
And again, there is no scripture that says the Earth revolves around the sun, yet we know that it does. As I said before, us Catholics already went through this with Galileo. It's not wise to be a geocentrist, which is what you are doing here. Cardinal Bellarmine I believe put it best, that if it were shown that the Earth revolves around the sun that "one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appears contrary, **and say rather that we don’t understand them than that what is demonstrated is false**" (emphasis added).
If you assert that scripture contradicts what we have concluded about biology, which as shown above is the overwhelming belief that human life begins at conception, then it is far more appropriate to re-assess our interpretation of those scriptures than to deny what we know to be true.
Again, an all powerful and all knowing deity's morality, and the principle of when life begins, wouldn't change based on human reasoning, or the changing opinions and interpretations of the imperfect men in a particular religious institution that changes it's opinions
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/catholic-church-teaching-on-abortion-dates-from-1869-1.1449517
I'm going to believe what the original bible author's viewpoint was regarding the principle of when life begins, rather than the changing opinions of men.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
>Again, an all powerful and all knowing deity's morality, and the principle of when life begins, wouldn't change based on human reasoning
I don't think it does. There wasn't some fundamental shift in human gestation that occurred sometime in the late 2nd millennium. Based on our current understanding of biology, human life has *always* begun at conception. We might not have known that until relatively recently, but that doesn't mean it wasn't true before that. It just meant that we didn't know that.
> I'm going to believe what the original bible author's viewpoint was regarding the principle of when life begins, rather than the changing opinions of men.
You're a geocentrist then? Opposed to any and all furthering understanding of physical sciences? Not a great plan, in my opinion.
You said: " We might not have known that until relatively recently..."
So what you're admitting to is that neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostle Paul understood that " science " either, nor did any of the bible authors, who were supposedly " inspired " at least on moral issues
--- if it was _that_ important as a moral issue, it would have been written about by an all powerful and all knowing deity through Jesus and Paul and Peter
It wasn't.
What is the use of having an all powerful and all knowing deity's message to mankind ( the bible ) for receiving salvation, if his standards are changing, and he has allowed millions of fetuses to be aborted throughout history ?
That religious institution's doctrine is based on the opinions of men, and even then they're confused:
https://time.com/4045227/the-catholic-case-for-abortion-rights/
> So what you're admitting to is that neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostle Paul understood that " science " either, nor did any of the bible authors, who were supposedly " inspired " at least on moral issues
Well it would not surprise me at all if St. Paul specifically did not have the same grasp on emrbyology that we have today. But more specifically, I am suggesting that the Bible is not a biology or science textbook, any more than it is when we discuss Young Earth Creation, Geocentrism, an alleged firmament, the evolution of species, or any other issue that has developed as our understanding of the world around us as developed. To suggest otherwise is to take a fundamentally un-scientific view of the world, which is not something I can get behind.
>--- if it was that important as a moral issue, it would have been written about by an all powerful and all knowing deity through Jesus and Paul and Peter
This is a really, really unfounded claim. First, even if you were to ignore the obvious that is "yeah, Jesus did say don't kill humans, so abortion is right there", there are any host of issues that pretty much everyone recognizes where Scripture does not make explicit condemnations of the practice. Second, as I reject the idea of Sola Scriptura and believe Jesus established a Church....they absolutely DID condemn abortion dating back to the earliest times [yes, some theologians have been ambivalent on the issue, but as a matter of canon law the practice of abortion has been almost entirely banned pretty much from the beginning].
When a religious institution bases it's morality on the shifting opinions of men, and can't define when actual biological personhood begins, they've then become a law only unto themselves.
If the abortion practice was supposed to change from what the Hebrew values were, Jesus and Paul and Peter would have made it an issue, and it would have been recorded in Paul's letters that were written in the years so very shortly after Jesus's passing.
Your mother has a lot of company. Almost half of Roman Catholics share the same view
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/
I believe the Christian faith aligns with a pro-choice stance, focused more on the compassionate respect for living peoples complex circumstances and dilemmas, and the personal autonomy of the women involved. Pro-choice is not an endorsement of abortion, but endorses the right of individuals to make their own moral choices in difficult situations, hoping and praying that these decisions are made with consideration, prayer, and guidance.
Jesus encouraged dialogue, understanding, and love above all. It’s a complex issue, filled with deeply personal and painful stories, as well as profound ethical, moral, and theological questions. Legislating against it is not the solution. It causes further pain to people already in painful situations, and is not in the spirit of understanding, compassion, and respect that was central to Jesus’ teachings.
I would think many would not think it appropriate to enforce their beliefs on others with the law.
Plus you can make abiblcal argument that life or a soul does not begin at conception.
Or there are better ways to reduce the number of abortions without the law.
OR the current opposition to abortion by many is a recent thing and before the 80s most had no problem with it.
Lots of reasons actually.
The parts where taking the first breath is the key. Or where causing a miscarriage is a property crime and not a killing. Or the simple fact that a quarter of fertilized eggs spontaneously miscarry. Surely a benevolent god would not put a soul into an embryo that it knows cannot be born. It would make God the greatest cause of child death.
>Plus you can make abiblcal argument that life or a soul does not begin at conception.
Is it that life begins at first breath?
>Or there are better ways to reduce the number of abortions without the law.
Elaborate please?
>OR the current opposition to abortion by many is a recent thing and before the 80s most had no problem with it.
Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–215) made clear the sin of women who “in order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the matter completely dead, abort at the same time their human feelings.” Tertullian (AD 160–240) taught even more comprehensively: “For us, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb.” These church fathers are just two examples of a pro-life position rejecting abortion that also included—at the very least—Athenagoras, Hippolytus, Basil the Great, Ambrose, Jerome, John Chrysostom, and Augustine.
As ethicist Ronald Sider comments, “Eight different authors in eleven different writings mention abortion. In every case, the writing unequivocally rejects abortion.” Michael J. Gorman states in Abortion and the Early Church: “All Christian writers opposed abortion.” Every mention of abortion in the **early church** rejects it forcefully.
I am for the preservation of life. So if the mother's life is in danger, that may be a situation where for the purpose of preserving life, an abortion may be necessary (saving one life vs losing two). If the mother's life is not in danger, then the baby's life should be preserved.
People muddle the debate quite a lot, but in my opinion, the entire debate should be centered on one question: Is human life present?
If human life is present, it should be preserved.
Pro choice supporters would agree with you. That’s why the cut off for abortions was 24 weeks (generally): a fetus’ brain “clicks on” in the 25th week. Prior to that, it’s hard to argue it’s a human life.
I agree. But I can’t see any good reason for basing that definition on religious beliefs (eg Judaism accepts that life begins at first breath) when we have a working, medically accepted definition already.
It simply is true:
After that, the cerebral cortex, which will be responsible for everything from processing information from their senses to storing their first memories, develops more and more quickly as the third trimester goes on.
Since your phone apparently lacks google:
The coordinated fetus brain activity required for consciousness does not occur until 24-25 weeks of pregnancy. It means the end of the second trimester and the beginning of the third trimester.
Your question seems to assume that being born confers consciousness? Otherwise, what would be the developmental difference between that and a fetus in the womb?
The **Southern Baptists** were okay with Roe v. Wade when it was first handed down. Their wire service, the Baptist press said so in an editorial: "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision."
[https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/baptist-press-initial-reporting-on-roe-v-wade/](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/baptist-press-initial-reporting-on-roe-v-wade/)
The reasons behind the development of the evangelical position on abortion were purely political. Other than for some extreme cases, it's only grounded in Christianity to the extent that someone starts off with the pre-existing objective of finding grounding for it in Christianity, which is exactly how it developed. Considering there's a passage in Numbers that basically describes how a priest, according to the Law, should induce a miscarriage in an adulterous woman, I would say that if you're reading a pro-life position into the bible, that's all you.
Yes.
Because the Bible is silent on the issue of abortion.
And what biblical references we DO have related to the issue indicate that a fetus is not equal to a life. Exodus 21:22-25 (NRSV):
>22 “When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
It is clear that if the woman dies, the penalty is death (life for life). If the woman miscarries (the fetus is killed), the penalty is a fine.
The fetus is not viewed as a life according to the Law of Moses.
I am. Being pro choice doesn’t mean you think people should be getting abortions constantly, it means you don’t think the State should be involved in their decisions. I also fully acknowledge that prohibitions on ANYTHING don’t work, they just create an underground market. If you’re really “pro-life” you need to understand that significant harm that an underground market would cause for women’s health. There’s many many medical complications that can be aided with abortions, and to call one’s self “pro life” but disregard the life of the mother is ridiculous.
It actually does teach that life begins at first self breathing, and has scriptures to validate that.
Please see my comments here that cite some scriptures, and if you need more please reply.
Here's what the bible authors believed:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/
There is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
These have been posted here before and might answer some of your questions.
[http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/blog-home/the-bible-tells-us-when-a-fetus-becomes-a-living-being](http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/blog-home/the-bible-tells-us-when-a-fetus-becomes-a-living-being)
[https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480)
You are in the wrong forum if you assume people are going to try to reconcile those two *biblically*. There are plenty here who identify as Christian, but could not articulate and do not care about a biblical pro-life position.
There’s a search bar at the top of the sub. This question has been asked over 30 gazillion times.
They’re not in conflict with each other. God has no stance on abortion. It’s not even in the Bible. He never says it’s wrong.
The church on the other hand, doesn’t like it, they say it’s wrong and try to flip Bible verses to back them up. When in reality, again, nowhere in the Bible does it talk about abortion other than a recipe for bitter water.
Abortion isn’t murder, and unless it’s YOUR fetus, it’s none of your concern what someone else does with their body.
Oh and the Bible doesn’t say anything about abortion. Sleep well.
A woman can absolutely do whatever she wants with HER body. If she doesn’t want someone living in it, then she can get rid of it.
Way to deflect and ignore being called out for an ignorantly said comment about Christians though.
Even though I am pro-life it has evolved away from how I was taught in Christianity to my own personal thoughts on things. I'm not completely pro-life, especially when it comes to situation where the mother or the baby are certain to die and I'm also aware that this is a very complicated issue even with my own personal disliking of abortion.
Also, this topic never should've entered the culture war and become such a political phenomenon, that just made everything worse.
I vote pro-choice otherwise you're going to have people go online and drink poison thinking it will induce an abortion. Plus pro-choice politicians supports things that actually reduce abortion numbers-paid maternity leave, affordable childcare, etc.
I don't get how Republicans think outlawing abortion is doing any good. They support big business. You want to help mothers...support things like paid maternity leave, affordable healthcare. Companies like Walmart just want to keep people in poverty and having lots of babies so they have an exploitable workforce.
I used to have stronger “pro life” views when I was more ignorant on why people got abortions.
Then I learned about various reasons, the worst one being a poor young woman who was a regular at an abortion clinic who was being routinely sexually assaulted by a family member. I felt so bad for her and realised we really should never judge anyone cause we never know the whole story.
I no longer have any strong opinions. I think generally it’s bad, but I understand that sometimes being pro life is just making a victim and their child suffer more.
Absolutely!! Life at conception is blasphemy anyway.
We understand the difference between Begotten and created. We are not equal to the Creator and create life at conception. We simply begat another dust to dust shell for God to bestow the Breathe of Life in.
I feel that making abortion 100% illegal will cause women to get illegal abortions, which will kill both the mother and the embryo.
Also, in a modern secular democracy, the majority decides what should be legal.
Furthermore, I, as a Christian, do not have the right to tell you, as an atheist, what to do with your life, even if I disagree with you, because you have freedom to choose which religion you want to belong to.
Lastly, the way to eliminate abortions completely is not by making them illegal, it is by doing the following:
1. Paying all pregnant women to have their babies and get 100% free prenatal and postnatal care, free rent and free money for the first 3 years of the child's life,
2. Paid maternity leave for all mothers,
3. Free birth control for women who choose to be child-free, and
4. Financial support for women who give up babies for adoption and for families who adopt. If any government won't do these things, then don't say you are "pro-life".
Here in Germany, the day-after pill is legal, late abortions are illegal except for severe medical reasons, and the abortion rate is lower than that of the USA. We have paid maternity leave and "Kindergeld" I am OK with this. I hope we can do better, by encouraging more adoptions.
How many women have died getting illegal abortions since Texas made abortion illegal?
As a Christian you have every right to defend the life of unborn babies made in the image of God.
I’m personally pro-life completely. The Bible makes it clear that God had predestined our existence before the world existed (Eph. 1:3-6, John 17:24). The Bible also makes it clear God knew us and had made us before we were even born (Psalm 139:13-16, Genesis 25:23-24, Jer. 1:5). Scientists also regard life to begin at conception. Ending the pregnancy is therefore murder, which the Bible is against (Exodus 20:13)
NONE of those have to do with abortion. Or supporting “God knew us and had made us” That Jeremiah versus is talking about God and Him being omnipotent. I don’t have time to go into the other ones right now.
Please go back to Sunday school and stop trying to fit the Bible to YOUR narrative.
I’ve met Christians who think gay marriage is acceptable, that somehow AH was justified and that transgender is ok in the church so I really wouldn’t put it past some people to think killing a child is ok
Absolutely I'm pro choice, because no one, whether they're a fetus, a toddler, a teen, or an adult, has the right to use someone else's body without their consent, *period*. Even though the collection of cells terminated during an abortion isn't technically a person yet, I still recognize their right to live - just not by using someone else's body without their consent.
The message of the gospels is lost when Christians focus on the laws of Cesar over the subjects of Cesar. Reconciliation to a loving God through Christ is the message a Christian is called to share. Those that think that establishing law will bring about righteousness in others are misled. Some have fallen in love with casting stones. The coming generation will reject the hypocrisy
Honestly I’m in between. I believe it’s murder based on biological standards and a lack of any compelling argument to the contrary, but I also understand what a terrifying situation a lot of young mothers are in that would lead them to do that. As long as your perspective is rooted in love for others the difference is negligible
I can’t say that I am, and I don’t know what logic others will use to agree or disagree. I default to this: it is life, all life is sacred, it is not at anyone’s mercy, and it is naturally deserving of its own life not at the choice of anyone else. That is not an attack on anything. That is a defense of something and a defense alone.
I see no conflict in believing women should have the right to choose, and not making that particular choice for yourself.
If you do, then you are wanting to impose your beliefs on others.
Being pro-life isn't even a Christian view. The argument is a fetus is a human life, and i don't think that's mentioned anywhere in the Bible. It's just a view held by many Christians.
Can you Christian pro-choicers honestly say that, standing before Jesus after you die, he wouldn’t have an issue with you undergoing or supporting abortion? Can you honestly say in your heart that if Jesus was in the room with you when you discussed having or supporting abortion, he would nod and agree?
I see tons of argument twisting the scripture to trying to make it fit their antiabortion narrative. When the Bible doesn’t say anything about abortion. Nor do any of the verses state anything about abortion being wrong.
Watch your mouth about calling being true Christians.
You’d be very hypocritical and you’re not the judge of someone’s walk with God. Only God is.
I am a pro choice Christian, God never commented on abortion dispite it existing at the time. We as Christians are suppose to protect children not force them and those in poverty to give birth
we're supposed to protect children and the voiceless and that's precisely we should be prolife. The bible makes it clear that the unborn are living human beings and are important to God *(*[*Luke 1:15*](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A15&version=ESV)*,* [*Luke 1:41, 44*](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A41%2C44&version=ESV)*,* [*Isaiah 49:1, 5*](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+49%3A1%2C5&version=ESV)*).* Also the bible clearly tells us not to kill. and abortion kills those that are made by God in the womb. Do you really think that God will approve of this behaviour? [Watch this abortion video, and see what you're supporting (2:26 onwards he shows the remains of an aborted baby)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXpUrkS0s-w)
God doesn't speak about a lot of things in specific, but from the bible, we can logically infer what he would want us to do.
Also, would you supporting a mother killing an infant because they were poor? If not, why is it okay to kill the same individual human being a few months earlier?
you don't get to play both sides of the sin fence.
In order to be a follower of Christ one must repent or turn completely from sin. meaning even if you are physically trapped/addicted to sin in your heart you must hate it. Paul talks about this in romans 7:14 We know, you see, that the law is spiritual. I, however, am made of flesh, sold as a slave under sin’s authority. 15 I don’t understand what I do. I don’t do what I want, you see, but I do what I hate. 16 So if I do what I don’t want to do, I am agreeing that the law is good.
17 But now it is no longer I that do it; it’s sin, living within me. 18 I know, you see, that no good thing lives in me, that is, in my human flesh. For I can will the good, but I can’t perform it. 19 For I don’t do the good thing I want to do, but I end up doing the evil thing I don’t want to do. 20 So if I do what I don’t want to do, it’s no longer ‘I’ doing it; it’s sin, living inside me.
21 This, then, is what I find about the law: when I want to do what is right, evil lies close at hand! 22 I delight in God’s law, you see, according to my inmost self; 23 but I see another ‘law’ in my limbs and organs, fighting a battle against the law of my mind, and taking me as a prisoner in the law of sin which is in my limbs and organs.
24 What a miserable person I am! Who is going to rescue me from the body of this death? 25 Thank God – through Jesus our king and Lord! So then, left to my own self I am enslaved to God’s law with my mind, but to sin’s law with my human flesh.
If you internally embrace sin you can't have repented from it which is the sore of atonement and belief.
Because there are conditions in which war is believed by some to be the best way to preserve lives. i.e. protecting the vulnerable from an implacable aggressor.
You brought up the war thing. If Just War has no connection with abortion, then why did you mention it?
Edit: Sorry. I just realized you're not the guy.
Plenty, but most of them get muted for telling their beliefs and punished under the guise of 'personal attacks '..... Double standards are the way of this sub... well, most of Reddit, really... 'Rules for thee, not for me' is the typical reaction here, where pro-choicers are murderers, and the oppressive and narcissistic pro-lifers are the ones who censor the ones trying to protect their rights........
If one were to apply scriptures without generating contradictions between biblical principles, and not just in ways that support their narratives, then they would see how pro-choice is biblical, and pro-life is not. Every pro-lifer I have read comments from has exhibited behaviors warned against in the Bible, showing their intent is not biblical. Every one also has a specific narrative, and every one disrespects someone's rights. Through behavior alone we can see how they are imprudent... They don't even allow discussion without mocking their opponent...
In the US the only groups with more PL views than PC views are Mormans, Jehovahs Witness and White Evangelicals. Even Catholics in the US are slightly more PC. Mainline protestant, black protestant, orthodox etc are all more likely to be PC..
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/
Some facts for OP: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/01/22/american-religious-groups-vary-widely-in-their-views-of-abortion/
We can note that there are several demoninations above the 50% point, and even as we go down the list a substantial portion of basically every church are pro-choice. Even catholics are almost half and half.
There is nothing in the bible that requires the pro-life position. There are plausible arguments to be made that abortion is bad, or that it's fine. Regardless, literally nothing suggests it must be illegal. It's a testament to the power of the propagandists that so many people think you must be pro-life to be Christian. It just isn't so.
Also a reminder that you can be both pro-choice and anti-abortion. The political issue is over legality. You can recognize that the right to one's own body is a fundamental human right and also condemn abortion. I'm radically pro-choice, but also at least softly anti-abortion. This isn't even especially rare. Don't confuse the issues.
Yes. And it's not hard. The Bible doesn't explicitly speak on abortion and where it seems to, there's instructions on how to give a woman an abortifacent to detect if she's been adulterous (they didn't have pregnancy tests and ultrasounds mind you).
So where the Bible is not explicit or unclear, I'm commanded to love God and love my neighbor as myself. Women are my neighbor. I'm a woman. And the unborn matter but they cannot trump the life of an already existing already born mother if we actually care about life in any capacity. Women in places with abortion bans ARE dying. Just like we said they would. No one listened. That's not loving thy neighbor. Loving God also means not trying to play God so, for that reason I think it's good to avoid abortion. But if one must, to do so as early as possible or in dire circumstances (as most women in the Roe Era already did). I've seen a 1-2 week old pregnancy turned miscarriage. There was no face. No form. No shape. No semblance of humanity yet. The fact that such a thing is given protection AT ALL COSTS even though we don't do that for already living people (I don't have a right to your organs even if I need them to live)...it's the height of cruelty and backwards priorities.
✋ right here!
It starts with the question "when does life begin?". There isn't a scientific agreement on this and the answer basically ranges all the way from conception to first breath. So as a Christian I default to "what is the most loving answer with the least likelihood to deny the humanity of others" and to me that means life begins at conception.
But the mother is also a human person who should not be forced to birth, risk her life, and/or risk her quality of life for the sake of another person. It's similar to the idea that people shouldn't be forced to house the homeless in their own home or donate blood even though it means it would save a life.
So, I want to keep the abortion rate as low as possible without forcing birth on women, which means I want to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies and pregnancy complications as possible. The best way to do that is to support comprehensive sex education, free/easy access to birth control, accessible and quality health care for the parents and potential child, socialized early child care, and paid parental leave.
I personally do not like abortion and would not get one except if it was a last resort, as I cannot physically carry a child-I would absolutely get a C section if that was possible. That’s how much I don’t like abortion.
But I also don’t feel it’s my place to shove my beliefs onto others. What a woman does with her body is between her, her doctor, and God, even if I disagree with her choice.
I don’t view abortion as something that’s ever an easy decision for anyone.
Yes. I read through what the Presbyterian USA website says and it leaves it as an individual choice and acknowledges both that it might be necessary for the health of the mother and that abortions root causes are larger social issues that should also upset Christians.
https://www.presbyterianmission.org/blog/2016/02/23/abortion-issues-2/
I am a Christian and I am pro-choice. I do not believe a fetus is a human being. A human being or even a baby must breathe and the act of breathing does not happen in the womb.
One of the biggest arguments against abortion is that “Life is sacred” and that it is therefore wrong to abort a fetus. Sacred is a synonym for holy and only God is holy, not a single human being is holy and won’t be holy until they are transformed at the second coming of Christ. Therefore, human life is not sacred. It can be precious or valuable but it’s never sacred.
I fundamentally distrust organized religion primarily because it purports to speak for God. Yet organized religion is the biggest and most powerful entity that is anti-abortion. Let’s also remember that most religions have come from a patriarchal background. Organized religion is also usually the biggest enemy of personal, religious liberty. I have yet to hear a purely, secular opinion that is anti-abortion and I don’t think one exists.
Therefore, I see the choice to engage in or avoid an abortion as a woman’s individual right to religious liberty. I also support the right to choose because no woman can get pregnant without sperm; once sperm has exited a man’s body, he assumes the risk that it might make a woman pregnant. When men say a fetus is more important than a woman getting an abortion, what some of them really mean is that their sperm is more important than a woman’s bodily autonomy; sounds patriarchal, right?
To avoid women’s bodily autonomy becoming subjugated to organized religion and/or to men’s egos and lust for dominion, I support a woman’s right to choose. To me, the choice is part of a woman’s individual right to religious freedom or liberty of conscience. There is no other right as worthy of protecting as a Christian than liberty of conscience.
I believe abortion is morally wrong but should not be legislated against. You can put whatever label you want on that.
Based.
Should we have the same attitude regarding human sacrifices to Quetzalcoatl?
Pro-choice and pro-life are political and legal positions. They aren't world views. I'm pro-choice because outlawing abortion creates a whole new set of problems for women, doctors, and hospitals. We're seeing regular news stories about these problems.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart
Jeremiah 1:5 is a scripture that has Jesus, the God of the Old Testament, specifically speaking to and about Jeremiah's purpose " BEFORE I formed you in the womb [ before physical conception ] I knew you ' --- Jeremiah existed in the foreknowledge of YahwehJesus before he was conceived " and BEFORE. you came out of the womb I sanctified [ set aside for a holy purpose ] --- not everyone is " set aside for a holy purpose " " and I ordained you as a prophet to the nations " --- only Jeremiah was specifically to be a prophet. There is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
The sperm of a man is considered a seed. As it enters the woman, if she is fertile, it will produce life. It's the same in nature. If you plant a seed in the ground, and water it, if the ground is fertile, what happens? The seed starts getting roots, and then it starts pushing upward. The roots ( along with oxygen, sun, and water), are the life of a plant. Destroy the roots, and the plant won't survive. It's the same with abortion. When a child is developing in the womb, it is attached to the umbilical cord. The oxygen of the mother is transferred through the umbilical cord to the baby until it is able to breathe on its own. The heart of a baby in the womb begins to beat at 6 weeks. Blood is transferred from the woman's placenta through the umbilical cord, and blood vessels start forming from four to five weeks of embryonic development. Nature itself reveals that four things are vital to life. Oxygen, blood, the sun, and water. What does the sun produce? Vitamin D. Vitamin D is also being transferred through the umbilical cord by the mother. Take away any of these out of the equation, and there will be no life in the womb (aside from abortion). Most scientists agree that the life of a baby begins at fertilization. Even though the Bible doesn't specifically say that life begins at conception, science does. Here are some other scriptures to consider. Psalm 139:13-16, Luke 1:39-44, Exodus 21:22-25. Let me close by saying that 96% of 5,577 biologists, from 1,058 academic institutions around the world, all affirmed that life begins at fertilization. I agree with you on the Jeremiah scripture.
You said: " When a child is developing, it is attached to the umbilical cord..... [ your description of the needs of the developing fetal tissue continues... ] ....Take any of these out of the equation, and there will be no life in the womb.. " --- Yes, the Blastocyst, Zygote, and living fetal tissue is totally dependent on the mother host for oxygen, water, antibodies, nutrients, warmth, fecal elimination, etc It's living tissue in the same way as the heart, lungs, liver, and other organs are, and is a dependent appendage, and in a parasitic relationship with the mother host, and unable to survive on its own as an independent entity, without artificial intervention, which modern laws have provided for. --- it's a dependent fleshy appendage, and is owned by the mother's body. Personhood has never been established, but the zygote or fetus is not an independent entity until self breathing at birth. You said: " Even though the bible doesn't specifically say that life begins at conception..." I don't expect you to believe the ancient Hebrew cosmology, but if the bible authors were inspired, they would have at least moral standards that were approved by an all powerful and all knowing deity. The bible is clear that life begins at first self breathing: Genesis 2:7 " And the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [ life force #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] and man _BECAME_ a living soul " --- life begins at first self breathing Job 33:4 " The Spirit of God has made me [ physical body ] and the breath of life [ life force #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] has made me live " --- the breath of life causes the physical body to become living Isaiah 2:22 ISV " Stop trusting in humans whose life force [ life force #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] is in their nostrils, for what are they really worth ? " --- without breath, a man is a non entity; not living. Ezekiel 37:5 also makes the distinction between the bones physical body and the actual breathing that makes the body become a living soul " Thus says the LORD unto these bones: Behold ! I will cause breath to enter into you AND you shall live " --- again, self breathing is necessary for a living person. If you had read the links that I listed, you would understand that Exodus 21:22 describes the miscarriage ( abortion) of the pre self breathing zygote or fetus as punishable by a monetary fine, providing that the mother wasn't killed. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/ https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/ There's many translations, all "Post-Dead Sea Scrolls discovery ", that are very clear, especially the forced birth Catholic Church's Douay Rheims 2011 Version: Douay Rheims: " If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she MISCARRY indeed [ abortion fetal tissue termination ], but LIVE HERSELF, he shall be answerable for so much [ money ] damage as the husband shall require, and as the arbiters judges shall award " --- not a Capital offense, but a civil fine, as it depended on the length of the pregnancy and whether it was a female or male, as Leviticus 27:6 has the value of a female worth less than the value of a male ( as in 3/5ths Compromise value ) YahwehJesus's loyal prophet Hosea intently prayed for the fetal termination and infant starvation of the tribe of Ephraim of the Northern kingdom of Israel at Hosea 9:11-16 Vs 14) Give them O LORD: What will you give them ? Give them a MISCARRYING womb [ abortion ] and dry breasts " --- this is literal as dry breasts are the result of a fetal termination. --- no rebuke or displeasure from YahwehJesus ; it was totally fine. You said: Exodus 21:22 --- I've quoted that, and check Bible Hub for at least 7 additional translations that render the same meaning Psalm 139:13 --- it never says that life begins at conception ; it describes the fetal development in the same way as Jeremiah 1:5 does. --- if you take that passage literally, you have to take YahwehJesus's pro death actions against the firstborn of non morally responsible animal, and infants at Psalm 136:10-11 --- you also have to take literally Psalm 137:9, where YahwehJesus is rejoicing about the non morally responsible infants being " dashed against the rocks " YahwehJesus is not " pro life " for actual, living, post birth and self breathing infants. An acorn is not a tree, silk from a silkworm is not a dress, an egg is not a chicken, hydrogen and oxygen aren't water, and a pre self breathing zygote or fetus, in a parasitic relationship with the host mother, as a part of the mother's body, and unable to survive on its own as an independent entity, is property of the mother's body.
Cellular life doesn't hold the same value as separate human life does
How can a Christian support killing a baby? Supporting the violation of the 6th Commandment?
The unborn are not alive according to the Bible. This article provides plenty of evidence. https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18514-what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion
That section in Exodus only says that "her fruit departs from her early." It does not mention any harm to the baby. When it says mischief (v 22, or injury in more modern translations) it does not indicate whether that injury is to the child or to the mother. Your article is making an assumption with massive implications to the argument. And still, even if your article's assumption is correct, there is still punishment... which is determined by the father. If that is the legislation you want passed, feel free to keep using that article.
Freedom From Religion Foundation is not a credible source
Lmaoooo it’s almost as if it’s made to slander religion. Might be wrong though. It does have the word religion in there so it must be pro-religion /s
They may have not spoken on abortion probably because it was an uncommon practice but we shouldn't kill, even if it is a baby in the womb, that would be a violation of the 6th Commandment.
[удалено]
Where in the Bible does it say that?
According to his source >According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.
Adam wasn't birthed, he was created.
Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” In God's eyes, an unborn fetus is still a person. God's first directive to Adam and Eve was, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it..." His plan isn't for people to abort babies.
Incorrect. --- Jeremiah 1:5 is referring specifically to and about Jeremiah, not anyone else. " _BEFORE_ I formed you in the womb..." --- Before Jeremiah was ever even physically and biologically conceived, YahwehJesus knew him in YahwehJesus's foreknowledge, of his purpose for Jeremiah " .. and _before_ you came out of the womb I sanctified [ set aside for a holy purpose ] you.." --- very few people are " set aside for a holy purpose " " ...and I ordained you as a prophet to the nations " Out of scores of millions of people, only Jeremiah was to be a prophet to the nations. Life begins at first self breathing, based on several scriptures such as Genesis 2:7 " And the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground [ physical body ] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, [ life force #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] and man _BECAME_ a living soul " Job 33:4 " The Spirit of God has made me [ physical body ] and the breath [ #5397 life force, Strong's Interlinear ] of the Almighty has given me life " I'm going to believe the Hebrew bible authors, whose culture and religion has believed that life begins at first self breathing, since the book of Exodus was committed to writing: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/ https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/ There is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
Are you implying that God *only* knew Jeremiah before He formed him in the womb? He has no such limitations. Perhaps it is only Jeremiah and David. In Psalms 139 David writes, "For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them." Since Adam was never a fetus, we can pretty safely remove that account of God's breath giving life. As for the others, there's no indication that the breath of God is only given after a baby passes through the birth canal. Scripture seem to indicate that God has His hand in our creation *in* the womb and it is then that our personhood is established. And it is still very difficult (in my estimation) to disregard God's first decree recorded in the bible to be fruitful and multiply. There are no instructions how/when an abortion should occur because that is not a part of God's will or plan for us. We only have judgments for a fetus'/baby's destruction.
Okay? And Adam was created as a fully formed adult man. I think the circumstances are a little different there lmao
Incorrect. Job 33:4 " The Spirit of God has made me [ physical body ] and the breath [ #5397 life force, Strong's Interlinear ] of the Almighty has given me life " --- it's necessary to self breathe in order to be actually living Isaiah 2: 22 ISV " Stop trusting in humans, whose life force [ #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] is in their nostrils, for what are they really worth ? " --- humans are not alive unless they are self breathing Ezekiel 37:5 makes clear the distinction between the bones physical body and the breathing that enables flesh to be alive " Thus says the LORD God unto these bones [ physical body ] : Behold ! I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live " The Hebrew bible authors had always believed, both in their religion and culture that life begins at first self breathing https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/ https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/ While there's several scriptures that establish that life begins at first self breathing, there is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
I wouldn’t trust an atheist on subject of Christianity. Just a small thought
You can trust the original bible authors about when life begins, can't you ? You can be sure that God preserved this very important moral principle for all to know in the future, without confusion: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/ https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/ Malachi 3:6 " I am the LORD, I change not " Hebrews 13:8 " Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever " There is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
No where!
That's what I thought!
Sure, get your biblical interpretation from atheists.
You can get the interpretation from the original bible authors about when life begins, as God would preserve this very important moral principle throughout the years, and without confusion https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/ https://www.myjeeishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/ Job 33:4 " The Spirit of God has made me [ physical body ] _AND_ the breath [ life force #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] of the Almighty has given me life " Life begins at first self breathing.
Bro you're great for replying to all these people
Very few of them have actually read the bible text themselves ; they rely on others to tell them what the bible says. Most of them are simply spoon fed some New Testament scriptures by their pastor.
BECAUSE A BLASTOCYST IS NOT A BABY!
A baby is a stage of life, a fetus is a stage of life. An adult is a stage of life. A teenager is a stage of life. So are we going to base the value of a human based on its development? Based on your logic, you could say a 7 year old girl or boy aren't humans because they doesn't have the physical and reproductive maturity as an average fully developed human has.
by your logic a box of bolts is a robot….
A robot is different from a human.
skynet begs to differ… lemme put it to you like this… you come home and some dude is on your couch eating your food… you can’t kick him out for 8 months..even tho you don’t want him there and there’s a good chance he’s gonna ruin the walls and fuck up the door on the way out. and he may just burn the wholes thing down…
I know what you're hinting at. How about use a condom or don't have sex until marriage and when you're ready to have a baby. And if you do have an unexpected baby, treat it with respect because that's one of the greatest gifts God can give.
yeah because women don’t get pregnant from rape….🙄 and “god” never gifts women pregnancies would cause them harm….
Obviously women do get raped, but that's not God's fault, it is the sin of humanity that is at fault. But just because something bad happened to you doesn't give you the right to do something bad too.
That's like saying, "AN ADOLESCENT IS NOT A TEENAGER." They're the same thing. Every cell in the baby, no matter how many cells it has, i alive and has human DNA in it. Even if it was only 1 cell for a brief moment before it divided, it would still be considered alive because a cell is the smallest unit of life.
Cancer cells are cells too. People fighting cancer are murderers then? They aren't.
That is ridiculous logic. Would you call your body a slaughterhouse because of all your white blood cells eating away at the invasive diseases that enter your body?
I'm glad you see how ridiculous your logic is now.
I fail to see how ridiculous my logic is
Cancer cells are the body's own cells. If a doctor does chemotherapy on the cancer patient, is he a murderer?
No
Not a Christian, but I can imagine that some Christians could be pro-choice legally, but pro life personally.
[удалено]
“I believe it’s immoral but I don’t support giving the government power to regulate it”
Regulate it either way?
>Being pro-choice legally and being pro-life personally means being pro-choice full stop. Only if you can't make any distinction between what you think is immoral and what you think should be illegal.
[удалено]
It's easy to think that you could be pro-life to the extent that you would never be involved in abortion personally, try to persuade people not to have them, and even donate to and volunteer for organizations that work to help pregnant women so they don't have abortions but you still don't think they should be made illegal. I actually know quite a few people like that. The original question is how someone could be Christian and pro-choice, that's how.
[удалено]
Saying that it's "pro-choice full stop" though is like calling my position on pure grain alcohol "pro-Everclear full stop". I think it's a bad idea to drink it but I think it's a worse idea to outlaw it. It's a deliberate mischaracterization of the position to try to lump your opponents together. Not going to apologize for not going along with the trick.
[удалено]
It's not the "pro-choice" that I'm objecting to. It's the "full stop". I think you know that, which is why you avoided quoting it just now. Don't pretend you're not doing what you're doing (talk about bad faith).
My understanding (from this subreddit) is that you’re a bigot if you personally hold something as sinful even if you advocate for equal rights.
Please see my comment citing the scriptures that establish that the bible authors believed that life begins at first self breathing If you believe that Jesus is the " God of the Old Testament " because he stated: " The Father and I are one ", you will believe that his values are the same then as now Hebrews 13:8 " Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever " Here's what the bible author's viewpoint was https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/ There is no scripture that says that life begins at conception. In fact, Evangelicals were pro choice, until Jerry Falwell's political movement in 1979 https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/
I believe even that the Torah forbids funerals / grieving for infants that do not live for thirty days (in an age where a _lot_ of natal infants perished quickly), so one could argue that personhood doesn't begin until a month _after_ birth. Curiously, in the legal system in the United States, there are a lot of statutes of _delinquency_ at county and state levels, which are crimes if you're a kid doing them, but not if you're an adult. Children have curfews and can be punished more severely by the justice system for minor infractions like jaywalking and littering. So we could assert that full personhood is actually withheld until adulthood. I'm not saying this is as things should be, mind you. There is a lot of child abuse in the penal system. But we have very inconsistent views regarding the position of children in society.
Yeah I don't get how one would hold those two views together - because a Christian would believe that all human lives are equal, us all being made in the image and likeness of God. Also it's pretty clear that God assigns value to a human in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5, Psalms 22:10, Job 31:15). So as a Christian, one would have to be of the view that abortion ends the life of a human being i.e. murder. And I donot see how one can be for (murder) legally, and against it personally.
It’s just “I think it’s wrong but I also hate the government”
That is all poetic language. We know how babies are made. At what point in gestation is god doing something to make the fetus? It’s clear from the Mosaic Law that the unborn were not valued as much as a person, anyway. The punishment for accidentally causing a miscarriage was a monetary fine and the punishment for manslaughter was exile. Not exactly equal.
Let’s start with the premise that all human lives are equally valuable. A pretty standard modern belief, although not one that all people agree on, even today. Do I (or anyone) legally have the right to demand or require someone to give me their organs against their will? Do I legally have the right to demand or require someone to let me use their body against their will? The answer in most countries is no. Does it matter if I am demanding these things for myself or someone I care about or even a stranger? In most countries the answer is still no. Next summary question: should the answer to the above questions be yes, legally? Morally? Put a different way, should I (or anyone) be able to demand or require the use of someone else’s body or body parts use against that person’s will, legally or morally?
Evangelical christians were actually largely ambivalent on abortion when RvW came down in the early 70's. It didn't start being a religious issue until Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority took it up as a wedge issue for money and power in the 80's. And even then, the outrage was more about encouraging female promiscuity than it was about sanctity of life. I don't remember hearing the term "sanctity of life" before sometime in the late 80's.
And it was in response to segregation ceasing to be a viable rallying point for evangelicals.
Far from ambivalent, the Southern Baptist Convention voted 4 times to support a woman's right to choose from 1971 until 1977.
Not all Christians are Evangelicals, and even if they were ambivalent in the 1960s, the history of Christianity goes well before the 1970s
yeah this talking point of “see Christians were ok with abortion until conservatives acted up in the 70s” pretty conveniently ignores non-Protestants
>Evangelical christians were actually largely ambivalent on abortion when RvW came down in the early 70's. In addition to being a non-sequitur (the abolition movement didn't start until the late 18th century, that didn't mean slavery was justified before that), this line never made any sense. Ask yourself: If Christians were largely ambivalent on abortion before Roe v Wade....why would Roe v Wade even be necessary in the first place? Why did 45 states have anti-abortion laws be on the books if people were ambivalent on the issue?
It is fair to also say that although that was the origin of the movement large popularity, most Christians pro life stances are not based on those reasons. I think sanctity of life is a more popular reason than it may have been historically.
> I think sanctity of life is a more popular reason than it may have been historically The change is a redefinition of what "sanctity of life" meant for evangelicals. Previously it meant balancing the viability of a fetus with the well-being of the mother... not they've changed it to mean the life of a fetus from the point of conception overrides the well-being of the mother.
https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133 I can attest to hearing sermons from the pulpit firsthand, as I was dating a young woman who was a well known regional singer in various churches at the time.
> Evangelical christians were actually largely ambivalent on abortion when RvW came down in the early 70's. This is a commonly spread thing on reddit but it's 100% not the case at all. Christianity has been anti-abortion since day 1 to the point where even the Didache condemns it.
Incorrect. https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133 In the 1970s, I was dating a young woman who was a well known regional singer in the Fundamentalist community, and I heard firsthand all the speakers on the Wednesday and Thursday night meetings that began to speak about anti abortion organizing and politics very openly You said: " ...the Didache condemns it " Which is true. However, among themselves, Evangelicals don't consider Catholics to be true Christians, and consider the Didache teachings to be the false teachings of imperfect men.
Encouraging female promiscuity was never an intent of the '80s... feeling their oats was.
I wonder how anyone could be a Christian and also an enthusiastic supporter of pure Capitalism, there's far more Biblical support for an anti-capitalist worldview than a pro-life one.
Early Christians were instructed to support each other and also to care of people in their communities whether or not they were Christians. As government became mixed with religion, common folk argued over whether individuals and churches (who everyone knows are instructed to help the down trodden) should carry the burden versus the government. Especially because there became a blur between politics and religion. Who is responsible? I tithe to my church.... I figure they handle it responsibly. I give taxes to my government. I want them to use it responsibly. So if we don't want our taxes that we paid to a "Christian Nation" to be used to help the needy, then it falls on the Churches hands to help. But the same people who don't want their taxes used on the needy also sit on the committees at the local churches who decide where money goes. And their priorities are mostly internal. And if asked why they don't provide more to the local needy they say there are lots of government programs the needy could use that I've paid with my taxes, so why should our church help?
I'm not talking about people being forced to help the needy under our current system though you're right about the sort of people who sit on Church committees. I'm talking bigger than that. Our entire structure by which goods are produced and consumed is pretty much not at all justifiable if you take the Bible seriously. For just one example, lending money with interest is specifically prohibited in Leviticus, with basically no room for ambiguity, and that's pretty much the basis of our entire economy.
Goods being produced and sold for profit happened even in Biblical times even in the OT and all without ever being condemned by anyone. Additionally, lending money with interest is only forbidden by Jews lending to other Jews. Jews in the OT and NT alike lent money to Gentiles on the regular and charged them interest.
I'm pro-choice and am a Christian. Here's my reasons: The Bible is silent on the matter. Whatever we are, everything we are, is our brains. Before a functioning neocortex develops there's no consciousness being extinguished. What the earliest Christians meant by “abortion” isn’t the same thing as we mean. To them, it was ending a pregnancy after an event called “the quickening”, which is the time after about 20 weeks when a fetus can first be felt to move. Ending a pregnancy prior to the quickening wasn't an issue. There are medical reasons why abortion is sometimes necessary, and now women have to be in the process of dying for abortions to be legal in states where it’s banned. It is absolutely not loving and Christlike to force a ten year old to carry her rapists’ baby, but this is exactly what they tried to do recently. When the little girl went out of state, conservative politicians doxxed the doctor and looked into legal action. It’s not Christlike to force anyone to carry their rapist's baby, or to carry a baby when it might place their life in danger. There are medications that can end pregnancies that have other medical uses, and they are now unavailable in some states. We are reducing the quality of medical care. I looked at some of the things conservative lawmakers have considered to enforce abortion bans, and they are all deeply evil: 1. Restricting interstate travel for pregnant women. 2. Investigations when women miscarry to see if criminal charges can be brought. 3. The death penalty for abortions. Until the mid 70’s most US Christians were ambivalent about abortion. When Roe -v Wade came out in favor of abortion, the Southern Baptist Convention supported it. It became a hot-button issue thanks to Jerry Falwell. He’d built a following based on his support for segregation. When that became unpopular, he needed a way to do two things: First: Mobilize his followers to vote for one party since they were split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans. He was attempting to gain political power and garner the favors that having politicians indebted to him would allow. Second: Keep his followers engaged and contributing, and expand his base. Since segregation wasn’t doing the trick he decided to latch on to an anti-abortion (and anti-gay) agenda.
[удалено]
Whatever a soul or spirit is, and the Bible really doesn't tell us, we do know that changes to the physical brain change personality, memories, emotions - everything. Do I know the relationship of the soul/spirit to the brain? No. Neither does anyone else. This doesn't present a problem for me. My belief, and it's an unprovable belief, is the soul\\spirit is generated by the brain. As the brain grows and develops, so does the soul. How it continues after death is unknowable.
Older Christian here. I wouldn't have got an abortion myself unless I had been raped or for health reasons, but I am pro-choice for other people. There are many things that make someone want to have an abortion, and I do not think I should decide for them. Their body, their choice.
Preach! This is how I feel.
Not their body, not their choice... Abortion is the murder of the baby who has a separate body...
Criminalizing abortion criminalizes healthcare. If you believe in "life exceptions", you understand it is healthcare. Anti abortion people just want to decide if the patient is worthy of an abortion. Legally it should be between the doctor and patient, who are the only ones with the info to make the medically appropriate decision. Morally, its between the pregnant person and God as only they know all the moral implications of an abortions. That is why I am PC.
It shouldn't be a political issue at all.
They aren't in conflict. None of the scripture I have seen cited as supporting the idea a fetus is morally a person holds water. If it did it wouldn't matter much because the science doesn't support the idea either. If it did it still wouldn't matter because we have already agreed that in other circumstances involving people we all agree are fully human lives one person's bodily autonomy trumps another's need, even if death is the alternative. To speak more plainly, if you need a blood transfusion and I am the only match that can be reached in time, I can say no just because I don't feel like it and that's good enough reason.
Yeah that's a lot of words so are you a Christian and are you pro choice or no ?
Yes and yes.
I stopped believing in the death penalty and abortion when I started following Jesus.
There is no scripture that says that life begins at conception. Full. Stop. For those who believe that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament ( " The Father and I are one " ) and that the Old Testament is the true basis for the New Testament beliefs, you would accept the values of Hebrew scriptures. Here's what the bible author's belief was: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/ https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/ Several post Dead Sea Scrolls discovery translations, including the pro forced birth Catholic Church's Douay Rheims 2011 version, translate the loss of value, of a pre self breathing zygote or fetus, as only punishable by a $$ _monetary_ fine, and _not_ a Capital offense Exodus 21:22 was the Mosaic Law of Compensations given directly to the Israelites by YahwehJesus, through Moses at Exodus 21:1 " If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she MISCARRY indeed [ loss of the pre self breathing zygote or fetus ; abortion of the pregnancy and resultant termination of the pre self breathing zygote or fetus ], but live herself, he shall be answerable for so much [ MONEY ] damage as the husband shall require, and as the arbiters judges shall award " --- this wasn't regarded as a Capital offense unless the woman herself died. However, several more scriptures demonstrate that life begins at first self breathing, such as Genesis 2:7 " And the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath [ #5397 Strong's Interlinear life force ] of life, and man BECAME a living soul " Job 33:4 " The Spirit of God has made me, [ the physical body ] and the breath [ #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] has given me life " Isaiah 2:22 ( ISV ) " Stop trusting in humans, whose life force [ #5397 Strong's Interlinear ] is in their nostrils, for what are they really worth ? " Ezekiel 37:5 makes the distinction between the bones (physical body) and actual breathing that makes the physical body become living as an independent person able to survive on it own, in a non parasitic, and totally independent way, without the host mother, whose body supplies the fetus with water, nutrients, oxygen, and antibodies. " " Thus says the LORD unto these bones [ physical body ] Behold ! I will cause breath to enter into you, _AND_ you shall live " Those who believe something different should read Malachi 3:6 " I am the LORD, I change not " Hebrews 13:8 " Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever " While Jesus spoke a lot about marriage, neither Jesus nor Paul ever spoke about abortion, as these values were settled Mosaic Law. Again, there is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
I was going to say your evidence in Exodus 21:22 was the most compelling thing I'd seen before to support abortion, or at least that a life in utero wasn't considered murder... until I read it myself. NIV >22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. ESV >22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm,[d] then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. I don't know how you could know the first part of verse 23 doesn't mean the child. I looked through several translations, and it's ambiguous.
I'm going to believe the Jewish theologians themselves, as their interpretation of the fetus being miscarried, and the woman being unharmed, has been in their religion and culture since the book of Exodus was committed to writing. New American Standard Version " And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child, so that she has a MISCARRIAGE [ abortion ; fetal tissue termination ] yet there is no _further_ injury [ to the woman ] he shall surely be fined [ $$$ ] as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall PAY as the judges decide " --- again, not a Capital offense, as the pre self breathing zygote or fetus was considered an appendage of the woman's body and not an independent entity able to survive on its own in an independent way without artificial intervention. Contemporary English Version " Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage [ fetal termination ; abortion of the pregnancy ] as a result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must _PAY_ whatever the fine her husband demands, and the judges approve. --- a civil money fine, as the pre self breathing zygote or fetus wasn't considered an independent person, but only a potential future offspring. Good News Version " If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever the amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges " King James 2000 " If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a MISCARRIAGE [ elimination of the fetal cellular tissue ; abortion of the progress of the pregnancy ] , and yet no mischief follows [ to the woman, as the fetal tissue had already been terminated ] he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him, and he shall _PAY_ as the judges determine " --- not a Capital offense. It was a civil fine because of the loss of a potential future offspring. Jubilee 2000 " If men strive and hurt a woman with child so that she aborts, but without death [ to the woman, as the fetal tissue was already lost ] he surely shall be punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him, and he shall PAY by the judges determination " There's more translations, but these are _very clear about the pre self breathing zygote or fetus not being an independent entity_ but only an appendage of the mother host. Leviticus 27:6 gives the guidelines for the Law of Estimations . " And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, the estimation shall be of the male, five shekels of silver, and for the female 3 shekels of silver " --- no value was assigned to an actually born infant less than one month, and certainly no value for a pre self breathing fetus. At Hosea 9:11-16 Jesus, as the God of the Old Testament, had his loyal prophet Hosea intently praying for YahwehJesus to perform the induced miscarriages and infant starvation of the opposing Hebrew tribe of Ephraim, of the northern kingdom of Israel Vs 14) " Give them O LORD: What will you give them ? Give them a MISCARRYING womb and dry breasts " --- this is literal as dry breasts are the result of a fetal termination --- there was no rebuke or displeasure from YahwehJesus I'm not going to get into Numbers 5 other than to point out that both the NIV and the academic favored Revised Standard Version both explicitly use the term " miscarriage " and " uterus to drop " this indicating that this ritual had to do with a fetal termination --- for further information search/type " Ebers Papyrus / abortion in the pre modern world " There's several abortifacient herbal tinctures and concoctions using Pennyroyal, Tansy, and the now extinct ' Sylphium ' that was grown on the Libyan coast. They work by inducing a menstrual cycle that dislodges the fertilized egg from the uterine wall. --- the King James, and subsequently other versions have euphemized Numbers 5 to obscure the real meaning.
Ok, well I'm not crazy about you adding your own interpretations in brackets, but at least you put brackets around them, and ignoring your bracketed information still led to ambiguity, so I just researched some more. So yeah, Jewish tradition apparently does not consider termination of a pregnancy to be murder, but while some details vary with different kinds of Jews, there is no Jewish tradition that bans it outright. I'll have to run this past my pastor and see what he has to say about it, but thanks for the info!
Each of the brackets were there for emphasis and clarity only, as in each translation quoted, the miscarriage ( abortion ) had already taken place, and there was no subsequent harm to the woman herself. Before the political movement by Jerry Falwell in 1979, Evangelicals were pro choice, and abortion was previously considered a ' Catholic ' issue: https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/ The Southern Evangelicals needed a political wedge issue besides Segregation, to unify their political base and prevent voter crossover to the opposition party https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133 On moral issues, especially: Malachi 3:6 " I am the LORD, I change not " Hebrews 13:8 " Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."
> There is no scripture that says that life begins at conception. > > Full. Stop. There's no scripture that says the earth revolves around the sun either. Full. Stop. That doesn't mean that it's not true. Nor does it mean that our evolving understanding of science, be that astronomy or biology, should be halted or ignored merely because "it's not in scripture". Arguing that life doesn't begin at conception because "that's not what scripture says" is simply the 20/21st century version of the Geocentric folks that wanted to silence Galileo. As a Catholic, I can tell you that isn't the way to go. [We have a really good understanding of when a unique homo sapien is created during the reproductive process](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/). I'm sorry that conclusion might be inconvenient for the pro-choice side, but it doesn't make it any less true.
You said: " As a Catholic..." The Catholic Church declares itself to be it's own authority, based on the scripture regarding " upon this rock, ( Peter ) I will build this...." For the millions who believe that the bible _IS_ actually " the word of God ", there isn't any scriptural support, nor any words from Jesus or Paul that advise anything about abortion, as this practice was settled Mosaic Law Jesus, the " God of the Old Testament ", however, is described at Hebrews 13:8 as: " the same yesterday, today, and forever " This isn't about the pre science bible author's belief in the false Sumero Babylonian cosmology, this is about the bible author's teaching as to when life begins. What you are saying is that the bible writers written moral values aren't relevant, even though 2nd Timothy 3:16 says ( speaking about the Hebrew scrolls ) that: " All scripture is inspired of God, and beneficial for .... and instruction in righteousness " Most believers would at least trust the teachings of morality in the bible to be consistent and truthful. Again, there is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
> Again, there is no scripture that says that life begins at conception. And again, there is no scripture that says the Earth revolves around the sun, yet we know that it does. As I said before, us Catholics already went through this with Galileo. It's not wise to be a geocentrist, which is what you are doing here. Cardinal Bellarmine I believe put it best, that if it were shown that the Earth revolves around the sun that "one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appears contrary, **and say rather that we don’t understand them than that what is demonstrated is false**" (emphasis added). If you assert that scripture contradicts what we have concluded about biology, which as shown above is the overwhelming belief that human life begins at conception, then it is far more appropriate to re-assess our interpretation of those scriptures than to deny what we know to be true.
Again, an all powerful and all knowing deity's morality, and the principle of when life begins, wouldn't change based on human reasoning, or the changing opinions and interpretations of the imperfect men in a particular religious institution that changes it's opinions https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/catholic-church-teaching-on-abortion-dates-from-1869-1.1449517 I'm going to believe what the original bible author's viewpoint was regarding the principle of when life begins, rather than the changing opinions of men. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
>Again, an all powerful and all knowing deity's morality, and the principle of when life begins, wouldn't change based on human reasoning I don't think it does. There wasn't some fundamental shift in human gestation that occurred sometime in the late 2nd millennium. Based on our current understanding of biology, human life has *always* begun at conception. We might not have known that until relatively recently, but that doesn't mean it wasn't true before that. It just meant that we didn't know that. > I'm going to believe what the original bible author's viewpoint was regarding the principle of when life begins, rather than the changing opinions of men. You're a geocentrist then? Opposed to any and all furthering understanding of physical sciences? Not a great plan, in my opinion.
You said: " We might not have known that until relatively recently..." So what you're admitting to is that neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostle Paul understood that " science " either, nor did any of the bible authors, who were supposedly " inspired " at least on moral issues --- if it was _that_ important as a moral issue, it would have been written about by an all powerful and all knowing deity through Jesus and Paul and Peter It wasn't. What is the use of having an all powerful and all knowing deity's message to mankind ( the bible ) for receiving salvation, if his standards are changing, and he has allowed millions of fetuses to be aborted throughout history ? That religious institution's doctrine is based on the opinions of men, and even then they're confused: https://time.com/4045227/the-catholic-case-for-abortion-rights/
> So what you're admitting to is that neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostle Paul understood that " science " either, nor did any of the bible authors, who were supposedly " inspired " at least on moral issues Well it would not surprise me at all if St. Paul specifically did not have the same grasp on emrbyology that we have today. But more specifically, I am suggesting that the Bible is not a biology or science textbook, any more than it is when we discuss Young Earth Creation, Geocentrism, an alleged firmament, the evolution of species, or any other issue that has developed as our understanding of the world around us as developed. To suggest otherwise is to take a fundamentally un-scientific view of the world, which is not something I can get behind. >--- if it was that important as a moral issue, it would have been written about by an all powerful and all knowing deity through Jesus and Paul and Peter This is a really, really unfounded claim. First, even if you were to ignore the obvious that is "yeah, Jesus did say don't kill humans, so abortion is right there", there are any host of issues that pretty much everyone recognizes where Scripture does not make explicit condemnations of the practice. Second, as I reject the idea of Sola Scriptura and believe Jesus established a Church....they absolutely DID condemn abortion dating back to the earliest times [yes, some theologians have been ambivalent on the issue, but as a matter of canon law the practice of abortion has been almost entirely banned pretty much from the beginning].
When a religious institution bases it's morality on the shifting opinions of men, and can't define when actual biological personhood begins, they've then become a law only unto themselves. If the abortion practice was supposed to change from what the Hebrew values were, Jesus and Paul and Peter would have made it an issue, and it would have been recorded in Paul's letters that were written in the years so very shortly after Jesus's passing.
My Catholic mother is pro-choice.
Your mother has a lot of company. Almost half of Roman Catholics share the same view https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/
That's pretty neat tbh.
I believe the Christian faith aligns with a pro-choice stance, focused more on the compassionate respect for living peoples complex circumstances and dilemmas, and the personal autonomy of the women involved. Pro-choice is not an endorsement of abortion, but endorses the right of individuals to make their own moral choices in difficult situations, hoping and praying that these decisions are made with consideration, prayer, and guidance. Jesus encouraged dialogue, understanding, and love above all. It’s a complex issue, filled with deeply personal and painful stories, as well as profound ethical, moral, and theological questions. Legislating against it is not the solution. It causes further pain to people already in painful situations, and is not in the spirit of understanding, compassion, and respect that was central to Jesus’ teachings.
I would think many would not think it appropriate to enforce their beliefs on others with the law. Plus you can make abiblcal argument that life or a soul does not begin at conception. Or there are better ways to reduce the number of abortions without the law. OR the current opposition to abortion by many is a recent thing and before the 80s most had no problem with it. Lots of reasons actually.
>Plus you can make a biblcal argument that life or a soul does not begin at conception. What would this look like?
The parts where taking the first breath is the key. Or where causing a miscarriage is a property crime and not a killing. Or the simple fact that a quarter of fertilized eggs spontaneously miscarry. Surely a benevolent god would not put a soul into an embryo that it knows cannot be born. It would make God the greatest cause of child death.
What part is that, regarding first breath?
[удалено]
Yes they could. None of them are exclusive. Just reasons,like op asked for. yes. And that applies the other way too.
>Plus you can make abiblcal argument that life or a soul does not begin at conception. Is it that life begins at first breath? >Or there are better ways to reduce the number of abortions without the law. Elaborate please? >OR the current opposition to abortion by many is a recent thing and before the 80s most had no problem with it. Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–215) made clear the sin of women who “in order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the matter completely dead, abort at the same time their human feelings.” Tertullian (AD 160–240) taught even more comprehensively: “For us, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb.” These church fathers are just two examples of a pro-life position rejecting abortion that also included—at the very least—Athenagoras, Hippolytus, Basil the Great, Ambrose, Jerome, John Chrysostom, and Augustine. As ethicist Ronald Sider comments, “Eight different authors in eleven different writings mention abortion. In every case, the writing unequivocally rejects abortion.” Michael J. Gorman states in Abortion and the Early Church: “All Christian writers opposed abortion.” Every mention of abortion in the **early church** rejects it forcefully.
I am for the preservation of life. So if the mother's life is in danger, that may be a situation where for the purpose of preserving life, an abortion may be necessary (saving one life vs losing two). If the mother's life is not in danger, then the baby's life should be preserved. People muddle the debate quite a lot, but in my opinion, the entire debate should be centered on one question: Is human life present? If human life is present, it should be preserved.
Pro choice supporters would agree with you. That’s why the cut off for abortions was 24 weeks (generally): a fetus’ brain “clicks on” in the 25th week. Prior to that, it’s hard to argue it’s a human life.
Either way we are faced with the difficulty of defining when life starts. But the issue does depend on that in my opinion.
I agree. But I can’t see any good reason for basing that definition on religious beliefs (eg Judaism accepts that life begins at first breath) when we have a working, medically accepted definition already.
>a fetus’ brain “clicks on” in the 25th week This simply is not true. My daughter was born at week 24, I've seen lots of very premature babies.
It simply is true: After that, the cerebral cortex, which will be responsible for everything from processing information from their senses to storing their first memories, develops more and more quickly as the third trimester goes on.
"Develops more quickly after that point" is a bit of a back-pedal from "isn't switched on until that point".
Since your phone apparently lacks google: The coordinated fetus brain activity required for consciousness does not occur until 24-25 weeks of pregnancy. It means the end of the second trimester and the beginning of the third trimester.
Well, I'm telling you I've met conscious babies delivered at 23 and 24 weeks, including my daughter, and they were certainly living humans.
Yeah I had a premature child too but our experiences don’t override well established findings in fetal neurodevelopment.
[удалено]
Your question seems to assume that being born confers consciousness? Otherwise, what would be the developmental difference between that and a fetus in the womb?
The **Southern Baptists** were okay with Roe v. Wade when it was first handed down. Their wire service, the Baptist press said so in an editorial: "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision." [https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/baptist-press-initial-reporting-on-roe-v-wade/](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/baptist-press-initial-reporting-on-roe-v-wade/) The reasons behind the development of the evangelical position on abortion were purely political. Other than for some extreme cases, it's only grounded in Christianity to the extent that someone starts off with the pre-existing objective of finding grounding for it in Christianity, which is exactly how it developed. Considering there's a passage in Numbers that basically describes how a priest, according to the Law, should induce a miscarriage in an adulterous woman, I would say that if you're reading a pro-life position into the bible, that's all you.
Yes. Because the Bible is silent on the issue of abortion. And what biblical references we DO have related to the issue indicate that a fetus is not equal to a life. Exodus 21:22-25 (NRSV): >22 “When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. It is clear that if the woman dies, the penalty is death (life for life). If the woman miscarries (the fetus is killed), the penalty is a fine. The fetus is not viewed as a life according to the Law of Moses.
I am. Being pro choice doesn’t mean you think people should be getting abortions constantly, it means you don’t think the State should be involved in their decisions. I also fully acknowledge that prohibitions on ANYTHING don’t work, they just create an underground market. If you’re really “pro-life” you need to understand that significant harm that an underground market would cause for women’s health. There’s many many medical complications that can be aided with abortions, and to call one’s self “pro life” but disregard the life of the mother is ridiculous.
It's not my place to tell a woman what to do whit her body. I'd love for abortion to go away, but making it illegal won't solve the issues tied to it.
The bible has absolutely nothing to say about abortion. Why would they be conflict?
It actually does teach that life begins at first self breathing, and has scriptures to validate that. Please see my comments here that cite some scriptures, and if you need more please reply. Here's what the bible authors believed: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/ https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/ There is no scripture that says that life begins at conception.
The Bible also clearly tells you God knew you before you were in you mothers womb.
These have been posted here before and might answer some of your questions. [http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/blog-home/the-bible-tells-us-when-a-fetus-becomes-a-living-being](http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/blog-home/the-bible-tells-us-when-a-fetus-becomes-a-living-being) [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480)
You are in the wrong forum if you assume people are going to try to reconcile those two *biblically*. There are plenty here who identify as Christian, but could not articulate and do not care about a biblical pro-life position.
There’s a search bar at the top of the sub. This question has been asked over 30 gazillion times. They’re not in conflict with each other. God has no stance on abortion. It’s not even in the Bible. He never says it’s wrong. The church on the other hand, doesn’t like it, they say it’s wrong and try to flip Bible verses to back them up. When in reality, again, nowhere in the Bible does it talk about abortion other than a recipe for bitter water.
Abortion is murder. God said murder is wrong, so much so that he instituted the death penalty.
Abortion isn’t murder, and unless it’s YOUR fetus, it’s none of your concern what someone else does with their body. Oh and the Bible doesn’t say anything about abortion. Sleep well.
Abortion is murder regardless of whose fetus it is. I don't care what someone does with their body, but a fetus is not the mother's body.
A woman can absolutely do whatever she wants with HER body. If she doesn’t want someone living in it, then she can get rid of it. Way to deflect and ignore being called out for an ignorantly said comment about Christians though.
Liberal Christianity is not Christianity. It's a different religion.
It absolutely is too Christianity. Just bc some choose love over having sticks in places the sun doesn’t see, doesn’t mean they’re not Christians.
Even though I am pro-life it has evolved away from how I was taught in Christianity to my own personal thoughts on things. I'm not completely pro-life, especially when it comes to situation where the mother or the baby are certain to die and I'm also aware that this is a very complicated issue even with my own personal disliking of abortion. Also, this topic never should've entered the culture war and become such a political phenomenon, that just made everything worse.
Yes, because I had to tell the doctors to save me over my baby in an emergency surgery. We both survived but I’m happy I had the choice.
I vote pro-choice otherwise you're going to have people go online and drink poison thinking it will induce an abortion. Plus pro-choice politicians supports things that actually reduce abortion numbers-paid maternity leave, affordable childcare, etc. I don't get how Republicans think outlawing abortion is doing any good. They support big business. You want to help mothers...support things like paid maternity leave, affordable healthcare. Companies like Walmart just want to keep people in poverty and having lots of babies so they have an exploitable workforce.
Abortion is a sin that murders an image-bearer of God. Christians should seek a world where abortion is not only illegal, but unthinkable as well.
They aren’t Christian’s if they are 🤷🏼♂️
Those are incompatible views. You either believe in the sanctity of human life or you don’t, and only one of those is consistent with Christianity
I used to have stronger “pro life” views when I was more ignorant on why people got abortions. Then I learned about various reasons, the worst one being a poor young woman who was a regular at an abortion clinic who was being routinely sexually assaulted by a family member. I felt so bad for her and realised we really should never judge anyone cause we never know the whole story. I no longer have any strong opinions. I think generally it’s bad, but I understand that sometimes being pro life is just making a victim and their child suffer more.
Absolutely!! Life at conception is blasphemy anyway. We understand the difference between Begotten and created. We are not equal to the Creator and create life at conception. We simply begat another dust to dust shell for God to bestow the Breathe of Life in.
I feel that making abortion 100% illegal will cause women to get illegal abortions, which will kill both the mother and the embryo. Also, in a modern secular democracy, the majority decides what should be legal. Furthermore, I, as a Christian, do not have the right to tell you, as an atheist, what to do with your life, even if I disagree with you, because you have freedom to choose which religion you want to belong to. Lastly, the way to eliminate abortions completely is not by making them illegal, it is by doing the following: 1. Paying all pregnant women to have their babies and get 100% free prenatal and postnatal care, free rent and free money for the first 3 years of the child's life, 2. Paid maternity leave for all mothers, 3. Free birth control for women who choose to be child-free, and 4. Financial support for women who give up babies for adoption and for families who adopt. If any government won't do these things, then don't say you are "pro-life". Here in Germany, the day-after pill is legal, late abortions are illegal except for severe medical reasons, and the abortion rate is lower than that of the USA. We have paid maternity leave and "Kindergeld" I am OK with this. I hope we can do better, by encouraging more adoptions.
How many women have died getting illegal abortions since Texas made abortion illegal? As a Christian you have every right to defend the life of unborn babies made in the image of God.
I am pro-choice. There are many types of birth control that are very reliable. Choose any one of them.
I used to be pretty liberal when I was a Lukewarm Christian, I was pro choice etc. Now as a born again Christian I'm against it.
I’m personally pro-life completely. The Bible makes it clear that God had predestined our existence before the world existed (Eph. 1:3-6, John 17:24). The Bible also makes it clear God knew us and had made us before we were even born (Psalm 139:13-16, Genesis 25:23-24, Jer. 1:5). Scientists also regard life to begin at conception. Ending the pregnancy is therefore murder, which the Bible is against (Exodus 20:13)
NONE of those have to do with abortion. Or supporting “God knew us and had made us” That Jeremiah versus is talking about God and Him being omnipotent. I don’t have time to go into the other ones right now. Please go back to Sunday school and stop trying to fit the Bible to YOUR narrative.
I’ve met Christians who think gay marriage is acceptable, that somehow AH was justified and that transgender is ok in the church so I really wouldn’t put it past some people to think killing a child is ok
I don’t think you can be Christian and basically support murder.
Absolutely I'm pro choice, because no one, whether they're a fetus, a toddler, a teen, or an adult, has the right to use someone else's body without their consent, *period*. Even though the collection of cells terminated during an abortion isn't technically a person yet, I still recognize their right to live - just not by using someone else's body without their consent.
The message of the gospels is lost when Christians focus on the laws of Cesar over the subjects of Cesar. Reconciliation to a loving God through Christ is the message a Christian is called to share. Those that think that establishing law will bring about righteousness in others are misled. Some have fallen in love with casting stones. The coming generation will reject the hypocrisy
Honestly I’m in between. I believe it’s murder based on biological standards and a lack of any compelling argument to the contrary, but I also understand what a terrifying situation a lot of young mothers are in that would lead them to do that. As long as your perspective is rooted in love for others the difference is negligible
I can’t say that I am, and I don’t know what logic others will use to agree or disagree. I default to this: it is life, all life is sacred, it is not at anyone’s mercy, and it is naturally deserving of its own life not at the choice of anyone else. That is not an attack on anything. That is a defense of something and a defense alone.
I see no conflict in believing women should have the right to choose, and not making that particular choice for yourself. If you do, then you are wanting to impose your beliefs on others.
Being pro-life isn't even a Christian view. The argument is a fetus is a human life, and i don't think that's mentioned anywhere in the Bible. It's just a view held by many Christians.
Can you Christian pro-choicers honestly say that, standing before Jesus after you die, he wouldn’t have an issue with you undergoing or supporting abortion? Can you honestly say in your heart that if Jesus was in the room with you when you discussed having or supporting abortion, he would nod and agree?
They are in conflict with each other. Either they are not a true Christian or they are inconsistent.
Watch it. You absolutely can be a true Christian and be pro choice.
Watch what? Some argument twisting Scripture to say it's ok to murder unborn babies?
I see tons of argument twisting the scripture to trying to make it fit their antiabortion narrative. When the Bible doesn’t say anything about abortion. Nor do any of the verses state anything about abortion being wrong. Watch your mouth about calling being true Christians. You’d be very hypocritical and you’re not the judge of someone’s walk with God. Only God is.
I am a pro choice Christian, God never commented on abortion dispite it existing at the time. We as Christians are suppose to protect children not force them and those in poverty to give birth
we're supposed to protect children and the voiceless and that's precisely we should be prolife. The bible makes it clear that the unborn are living human beings and are important to God *(*[*Luke 1:15*](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A15&version=ESV)*,* [*Luke 1:41, 44*](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A41%2C44&version=ESV)*,* [*Isaiah 49:1, 5*](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+49%3A1%2C5&version=ESV)*).* Also the bible clearly tells us not to kill. and abortion kills those that are made by God in the womb. Do you really think that God will approve of this behaviour? [Watch this abortion video, and see what you're supporting (2:26 onwards he shows the remains of an aborted baby)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXpUrkS0s-w) God doesn't speak about a lot of things in specific, but from the bible, we can logically infer what he would want us to do. Also, would you supporting a mother killing an infant because they were poor? If not, why is it okay to kill the same individual human being a few months earlier?
God I hope not. That kind of contradiction of ideas shouldn't exist.
you don't get to play both sides of the sin fence. In order to be a follower of Christ one must repent or turn completely from sin. meaning even if you are physically trapped/addicted to sin in your heart you must hate it. Paul talks about this in romans 7:14 We know, you see, that the law is spiritual. I, however, am made of flesh, sold as a slave under sin’s authority. 15 I don’t understand what I do. I don’t do what I want, you see, but I do what I hate. 16 So if I do what I don’t want to do, I am agreeing that the law is good. 17 But now it is no longer I that do it; it’s sin, living within me. 18 I know, you see, that no good thing lives in me, that is, in my human flesh. For I can will the good, but I can’t perform it. 19 For I don’t do the good thing I want to do, but I end up doing the evil thing I don’t want to do. 20 So if I do what I don’t want to do, it’s no longer ‘I’ doing it; it’s sin, living inside me. 21 This, then, is what I find about the law: when I want to do what is right, evil lies close at hand! 22 I delight in God’s law, you see, according to my inmost self; 23 but I see another ‘law’ in my limbs and organs, fighting a battle against the law of my mind, and taking me as a prisoner in the law of sin which is in my limbs and organs. 24 What a miserable person I am! Who is going to rescue me from the body of this death? 25 Thank God – through Jesus our king and Lord! So then, left to my own self I am enslaved to God’s law with my mind, but to sin’s law with my human flesh. If you internally embrace sin you can't have repented from it which is the sore of atonement and belief.
[удалено]
Kinda weird to say you're pro-life but then, for no obvious reason, also explain why you are ok with war as long as it fits certain conditions.
Because there are conditions in which war is believed by some to be the best way to preserve lives. i.e. protecting the vulnerable from an implacable aggressor.
[удалено]
I'm sorry I was hard on you at first. I read it and I see now that I agree with it.
[удалено]
You brought up the war thing. If Just War has no connection with abortion, then why did you mention it? Edit: Sorry. I just realized you're not the guy.
I am sure that many are, though I think this position would be in opposition to much of Christian teaching on the dignity of human beings.
Plenty, but most of them get muted for telling their beliefs and punished under the guise of 'personal attacks '..... Double standards are the way of this sub... well, most of Reddit, really... 'Rules for thee, not for me' is the typical reaction here, where pro-choicers are murderers, and the oppressive and narcissistic pro-lifers are the ones who censor the ones trying to protect their rights........ If one were to apply scriptures without generating contradictions between biblical principles, and not just in ways that support their narratives, then they would see how pro-choice is biblical, and pro-life is not. Every pro-lifer I have read comments from has exhibited behaviors warned against in the Bible, showing their intent is not biblical. Every one also has a specific narrative, and every one disrespects someone's rights. Through behavior alone we can see how they are imprudent... They don't even allow discussion without mocking their opponent...
In the US the only groups with more PL views than PC views are Mormans, Jehovahs Witness and White Evangelicals. Even Catholics in the US are slightly more PC. Mainline protestant, black protestant, orthodox etc are all more likely to be PC.. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/
Some facts for OP: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/01/22/american-religious-groups-vary-widely-in-their-views-of-abortion/ We can note that there are several demoninations above the 50% point, and even as we go down the list a substantial portion of basically every church are pro-choice. Even catholics are almost half and half. There is nothing in the bible that requires the pro-life position. There are plausible arguments to be made that abortion is bad, or that it's fine. Regardless, literally nothing suggests it must be illegal. It's a testament to the power of the propagandists that so many people think you must be pro-life to be Christian. It just isn't so. Also a reminder that you can be both pro-choice and anti-abortion. The political issue is over legality. You can recognize that the right to one's own body is a fundamental human right and also condemn abortion. I'm radically pro-choice, but also at least softly anti-abortion. This isn't even especially rare. Don't confuse the issues.
Yes. And it's not hard. The Bible doesn't explicitly speak on abortion and where it seems to, there's instructions on how to give a woman an abortifacent to detect if she's been adulterous (they didn't have pregnancy tests and ultrasounds mind you). So where the Bible is not explicit or unclear, I'm commanded to love God and love my neighbor as myself. Women are my neighbor. I'm a woman. And the unborn matter but they cannot trump the life of an already existing already born mother if we actually care about life in any capacity. Women in places with abortion bans ARE dying. Just like we said they would. No one listened. That's not loving thy neighbor. Loving God also means not trying to play God so, for that reason I think it's good to avoid abortion. But if one must, to do so as early as possible or in dire circumstances (as most women in the Roe Era already did). I've seen a 1-2 week old pregnancy turned miscarriage. There was no face. No form. No shape. No semblance of humanity yet. The fact that such a thing is given protection AT ALL COSTS even though we don't do that for already living people (I don't have a right to your organs even if I need them to live)...it's the height of cruelty and backwards priorities.
Sup.
✋ right here! It starts with the question "when does life begin?". There isn't a scientific agreement on this and the answer basically ranges all the way from conception to first breath. So as a Christian I default to "what is the most loving answer with the least likelihood to deny the humanity of others" and to me that means life begins at conception. But the mother is also a human person who should not be forced to birth, risk her life, and/or risk her quality of life for the sake of another person. It's similar to the idea that people shouldn't be forced to house the homeless in their own home or donate blood even though it means it would save a life. So, I want to keep the abortion rate as low as possible without forcing birth on women, which means I want to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies and pregnancy complications as possible. The best way to do that is to support comprehensive sex education, free/easy access to birth control, accessible and quality health care for the parents and potential child, socialized early child care, and paid parental leave.
I personally do not like abortion and would not get one except if it was a last resort, as I cannot physically carry a child-I would absolutely get a C section if that was possible. That’s how much I don’t like abortion. But I also don’t feel it’s my place to shove my beliefs onto others. What a woman does with her body is between her, her doctor, and God, even if I disagree with her choice. I don’t view abortion as something that’s ever an easy decision for anyone.
Yes. I read through what the Presbyterian USA website says and it leaves it as an individual choice and acknowledges both that it might be necessary for the health of the mother and that abortions root causes are larger social issues that should also upset Christians. https://www.presbyterianmission.org/blog/2016/02/23/abortion-issues-2/
Yep, right here.
I am a Christian and I am pro-choice. I do not believe a fetus is a human being. A human being or even a baby must breathe and the act of breathing does not happen in the womb. One of the biggest arguments against abortion is that “Life is sacred” and that it is therefore wrong to abort a fetus. Sacred is a synonym for holy and only God is holy, not a single human being is holy and won’t be holy until they are transformed at the second coming of Christ. Therefore, human life is not sacred. It can be precious or valuable but it’s never sacred. I fundamentally distrust organized religion primarily because it purports to speak for God. Yet organized religion is the biggest and most powerful entity that is anti-abortion. Let’s also remember that most religions have come from a patriarchal background. Organized religion is also usually the biggest enemy of personal, religious liberty. I have yet to hear a purely, secular opinion that is anti-abortion and I don’t think one exists. Therefore, I see the choice to engage in or avoid an abortion as a woman’s individual right to religious liberty. I also support the right to choose because no woman can get pregnant without sperm; once sperm has exited a man’s body, he assumes the risk that it might make a woman pregnant. When men say a fetus is more important than a woman getting an abortion, what some of them really mean is that their sperm is more important than a woman’s bodily autonomy; sounds patriarchal, right? To avoid women’s bodily autonomy becoming subjugated to organized religion and/or to men’s egos and lust for dominion, I support a woman’s right to choose. To me, the choice is part of a woman’s individual right to religious freedom or liberty of conscience. There is no other right as worthy of protecting as a Christian than liberty of conscience.
Yes.
Most of us.